Bill C-23 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act

Nuclear Safety and Control Act

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-15A, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other acts--Chapter No. 13.

Bill S-40, an act to amend the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act--Chapter No. 14.

Bill S-34, an act respecting royal assent to bills passed by the Houses of Parliament--Chapter No. 15.

Bill C-23, an act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act--Chapter No. 16.

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 Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Shipbuilding; the hon. member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, National Wildlife Areas; the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, Softwood Lumber.

Competition Act

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to speak to this bill and to follow my colleague from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. As is always the case, she delivered a very thoughtful and insightful speech regarding this legislation.

Bill C-23 amends the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act. Its purpose is to maintain and encourage competition in Canada, surely something this government, as previous governments, should be actively pursuing. It therefore plays a central role in our Canadian economy. The role is becoming increasingly important because we are becoming more global as a nation in terms of our trade, direction and access to foreign markets. The number of mergers is increasing and many sectors of activities are converging in the business world.

The amendments which will be brought about as a result of Bill C-23 were proposed to make it easier for the government to co-operate with foreign competition tribunals. Specifically, it is fair to say the global economy is more important now. Governments have the ability to co-operate with each other when dealing with multinational organizations. Bill C-23 was introduced to streamline the competition tribunal process. Any process dealing with quasi-judicial bodies must be streamlined to make it more effective.

The bill was introduced to broaden the tribunal's ability to issue temporary orders. The competition commissioner and tribunal need to be able to react immediately to situations, even if the actions are temporary, to put cease and desist orders in place and to allow some kind of remediation to occur.

Bill C-23 has tough new measures to deal with anti-competition practices in the airline industry. It is very timely. Canadians across the country know the difficult times the airline industry has been through. The demise of Canada 3000 is a case in point. Although the competition commissioner was in that instance prepared to put cease and desist orders in place, the process of applying for the order and having to put it in place is often not quick enough to stop the damage that takes place through the predatory and overtly anti-competitive practices that sometimes occur.

One concern about the Competition Act coming from the House industry committee process is that the privacy rights to access are questionable. Private parties must have the right to apply directly to the competition tribunal for remedies concerning refusals to deal, tied selling, market restrictions and exclusive dealings.

It is important for people to be able to challenge what is considered to be fair practices by the competitor trying to put out smaller competitors simply through the use of these kinds of tactics. It is also important to the well-being of members of the small business community to be able to fight back. This legislation will provide them with an opportunity to challenge larger businesses that are trying to put them out of business. It levels the playing field and arms the small businesses with a form of protection, a blanket approach.

It is important for companies, corporations and small businesses as well as individuals to have the ability to advance their causes even though the competition tribunal may not think they are as important as other issues. They are permitted under this act to force that issue at times when they may be giving lesser priority.

As in many cases, once something is put on the back burner the damage may already be done for delay can be the deadliest form of denial. Private access also means that if the competition commissioner feels that something is not as important as, say, airline restructuring, it can go through the process and not be tied up for years.

In many instances we have seen, coming from the field myself, that the lawyers who get involved use the process as a weapon essentially against their adversaries, such as tying the issue up, filing motions, making appeals, dragging the issue out. The costs are often prohibitive. Very often in civil cases and in certain instances in the criminal court the costs can result in a real injustice, an injustice that never sees resolution or the light of day.

Bill C-23 will create additional case law that will provide the business community with a better understanding of what the laws of the land are and how they might fall under the practices considered not to be in the best interests of competition. It will also develop case law that can be used for the furtherance of fair business practices. It would result, I suspect and submit, in precedent and stare decisis in the court that will set the bar, set the standard.

The act inevitably will result in a flurry of legal activity and challenges that will test the parameters of the bill. That is healthy and to be expected. Members of parliament should understand fully that passing new laws will result in challenges. That should never be a bar or attempt to dissuade lawmakers from doing what they are expected to do.

Bill C-23 in particular will put in place new penalties, including fines of up to $15 million for an airline acting in an anti-competitive fashion. This could result clearly in taking someone out of the competition altogether and should act as a real deterrent. To use the criminal and civil codes as a standard, deterrence is an important element in putting these parameters in place for the way in which businesses conduct themselves.

One of the concerns that was voiced about the Competition Act was that the legislation had no teeth to allow the competition commissioner to respond in a way that would stop predatory behaviour. The legislation finally will contain some teeth so that the competition commissioner will have meaningful input into keeping anti-competitive behaviour at bay and real consequences when that line is crossed.

The ability of the competition commissioner to extend cease and desist orders beyond the current 80 days is also very important. It is important because of the time it takes to prepare a case and to bring the complaint against the competitor. It is also very timely and allows the application, which sometimes has not been processed before the cease and desist order expires, to come forward.

In conclusion the Progressive Conservative Party is very pleased to see the extension. We are pleased to see the amendments contained in the bill. It makes the process and the legislation more meaningful. It adds more pith and substance to what is currently in place to protect competition and businesses, large and small. It is an important bill for those reasons that have been set out and the reasons enunciated by other members of parliament.

We must ensure that the bill is passed in a timely fashion. To do otherwise would be irresponsible. As the clock is ticking and time is running out, we urge the government to undertake to pass the bill forthwith. We must make sure that competition, particularly in the airline industry, is real and is healthy. For those reasons the Progressive Conservative Party fully supports Bill C-23.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to make a few comments on the proposed changes to Bill C-23, which now comes to us by way of the red chamber.

First let me say that the amendment made by the other place seems to be minor, so I plan to comment on some of the larger aspects of the bill. I will start with some of the long overdue changes that the bill makes in the powers of the Competition Tribunal and the commissioner as they relate to air competition.

I had hundreds of constituents stranded when Canada 3000 collapsed. As members will recall, Air Canada's new subsidiary, Tango, had just been launched and the Competition Bureau was on the verge of slapping Air Canada on the wrist when Canada 3000 went under.

I am not confident that the minor baby steps the bill takes in the right direction will result in better or cheaper air service in Nova Scotia. I am encouraged by the new carriers that say they will be braving the skies to compete with the reality of the virtual and quite brutal monopoly held by Air Canada in Atlantic Canada, but I fear and I know that many of my constituents also fear that we will see a repeat of the Canada 3000 fiasco.

Bill C-23 does nothing to stop Air Canada from using its new subsidiaries Tango or Jazz, or whatever new dance step name it comes up with, to simply undercut new competitors and drive them out of business by having the deep pockets to survive an expensive fight. I fear that in a year we will back where we are now with travellers in Atlantic Canada paying very high prices for poor service provided by an Air Canada monopoly.

I wish that the government and the Senate had come up with real regulations that would have stopped Air Canada from effectively killing competition. I wish that the Minister of Transport had a vision of air service in Canada that went further than the office of Robert Milton. Bill C-23 does nothing to tell me that he does.

On another change that Bill C-23 makes, I congratulate the government. The section dealing with protecting our seniors from unscrupulous direct mail and telemarketers' offers that lie to people as a way to steal their life savings is long overdue. The problem is not unique in Canada, but our laws seem to have been well behind the times.

As the Library of Parliament brief on the bill correctly notes, in June 2001 the U.S. senate permanent subcommittee on investigations heard testimony from victims of and experts on telemarketing fraud. Almost all of them described Canada as a haven for such fraud. The committee heard that phone scams swindle more than $35 million every year from Americans, mostly seniors, and although apparently some fraud originating in the U.S. is aimed at Canadians, it is only a small fraction of the amount aimed at Americans.

Experts praised the U.S.-Canada working group on telemarketing fraud that has reportedly caught a few of the perpetrators. Project Colt was formed in April 1998 to co-ordinate efforts among the RCMP, the U.S. customs service, the FBI and various arms of the Quebec police. Since its inception the project has returned $12 million to victims. Law enforcement officials on both sides of the border met in Ottawa in June 2001 to discuss these and other related issues.

The creation of an offence of deceptive notice of winning a prize will help protect poor and vulnerable people. It is easy for those of us here who make a good salary and who have a huge infrastructure to support us in our work to simply warn people that if someone is promising something for nothing they should not believe it, but there are so many Canadians who live with poverty, who are seniors with inadequate pensions, who have a lack of education and struggle with minimum wage jobs or live with disabilities. They live in a society where culture is based on success, with happiness equalling wealth. When we look at TV or read the sage opinions of our opinion leaders, who are all business leaders because pro-business leaders own all our media, we see that the only goal in Canadian life is to be wealthy, that this is how Canadians would be happy.

This culture leaves those who are poor desperate to become rich, not only so they can get better things, but because it is a culture that says if a person is poor, that person is a failure. Therefore when someone who is poor gets a notice in the mail falsely saying they have won money, the joke is extremely cruel.

When these notices are being used to try and take money from those who already have too little money, then it should be a crime. The creation of this criminal offence in the bill and the mandating of officials to proceed with the prosecution of this crime as a criminal and not an administrative offence is a very good thing.

One last section of the bill I wish to comment on is the increase in international co-operation to investigate competition offences. With globalization becoming a greater reality, we need to have international codes of conduct that transnational corporations have to live by.

Too often companies are using differences in laws and differences in the way that records are kept to escape basic responsibilities, like the paying of a fair share of taxes as good corporate citizens, protecting the environment, and treating workers safely and fairly. I would hope that the provisions of the bill that deal with requests by foreign states for assistance in gathering evidence in Canada required for prosecution of competition offences in a foreign country are a first step by the government to creating rules for the international corporate community.

Using the bill, with references to agreements for foreign states, Canada may enter into an agreement if the Minister of Justice is satisfied that the laws of the foreign state are similar to Canada's; that the confidentiality laws of the foreign state are similar to Canada's; that the agreement will contain provisions for circumstances where Canada can refuse assistance and applicable confidentiality provisions.

As well, the agreements will contain undertakings that the foreign state will provide similar assistance to Canada. Information will not be used for any other purposes. Information will be returned or with consent destroyed. All information will be confidential. The Minister of Justice will be informed if there is a breach of confidentiality. The agreements will contain a termination provision.

The act further states four different judicial orders by which evidence may be gathered for use in a foreign proceeding. These orders are: search and seizure order, which is search and seizure of the evidence; evidence gathering order, which is the examination under oath of a person; a virtual presence order, when a person's virtual presence is requested by video link or similar technology; and finally, lending exhibit order, which requests the loan of an exhibit admitted as evidence.

Let us see these forms of international co-operation as a beginning in the real regulation of all international corporate activity.

I hope that the next step the government brings forward is a Tobin tax, an international environmental protection standard that international companies must respect and enforce in order to have truly international enforceable labour standards.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-23, an act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act, and the amendment proposed by the Senate.

As we know, Bill C-23 was made up of three private member's bills. There were some very interesting features. Before the proposed changes included in Bill C-23, only the commissioner of competition could file a complaint before the competition tribunal.

Bill C-23 now provides for a private access that will allow people to directly launch court proceedings, on their own behalf, regarding competition issues. This new provision of the act will apply to four areas: refusal to deal, exclusive dealing, tied selling and market restriction.

However, while these changes were interesting ones, they did not revolutionize the way of doing things in Canada when it comes to competition. The provisions of Bill C-23 remain weak, and they do not go to the bottom of the issue of competition in Canada.

In its 2000 election platform, the Bloc Quebecois said, and is still saying, that the Competition Act should be amended to guarantee competitive prices to consumers. This is the basis of the issue of competition.

It is all well and good to allow third parties to argue a case on their own before the Competition Tribunal, but if the Competition Bureau does not have the adequate means to carry out its investigations, what good does it do? We must not circumvent steps. Ensuring truly competitive pricing to consumers must remain the cornerstone of our actions.

For this reason, I had moved a motion in the House that would have reviewed the implementation of section 45 of the Competition Act and reviewed the word unduly. The current wording in this section allows multinational corporations to raise prices, particularly in the case of gas.

Allow me to give an example. On a street with five gas stations, the prices all go up at the same time, and at the same hour. Under the current law, the Competition Bureau cannot launch an investigation based on this observation. There must be written proof of collusion. This is virtually impossible to obtain these days. Unfortunately, Bill C-23 does nothing to correct section 45.

However, I have not lost all hope. The Standing Committee on Industry published a report on April 23, in which it proposed some good amendments to the section. The Minister of Industry should seriously consider these proposals.

The Standing Committee on Industry said the following:

That the Government of Canada create a two-track approach for agreements between competitors. The first track would modify the current criminal provision (section 45) in two ways and allow the criminal justice system to deal with “hard core cartels”, in other words conspiracies that have no compensatory social value.

This would remove the word unduly from the phrase “to lessen, unduly, competition”. As such, horizontal agreements between competitors should not have to limit competition unduly or deliberately in order to be considered a conspiracy against the public interest. Such an amendment would be welcome.

Therefore, I am pleased, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, to support this amendment from the Senate. It is very important, particularly since, from a legal perspective, the French and English versions are often different. As a result, it was important to make this change, and I congratulate the members of the other chamber.

This is also an opportunity to point out how much progress we have made when it comes to competition; however, there remains work to be done. I hope that the minister will take note of this and make amending section 45 a priority for his department.

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the Senate amendment to Bill C-23, an act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act. The Senate amendment is a minor amendment which removes the word within from clause 14, subsection 106.1(4). Subsection 106.1(4) states:

The consent agreement shall be registered within 30 days after its publication unless a third party makes an application to the Tribunal before then to cancel the agreement or replace it with an order of the Tribunal.

The amendment takes the word within out to read: “The consent agreement shall be registered 30 days after its publication...”.

We are supportive of the amendment as we were supportive of the bill at all stages of its proceeding. The bill was sent to the Senate at first reading on December 11, 2001, and at third reading in the Senate it was sent back to the House of Commons on May 9, 2002, to remove one word, which as I see it, does not really alter the intent of the clause. That really makes one question what the purpose of the other place is as presently constituted. It again makes a call for a truly effective Senate which can only happen if it has democratic legitimacy.

The official opposition has been supportive of Bill C-23 at its different stages. The process the bill went through was certainly superior to the manner in which most bills are passed by parliament because it was sent to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology before second reading which typically indicates that the government was open to substantive amendments. The bill was substantively amended in committee. The most significant amendments, as many members know, concern the creation of a new right of so-called private access which is the right of a person or business to seek a legal remedy against the anti-competitive conduct of another.

This takes away the ability of the competition commissioner to act as a gatekeeper before the tribunal. People can access the tribunal regardless of whether the commissioner agrees the case should go forward or not. We should point out that the commissioner himself was in favour of this change when he appeared before the committee two separate times.

There was a consensus in committee among all members that this limited right of private access, and it is important to note that it is quite a limited right of private access, is not extensive. It was a reasonable step toward improving Canada's competition policy regime. The Canadian Alliance continues to believe that competition itself is the best form of discipline for people, for citizens and for businesses. Competition law cannot replace the effect that competition itself has on the economy.

We strongly support the view that competition law must not be set up to protect certain businesses. That is not the purpose of competition law. Competition law must do what it can to facilitate competition against itself. That was one point that the commissioner made over and over in his presentation to us.

The official opposition is satisfied that the bill is a step toward these broad goals and therefore supports the bill as amended by the Senate.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the Senate's amendment to Bill C-23, an act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act. Bill C-23 is before us today in the form of a Senate amendment which corrects a small technical problem between the English and French text in subsection 106.1(4) of clause 14.

Bill C-23 is vital economic legislation designed to strengthen and modernize our existing competition laws to the benefit of consumers and businesses alike. For example, the legislation would prohibit the sending of deceptive prize notices which target the most vulnerable members of our society. It would enable Canada to gain access to evidence in other countries concerning civil competition matters. It would broaden the scope under which the competition tribunal may issue interim orders. It would improve the competition tribunal process. It would allow individuals and businesses to apply directly to the competition tribunal for relief from certain anti-competitive conduct. In addition, it would provide additional measures to protect competition in the Canadian airlines industry.

The bill has been carefully reviewed by both Houses of Parliament. The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology carefully listened to a broad range of witnesses and concluded that Bill C-23 takes a balanced approach. Members will recall the bill passed the House of Commons with all party support on December 10, 2001.

Section 106.1 of Bill C-23 would allow for the possibility of a consent agreement between a person, other than the commissioner of competition, that has made an application to the competition tribunal for an order to be made under sections 75 or 77 of the Competition Act and the person against whom the order is sought. This provision would provide that such an agreement can be registered with the competition tribunal if the terms of the consent agreement are consistent with the provisions of the Competition Act. However, any consent agreement made under that section would have to be published in the Canada Gazette to give third parties an opportunity to examine the consent agreement.

During its consideration of Bill C-23 the Senate committee on banking, trade and commerce suggested that a minor discrepancy existed between the French and the English translations in subsection 106.1(4) of clause 14 of the bill. Indeed, according to the English version of the subsection 106.1(4), a person could within 30 days after its publication register a consent agreement. This would not leave a third party any time to make an application to have the consent agreement cancelled or replaced or to even examine the agreement. This would defeat the obvious purpose of the provision which was to allow third parties a chance to challenge the consent agreement.

The French version however indicates that the consent agreement can be registered only 30 days after its publication. The French version gives an appropriate effect to the provision. On May 2, 2002, the Senate committee reported back the bill with one minor amendment to subsection 106.1(4) to correct this discrepancy. The English version of subsection 106.1(4) has been corrected to that effect and now reads that the consent agreement “shall be registered 30 days after its publication”.

It is now up to members in this place to adopt this minor amendment and provide for speedy passage of Bill C-23. In so doing we will enhance the competition law enforcement in Canada to the benefit of consumers and businesses alike.

[Claudette Bradshaw, Liberal, for the Minister of Industry]

moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-23, an act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act.

Government Contracts

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to respond to my first business question since I came, as I said, back home again.

Today we will continue with the debate on second reading of Bill C-55. This would be followed by report stage and third reading of Bill S-34, the royal assent bill, followed by consideration of a minor technical amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-23, the competition legislation.

Tomorrow we plan to resume business where it leaves off today, with Bill C-15B, the criminal code amendments, as a backup, a bill which I know people are very enthusiastic about supporting.

In any case, it is my intention to call Bill C-15B as the first item of business on Monday.

On Tuesday, subject to progress made earlier, we will commence the report stage of Bill C-53, the pest control legislation. In the evening the House will be in committee of the whole on the Public Works and Government Services estimates, pursuant to our new rule.

Wednesday we plan to debate second reading of a bill respecting nuclear safety about which I gave information to House leaders yesterday. The bill will be introduced at the beginning of the week.

Thursday of next week, that is to say a week from today, shall be an allotted day, the last of this supply period which means, and I say this for the benefit of all hon. members and their plans for that day, that the House will sit into the evening or could sit as late as the evening, depending of course, to consider the main estimates and the appropriation act based thereon.

I want to thank all colleagues, if I can say so in conclusion, for their kind words upon my return as Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we shall continue this afternoon with the debate on the opposition motion. Tomorrow, we will return to Bill C-56, respecting reproductive technologies, followed by Bill C-55, the public safety bill, and Bill C-15B, the criminal code amendments. On Monday, we will continue consideration of these bills.

Tuesday will be an allotted day. In the evening on Tuesday, as the House already knows, we will sit in committee of the whole pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a) to consider the estimates of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

On Wednesday, if necessary, we will return to any of the bills I have previously mentioned that may not already been completed, subject to arrangements we may make to deal with the Senate amendments to Bill C-23, the competition legislation, Bill S-34, dealing with royal assent, and perhaps Bill C-5 concerning species at risk. We are also hopeful that Bill C-54, the sports bill, and Bill C-53, the pest control bill, will be reported from committee in the very near future, so that we may take up report stage and third reading of those particular items.

Finally, we are also looking forward to reports from committees of the House on two other bills that have been in committee for what would appear to be an inordinate length of time, namely, Bill C-48 dealing with copyright, which has been before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for more than three months now, and Bill C-19, the amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which is fast approaching its first anniversary before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I am sure the House is anxiously awaiting the reports of those committees so that legislation can be proceeded with through its final stages.

Petitions

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the final two petitions deal with the same subject matter. They call on parliament to revoke Bill C-23 from the previous parliament which affirms the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and ensures marriage is recognized as a unique institution.

The Budget

[André Harvey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond, on behalf of the Minister of Transport, to my colleague, the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, whom I must also thank for her work on the Standing Committee on Transport. It is, I can assure you, always a pleasure to work on that committee, because the relationships between members are good.

Over the past three months, there have been some major issues to deal with, and we have certainly not lacked work. A number of our meetings have addressed those major issues, particularly ones relating to the crisis resulting from the September 11 terrorist attacks.

My colleague is asking whether the government intends to legislate on anti-competitive acts in the delivery of domestic air services, in the interests of all Canadians. The minister's response at that time was yes, and I would like to elaborate on that.

Hon. members will recall that, in July 2000, new provisions in the Competition Act, along with new regulations, came into effect, creating a special regime for domestic air carriers. A specific offence was created for anti-competitive acts by a domestic carrier.

The regulations provide a more detailed definition of what is meant by anti-competitive acts, along with the criteria for determining them.

The amendments made to the Competition Act introduced in Bill C-26 in 2000 give the competition commissioner the power to issue temporary cease and desist orders that could put an end to actions that provoked a complaint in the time leading up to an investigation and a decision as to whether or not a case will be heard by the Competition Tribunal.

More recently, the Competition Act was examined by the House, and a number of motions to amend the act in Bill C-23, were presented to the committee last week. Two of them would make changes to the air carriers' regime.

One of the amendments would allow the competition commissioner to ask the tribunal to extend the temporary cease and desist order beyond the 80 day maximum, if the commissioner has not received all of the information necessary to allow him to determine whether or not grounds exist to make an application to the tribunal. This amendment corrects a shortcoming that was identified by the standing committee.

The second amendment allows the tribunal to impose administrative monetary penalties of up to $15 million, when ruling on a case.

These two changes are designed to demonstrate clearly that the government takes very seriously the actions that have led to complaints regarding anti-competitive acts in this country's airline industry.The changes should also prove that the government's measures will not give rise to the type of letter Air Canada sent, which led to my colleague's question.

Question No. 80—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Bill C-23 at third reading. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Competition Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleague would like to ask a question so I will make it brief. While speaking to Bill C-23, the member referred to the transportation sector, specifically the airlines. He suggested that reciprocal cabotage would be one avenue that should be pursued. He likened it to what Air Canada had proposed. My understanding is that that is not the case. Air Canada's proposal was that for a U.S. carrier to go between two Canadian destinations, it would have to have a middle stop in a U.S. airport and vice versa for Air Canada.

Could the member clarify his understanding as to whether or not we are talking about reciprocal cabotage or some sort of a clone of cabotage with some restrictions? He might also want to comment with regard to a national transportation policy in the context of a shrinking marketplace.

Competition obviously is important to Canada in ensuring service and price benefits to the consumer. At the same time the U.S. experienced a drop of about one-third in the utilization of its capacity during its highest week, Thanksgiving week. Canada also has experienced a significant contraction. When we consider the financial fundamentals of most Canadian airlines, other than possibly WestJet, there are serious consequences to a contracting marketplace and also a reducing market share if the competition rules would restrict that competition.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to enter into the debate today on Bill C-23, the Competition Act.

Contrary to what the last speaker said, I think the world needs more competition. I would even suggest more competition even at grade school level where kids will learn the facts of life, one of those facts of life being that we win some and lose some but, most important, that we be competitive.

We have a problem in the schools right now. The kids are smarter and they can somehow get around things. When we herd kids out to the playground for the year 2000 or 2001 sports day and tell them about the high jump, we just lower the bar and everybody kind of throws themselves into the pit so that everybody is a winner and everybody feels good. In the hundred yard dash everybody gets into a blob in the middle of the field and they all run in whatever direction they can. They come back later and they all get a blue ribbon. Do they not all feel good?

The problem is that is not competitive. It needs to be competitive because kids need to find what it is that they do well and what they excel at. A competitive world does that for them when they are adults anyway. What we should be doing to help our kids is start them off by telling them we will help them find what they are best at and good at and encourage them to do that.

The same thing could be said in the Competition Act about creating competition or creating the atmosphere or an environment where good competition can take place. The bill is not meant to regulate competition so much as it is to regulate or to restrict anti-competitive behaviour. Anti-competitive behaviour is like the high jump contest. When somebody trips another kid on the way to the high jump it is an anti-competitive behaviour and not a fair behaviour. The bill tries to address that by saying that some things are just not right in a competitive marketplace.

The bill does its best to help the players in the marketplace understand what fair and unfair practices are in a competitive and free market society.

I believe the bill would never have come to the House as it has, had it not been for the work of the member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge. His private member's bills were really the impetus behind this. I do not think there was any idea that the industry minister was going to bring this forward. I do not think it was on his radar screen. He is so busy stockpiling a leadership war chest that I did not think this would even come up on the radar screen. The member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge did a good job. He brought forward a series of bills that pointed out some weaknesses in the current Competition Act that needed to be addressed and that we needed to get with the 21st century. I commend him for his efforts in bringing that forward and highlighting some of the problems in the existing act.

One of the problems I have with the bill is that it is supposed to be framework legislation. Framework legislation means that it gives the parameters for a good competitive law in the country. That is as it should be. It should give broad based principles. We have a commissioner who administers those. He or she should have the authority and the power that this act confers on her or him and the tribunals to make sure things are done properly.

What the bill has also been forced to deal with is to get specific in a couple of areas where there is a strong feeling that we have an anti-competitive marketplace, specifically in the airline industry. While I do not disagree with the amendments, it is kind of like we have to go the way of these amendments in order to deal with the airline industry in the bill. I believe we are doing that in the bill because the government has failed the country in its transportation policy. To create a competitive marketplace in transportation requires the proper transportation framework rather than a Competition Act framework.

What we are doing is trying to fix a mess left by the transport minister, who has presided over the demise of six airlines in the country over the last couple of years because there is no framework legislation on the transportation side that allows for the flourishing of the competitive world of airlines.

That is a shame, because now we are hearing things like we will penalize Air Canada under the act to the tune of up to $15 million if it does not do things right, whatever right is, in the eyes of the anti-competitive behaviour. Now we are hearing talk about perhaps nationalizing Air Canada, of all things. We are hearing people talk about how it is such a dominant carrier that maybe it is only right that we nationalize it, of all things. Third, we are hearing all kinds of chatter about re-regulating the airline industry, chatter saying that we can put on an A-320 from here to there but then we have to have an F28 from here to there and we can charge so much. What a quagmire they are getting themselves into by starting to talk like that.

We should be talking about a framework for the transportation industry that allows broad competition, including, I would say, an active negotiation with the Americans on reciprocal cabotage, something that would allow the American carriers on our routes here if in turn, as it has already proposed, Air Canada would be allowed to do the routes south of the border.

Contrary to what the transport minister said the other day, it was in the newspapers again last weekend that the Americans are stating they are interested in that and they think they should sit down and negotiate that. I urge the transportation minister and the industry minister to get with that before we lose another airline in our country. Let us get at fixing the industry problem, not the competitive problem, because we cannot fix one without fixing the other. That is for the transport minister and that deals with a specific part of the bill.

Let me talk about a couple of other things about the bill that are important for Canadians to know. First, the bill does give an increased specificity on international co-operation on anti-competitive behaviour. This is increasingly important because we are moving into a globalized economy, we increasingly are working in a globalized trade economy and we are working, hopefully, by the rule of law in more and more countries that want to come in and all play by the same set of rules.

Undoubtedly one of those rules in the future would be a common set of rules on how we define anti-competitive behaviour. This is a real problem because we can see what happens, for example, with a merger, one of the things the Competition Act deals with. A merger can be approved in Canada or in the United States, but because we are dealing with international corporations, the same corporations that obtained approval in one continent could go to Europe and find out there is a different set of rules, such that the transaction, the merger, that was approved in one hemisphere would not be approved in another.

We simply have to get a common set of rules around the world on what is acceptable for competitive behaviour and what is unacceptable in anti-competitive behaviour. We will be moving that way. It is inevitable, I believe. It is part of this inevitable globalization of the business community, but increasingly part of what we need to do in Canada and in other industrialized nations is to set the pace and show people that we want to be competitive, that we want to play by a common set of rules.

The bill does give a sample of the type of international agreement we might enter into with another country to reciprocate as far as the sharing of information is concerned, the sharing of trade secrets, so to speak, how much is to be divulged and who would get access to it. All those things are very important, because although we are concerned about competition in Canada, international competition is a driving force in many of our businesses today and will be more so in the future. Getting this right, getting the framework right and getting other industrialized nations to buy into the same kind of framework will be key.

I would suggest that we start with our American partners because we and the Americans have a common understanding of the rule of law and the need for these trade agreements, investment agreements and competitive competition agreements. I suggest that we start with the Americans, bring that together and then move quickly to the G-7 and the G-20 and get at least the industrialized world to agree to a common set of competition laws. We need to do that and I would argue that we need to do it sooner rather than later.

The other parts of the bill are relatively easy to support. There is an increased necessity for giving notice of winning a prize in what I call these fake-a-loo contests where something is sent to people. I got some again on the weekend.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-23, an act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act. The amendments to the bill are a move in the right direction.

I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg Centre for attending the committee meetings on my behalf as industry critic because I was tied up dealing with a number of transportation issues relating to security within the transportation industry and specifically the airline issue. I would also like to thank him for representing us quite well.

The amendments go a long way toward addressing a number of concerns. Bill C-23 reflects the wishes of a number of private members' bills and issues that have come forth over the last year or so. When a large number of private members brings into question a number of issues relating to industry, it is time for the government to deal with them rather than wait for each and every private member's business to come before the House and be voted on. To all those private members who brought forth private members' business to deal with these issues, I congratulate them for their efforts. All of us need to continue doing that if we want to see some of these issues addressed because the government will not deal with them unless that does happen.

I was very pleased to see the amendments in the area of private access to the Competition Tribunal. This was an area greatly criticized by a number of people in larger industries in the business world, but it was also felt by small business. This was an opportunity for business as well as individuals to question the tactics used by a dominant provider. I am pleased that the amendment has been made to allow some private access. It is not fully what people want to see, but there is no question it is a step in the right direction and will go a long way to empowering individuals to question some anti-competitive acts that take place.

There have been many questions in the last few years with regard to anti-competitive acts. The airline industry comes to light in view of what we have seen over the last few years with one carrier after another going under. Almost always in those instances we heard about the anti-competitive action of Air Canada, and we hear about that even to this date.

The competition commissioner suggested a lot of changes giving him more authority to react sooner and authority to order costs if a loss is related to the anti-competitive act. This legislation responded to a need that was out there. We still hear of Air Canada's anti-competitive acts at a time when our airline industry is in a crucial state.

Although the bill goes a long way toward addressing concerns over anti-competitive behaviour, I still do not believe that this is going to be the answer within the airline industry. More needs to be done in the area of regulating capacity if we truly want to provide a stable airline industry that will meet the needs of communities within Canada and not just the larger cities. We have to look beyond that.

Competition is not always the answer. There has to be balance. When providers are forced to compete to the lowest common denominator, we do not always get the best service or the safest service and the service maintained to areas where the cost can be higher. It is important that we look not just at the competition aspect.

The competition commissioner felt these changes were needed. He felt they would give him more opportunity.

I look forward to these changes possibly resulting in more stability, specifically in the airline industry. There is a need for the anti-competition issue to be addressed in other areas as well.

There is another area the bill has dealt with which I want to key into. Although it does not seem to be a very big issue to some, it is a big issue to the most vulnerable people who are often seniors and people who are not well. The issue is deceptive prize notices.

I am sure all of us at some point or another have received those wonderful envelopes in the mail that say we have won $1 million, that we will get a prize just by doing a specific thing and it will not cost us anything. Quite frankly, when I say the most vulnerable people in society, I qualify that by saying nurses and other professional people have contacted me with regard to deceptive prize notices. They have been caught up in these deceptive prize notices and it has ended up costing them thousands of dollars. The ones I have spoken to were embarrassed because they were caught up in it.

The bottom line is that deceptive prize notices are very misleading. It is hard to get a handle on the wording let alone the fine print. No one should feel embarrassed, ashamed or anything of the kind if they get caught up in this practice. These scams are put forth by people or companies that fully intend to catch us in one little phrase or one little note. That is their job. That is how they make their living. It is certainly unethical. A lot of us think it is immoral and unscrupulous. However, some people will do just about anything for the sake of making a buck. We need to recognize that and ensure that we have protections in place for consumers and the public.

If people who are involved in the day to day workforce, who constantly have to deal with forms and issues that have to be written down and formulated and know how things are done, if they can be misled, we have to wonder how we should allow these deceptive practices to take place for those who are most vulnerable, such as our seniors and perhaps people whose eyesight is not perfect. Where there is an intent to deceive people, we need to put laws in place to protect individuals. I am glad to see this has been incorporated.

The bill is an incorporation of a private member's initiative to address this particular practice. We hope to see an end to some of those deceptive prize notices that come in the mail. Quite frankly, when the member initially introduced his private member's business, I made a point of gathering up all those types of notices that were coming to my own house. Over a period of a couple of months some 20 deceptive prize notice envelopes had come to my house.

It is great to throw those deceptive prize notices in the garbage. Quite frankly, that is where they deserve to go. As it is, I normally get a pile of mail. However, some people do not normally get much mail and tend to believe the notices. It was an eye opener for me. I did not realize the problem was so bad. I am extremely pleased that the bill deals with that issue.

A number of areas have been addressed. The commissioner will be in a position to address a lot of the particular problems that were there. The bill, as has been stated, will weed out some of what were considered frivolous proceedings. The next logical step is to have a greater form of private access to deal with the anti-competition rules.

The NDP will be supporting the bill. It has been a long time coming. I am pleased to see that it appears to have support within the House. It will be one good thing that we will get done before the break. I hope the next really wonderful thing will be the budget we hear this afternoon, which I hope will address a lot of the concerns out there.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to speak at third reading of Bill C-23. It is to all intents and purposes the end, at least in the House, of a long process which, as colleagues who spoke before me have said, began many months ago, in 1999-2000.

Many individuals and stakeholders have taken part in the debate, in the examination, which led to the introduction of Bill C-23. It is, as I was saying, the product of long consideration. Therefore, I think we should be pleased at the amendments made to the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act. I think these amendments tighten up the Competition Act. I will come back to the process in a few minutes.

I will, if I may, digress a little with respect to the speech my colleague in the Canadian Alliance has just made.

His speech started well and was very interesting, I thought. The end of it, however, was not a little disappointing as he encouraged the government to draft legislation to promote competition and, in the same breath, criticized the fact that there is a Competition Act that permits competition. There is a certain lack of consistency here. With all due respect for my colleague in the Canadian Alliance, I must say that he seems to be speaking for big business in Canada, which naturally would like the body of laws applying to matters of competition to be as flexible and as minimal as possible.

He is forgetting very quickly that in Canada, and in Quebec, especially, the fabric of the economy is comprised essentially of small and medium sized businesses, that would absolutely not survive in a context of free market competition, which is what our colleague from the Canadian Alliance is energetically calling for.

A certain number of parameters must therefore be established to enable all businesses to be able to compete fairly regardless of size. Some businesses, some corporations, will be in a position to do more because of their size. Under the circumstances, provisions will have to be put in place to ensure that there is a proper and fair context for all sectors of industry.

In this connection, we in the Bloc Quebecois consider, as we always have moreover, that the Competition Act in its present form, despite its laudable objectives, does not contain the means, does not contain sufficient elements, is not sufficiently stringent, and does not have sufficient teeth to avoid certain behaviours that are anti-competitive.

Of course, although Bill C-23 does improve the existing legislation just slightly, we would have liked it to go a great deal further. The preliminary examination in committee provided us with the opportunity, as I said last Friday, to broaden the spectrum of possible interventions and the provisions that could have been added to the bill in order to respond to this desire to create a body of legislation, which would be more able to provide a context favourable to competition.

We would, therefore, have liked this bill to go a lot further than it does. We made an intervention, in fact several, in committee. As well, here in this House we tried to get the Competition Act tightened up further via an amendment presented last friday by my colleague from Laval Centre. Using a number of arguments that I still consider fallacious, the government saw fit to defeat that amendment, a point to which I shall return shortly.

Let us get back to the process. As I said, this is a process that began in 1999. The discussions went on and on. The committee worked really hard on this issue. Incidentally, I want to take this opportunity to thank my predecessor as Bloc Quebecois critic on industry, science and technology, the hon. member for Témiscamingue, who did an absolutely remarkable job along with the other committee members. The Department of Industry was also interested in a possible review of the Competition Act.

It must be said, and it is important to point this out when referring to the long process leading up to Bill C-23, that certain provisions on competition in the Canadian legislation go back more than 100 years. Some of these provisions deserve to be updated, given the economic context and framework in 2001.

The government, the Department of Industry, and particularly the minister himself, showed an interest in improving the Competition Act. Some proposals were made by a number of colleagues in this House, including private members' bills, Bills C-402 and C-472 presented by the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Bill C-438 presented by the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, and Bill C-471 presented by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, among others.

Oddly enough, the government chose to integrate these bills and decided to include in the legislation now before the House, namely Bill C-23, only the proposals made by government members. We would have hoped that the government would be as receptive to proposals from the other side of the House, but it does not look as if it is the case.

Be that as it may, the debate transcended parliament, since we asked civil society, including through the Public Policy Forum, to take part in the debate and to express its views on a possible reform of the Competition Act. I must say, and the minister mentioned it on Friday, that we heard essentially two different views.

Obviously, this is putting it bluntly, I will not deny it, but if we want to put things in context, there were basically two viewpoints.

First, there was the viewpoint of big business, which sounded much like our colleague from the Canadian Alliance, who said earlier that the Competition Act needs as little changing as possible, and that we most definitely must not include a right to private access or any other provisions or proposals that would go beyond what Bill C-23 contains. Then there were representatives from small and medium sized businesses who demonstrated a great deal of interest in including provisions that had not been included in the original Bill C-23, particularly the right to private access.

I will not delve any further into the details of the contents of Bill C-23. I think that the two previous speakers in this debate did a good job explaining the impact of the bill. I will simply recall the four main amendments that Bill C-23 originally contained: first, facilitating co-operation with foreign competition authorities with respect to evidence in civil action; second, prohibiting deceptive prize notices sent out to the general public and sent by mail and through the Internet; third, streamlining the Competition Tribunal process by providing for cost awards, summary dispositions and references; and fourth, broadening the scope under which the tribunal may issue temporary orders.

Finally, following the work done by the committee and the speeches made by its members, particularly the highly eloquent ones by the member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge, based on the legislation to which I referred earlier, the government has agreed to make a few additions to these original four main elements in the bill.

First of all, provision has been added for private access, independently of the Competition Tribunal, so that private companies can take their competition cases directly, on their own behalf, to the tribunal in four specific areas mentioned in clauses 75 and 77 concerning refusal to deal, exclusive dealing, tied selling and market restriction.

Amendments have also been made to the bill with respect to dominant position. One has the feeling, from the wording of these amendments, that particular aim was being taken at a problem forced on us by the prevailing economic situation now facing the airlines.

Under section 104.1 of the Competition Act, the commissioner will be permitted to issue interim orders so as to prevent a company under investigation from continuing or resuming anti-competitive acts. As well, an airline could be required to pay monetary penalties, because this is indeed the purpose behind the particular amendments in this regard, under clause 79 concerning abuse of dominant position.

We would have preferred that the government not try to use these amendments to deal with a very specific situation. Abuse of dominant position can also be observed in other industrial sectors.

I come back to what I was saying earlier concerning the amendment put forward Friday by the member for Laval Centre. This amendment, as the House will recall, is taken word for word from a provision in Bill C-472, presented earlier by the member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge, with the exception of three little words which independent gas retailers wanted to see dropped: standard market conditions. I will not go back over these three words, on the significance of the amendment. I spoke on this at some length Friday, when we debated Bill C-23 at report and second reading stages.

I simply want to say at this point that we would have liked the government to be more receptive with respect to abuses of dominant position in other sectors of the economy, not just in the airline industry. We on this side were referring specifically to what happened a certain number of weeks and months ago in the case of the sharp rise in gas prices.

Naturally, the minister himself told me in committee when he appeared that the cost of gasoline was actually quite low, so why get upset over the issue of gasoline prices? The current body of laws, even amended, does not protect us from a new flare-up of gasoline prices. This amendment among other things serves to protect independent distributors against the dominant position of the major oil companies, which alone control 90% of the Canadian oil refinery and distribution market and we would have liked to see it pass. We would also have liked to have section 45 of the Competition Act amended. This section, I remind you, is over 100 years old. A number of things have changed in the meantime, and these changes must be taken into account.

We would have liked an amendment on the relevance of keeping the word unduly in the section. I know that it raised a lot of debate. Some claim the word should be eliminated; others think it should be retained. I myself think the issue should have been expanded and the work not disrupted so that we could not go beyond the provisions contained in Bill C-23, with the few amendments, albeit significant but limited, that were finally added at the conclusion of the work of the committee.

It should be noted that despite the good intentions of the committee members and the witnesses who appeared before the committee—and I must, in this regard, congratulate and thank the witnesses for the depth of the analyses and comments they contributed—we might have done well to pay much more attention to them and to integrate more of these analyses and proposals into Bill C-23.

For a whole slew of reasons, it was decided not to. That said, despite all the goodwill of the committee members and the witnesses who appeared, it must be recognized that the very organization of our committee precluded our doing a really thorough job on this issue.

When the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology meets four times a week to discuss three different topics, this makes the members' work difficult. It is hard for them to manage to address each of these three issues in depth, each theme raised in its four meetings each week. I think we would be better off if we were to consolidate the work, make it more consistent and thus be able to go into the various matters raised in committee in a little more depth.

Returning the subject at hand, as I said, it would have been worthwhile in my opinion to have been able to go into it further. Nevertheless, we must admit reality: Friday, the minister referred to the quality of the committee's work, and described it, rightly so in my opinion, as non-partisan. It is regrettable, however, that at the very end he adopted an attitude that was close-minded, to say the least, if not downright partisan, in rejecting the amendment proposed by my colleague from Laval Centre.

Those then, are my reservations, and I hope the minister listens to them. On Friday, I expressed the wish that he listen to the speech I gave on my colleague from Laval Centre's amendment. Similarly today, I trust that through his parliamentary secretary he will be attentive to the discussion of today.

That said, I am greatly perplexed and taken aback by the government's decision not to go any further with the pre-examination of Bill C-23 by broadening it. Yet, by its own admission, it intends to review and revise the Competition Act once again, at some point next February.

Rather than doing things a bit a time, perhaps we ought to have carried out a more thorough study of the proposed amendments to the Competition Act, and these could have integrated the concerns of my colleague from Laval Centre as well as the very legitimate concerns of my colleague from Jonquière concerning clause 45. As hon. members are aware, my colleague from Jonquière has spoken out in the media, here in Ottawa, in the House of Commons, and in committee, as well as in the national assembly, concerning clause 45. Perhaps we could have indeed gone into it further.

However, despite the concerns that I raise here today, and that I have raised in the past, particularly on Friday, and to which I hope the government is sensitive, despite all this, I would once again like to repeat today that the Bloc Quebecois, as it has always done since 1993 and even before then, when the founding members of the Bloc Quebecois sat as independent members, has always acted in the best interests of all, particularly in the interests of Quebecers, regardless of partisan politics.

Statistics show this to be true. Since the beginning, since Confederation, the Bloc Quebecois is probably the political party that has most often voted in support of government bills and initiatives. We are not guided by the extremely narrow prism of partisan politics. What guides our analysis in the Bloc Quebecois is the best interests of all, and particularly, the interests of Quebecers.

So despite the concerns that I raise today, I would like to repeat that the Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour of this bill because we believe it to be a step in the right direction. The government was not willing to take the steps required to make even more improvements to the Competition Act, but it is nonetheless a step. We can only hope that the government will continue to make progress so that some day we can have legislation that fosters truly healthy competition within our economic environment.

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to take part in the debate today on the final, third reading of Bill C-23, amendments to the Competition Act.

The bill has quite a long history that goes back to two years ago when I was involved in the standing committee on industry, which conducted hearings on the Competition Act. In addition, the Competition Bureau commissioner decided that there should be a parallel hearing and a public policy forum conducted hearings across Canada as well and heard many witnesses.

Out of that process four main elements were brought forward that were identified as needed changes to the Competition Act. They were: co-operation between Canadian and foreign competition authorities; the prohibiting of the deceptive notice of prizes; streamlining of the tribunal process itself; and the broadening of the temporary orders. During the process and the consideration of the bill at committee stage, we added an important fifth category, that is, the right of private access.

I want to talk a little about these amendments that will bring the Competition Act up to speed in terms of globalization and the recognition that Canada has become an international player of some magnitude and therefore needs to have co-operation with international authorities in order to have better competition law. I would note that the OECD and the World Trade Organization have been doing some studies to bring forward international competition agreement in that process as well.

The agreement on the co-operation aspect of Canadian with international authorities really is just a reflection of the nature of business these days. Canada of course is exporting 87% of all of our exports to the United States. That is a significant amount of money and makes up 40% of the GDP of our country. We also export to Japan and Canadians invest in other countries in increasing numbers. In fact, about four years ago there was a sea change in Canadian investment. We now have more direct Canadian investment outside our country than we have direct foreign investment in Canada, so Canadians are looking for a home in which to invest and they need the assurance of good competition law in those other countries.

More and more, business is international in scope and therefore we need co-operation. These amendments concern civil competition matters and essentially mirror the existing arrangements we already have on criminal matters with the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. They apply only to the civil part, which will bring it up to speed. The change will assist the Competition Bureau in gathering information to make its decisions affecting competition in Canada. It will ensure that the decisions about domestic competition matters are made in Canada and we support that important aspect of it.

In terms of the prohibiting of the deceptive notices of winning prizes, I am not quite sure if it needs to be in the Competition Act although I know some people are taking advantage of this aspect. If this will help reduce the problems for them I guess we can go along with it, but it really seems to me that people have to take a little more responsibility for their own personal actions. If people are given notice by telephone that they have won a million dollars but in order to qualify they have to send in $5,000 or $10,000 to a certain company, I would think that they should be pretty aware of where that may lead. It seems to me that government really cannot put in regulations and hold people's hands. People have to make those kinds of decisions and have to be aware that there are those out there who are taking those types of actions. I am not sure this really will amount to much, but if it means there could be some improvement we would support it.

The third category is the streamlining of the Competition Tribunal process by providing the tribunal with the power to award costs. This is really important because we have added to the act the important part of the right to private access. Essentially it allows people to bypass the Competition Bureau and take their actions right to the Competition Tribunal.

If there are frivolous acts, nuisance acts or acts to try to find out information which might give people a competitive advantage over their competitor, at least the Competition Tribunal can now award costs. It cannot award damages but costs are a significant factor. If people are brought before the tribunal and have to defend themselves against frivolous actions, at least the tribunal can order the parties who have lost the case to pay costs to the parties that have been brought before it. That is a good move and we need it.

The Competition Tribunal has also been given the power to make summary dispositions and also to determine references. A summary disposition means that it has the right to tell someone coming before it whether or not it will hear the case. It is like a pretrial I would think. The tribunal can determine if it is a frivolous action and refuse to hear it. That kind of safeguard will help protect the Competition Act and will give the Competition Tribunal the power that it needs.

The fourth aspect that was included was the right to broaden the powers of temporary orders. This is important, especially in the case of the airline industry where huge losses can take place in a very short period of time. Cease and desist orders are important. We have seen about three airlines go under this last year in Canada. Perhaps if there would have been tougher cease and desist orders, Canada 3000 still would be providing competition on a lot of runs. Therefore we believe this is necessary.

There are also severe penalties in the airline industry on those companies that would embark on practices to essentially put a competitor out of business. If they ignore the cease and desist orders, they will be hit with severe penalties.

Then of course we talked about the right of private access which was brought about by an amendment through the committee process.

I believe every Canadian has the right to have his or her day in court. Right now the competition commissioner or the Competition Bureau acts as a gatekeeper in deciding who can have a case brought before the tribunal. I and my colleague from Edmonton Southwest were convinced, during the hearings and the whole process of consideration of Bill C-23 at committee, that that was an important element which would help strengthen competition policy in Canada. Therefore, we agree with that.

I just want to say a word or two about the airline industry. Every time we get a flurry of amendments to the competition policy or competition law, it seems as though something has stirred it up. This time it happens to be the airline industry. Some people think that we can run our industry policy in Canada out of the Competition Bureau. That simply does not work. It is important to have a strong competition policy. However it is not a substitute for a healthy business environment, with a true competitive nature, which would allow businesses to compete and provide services to Canadians.

The airline industry is a good case in point. If all these things, such as intervention and regulation, served the purpose, we would have a great airline industry functioning in Canada. However intervention and regulation have the opposite effect in most cases. Therefore, the Competition Bureau, the Competition Tribunal and competition law are important to have but the government needs to clean up some of its act when it comes to intervening in the economy.

In the airline industry Air Canada is a good case in point. Its merger with Canadian a few years ago had strict regulations. In fact, Air Canada was told it had to keep its head office in Montreal and that it had to maintain so many employees. What kind of business can function under those kinds of rules? When the economy is in a downturn, it does not make any sense. Businesses have to be flexible, innovative and be able to adopt new measures. Intervention does not allow that.

There are several other aspects in the case of Air Canada, such as attracting new investment in our country. New investment rules would go a long way to solving some of these problems and might have even stopped Canadian from going under a few years ago.

Important things need to be considered so that the competition law is not the only avenue and in fact is not the best avenue to competition. A good business environment, low taxes and low regulation are what people tell us we need, along with breaking down interprovincial trade barriers. These are the kinds of things for which businesses are looking. They want less intervention in the economy.

While we support Bill C-23, which strengthens the competition policy, it serves as a limited means of success. We challenge the government to do the things that are necessary to allow competition to exist.

We have lost a decade in the country because of the policies the government has followed. We have had a 30 year decline in direct foreign investment in Canada, year after year. We have a Canadian dollar that has lost ground for over 30 years and is now at 62 cents U.S. That says something about government policy. We have government policy that has intervened more and more in the economy over the past 30 years, I suggest, going back to Mr. Trudeau.

The current government, under the present Prime Minister, does not seem to be going in any different direction. Look at the cases of grants and contributions to businesses across the country. This is a government that has totally lost direction. It is rudderless and needs to be replaced because businesses are suffering. Canadian companies trying to compete against companies in the United States are not enjoying the competitive advantages they need to enjoy.

We have the highest personal income taxes in the G-7 and very high taxes against those of our OECD neighbours, which is the measurement with which Canada has to compete. Yet we have a government that does not seem to pay attention. It thinks we can substitute the healthy business environment with competition law and it simply will not work.

In the case of the cease and desist section, although we are strengthening it, companies engaging in practices that are harmful to a competitor and competition now have to wait 30 days. They may get another 30 days in which they are banned from engaging in those practices, but after 120 days has expired they can go at it again.

We should let businesses do what they do best. Let the competition law serve its limited capacity, as it was designed to do, in protecting competition, not competitors. Let us have a government that stops intervening in the economy, and the country would be far better off for it.

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on third reading of Bill C-23, an act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act. It is important, I believe, to underscore the main amendments contained in the bill as introduced today.

The purpose of the first set of amendments is to prohibit deceptive prize notices. They will prevent unscrupulous promoters from deceiving people, often seniors, with phony mailings suggesting they have won a prize without disclosing the real costs relating to it. The amendments set out clear rules that will enable honest businesses to continue their legitimate activities.

A second set of amendments is for the purpose of facilitating international co-operation with respect to civil cases involving competition. The proposed changes will make it possible to collect evidence in other countries relating to investigations of civil fraud cases, taking a similar approach to what is already in place for criminal cases.

It is also noteworthy that the proposed approach pays particular attention to protecting the confidentiality of information already in the possession of the commissioner, as well as information volunteered by the parties. This new investigational tool will ensure that enforcement decisions relating to competition will be taken right here in Canada.

The third set of amendments will, under certain circumstances, allow the competition tribunal to award costs, make summary dispositions and determine references.

The fourth set of amendments extends the powers of the competition tribunal with respect to interim orders. The proposed amendments will enable the tribunal to issue interim orders, when certain conditions have been met, to put an end to an anti-competitive practice at the commissioner's investigation stage.

The maximum duration of an interim order will be 80 days, with a possibility of extension if the commissioner has not succeeded in obtaining the necessary information to complete his investigation and thus to determine whether an application will be made to the competition tribunal.

Five, the amendments will include providing private parties with limited access to the competition tribunal. The balanced solution presented by the committee will allow competitors to go before the competition tribunal to settle disputes covered by sections 75 and 77 of the Competition Act, namely, refusal to deal, exclusive dealing, tied selling, and market restriction.

Private parties must obtain prior authorization from the tribunal to file an application for order. Furthermore, supplementary protection measures have been included to avoid strategic proceedings. Some of these measures include the tribunal's determining fees, guarantees to avoid two proceedings regarding the same case, the fact that the tribunal may not award damages, and a liability period for all requests.

Six, there are amendments to provide extra protection for competition in the Canadian airline industry.

The first amendment extends an interim order beyond 80 days if the commissioner has not received all the information necessary to allow him to determine whether or not grounds exist to make an application to the tribunal. The commissioner must make a request to the tribunal to obtain such an extension.

The purpose of the second amendment under this heading is to encourage the dominant carrier to respect the Competition Act. It allows the tribunal to impose administrative monetary penalties of up to $15 million, in addition to the cease and desist order set out in section 79 on the abuse of dominant position.

The purpose of this bill is to maintain an efficient, innovative and competitive market in a rapidly changing economy. I believe that we have fulfilled this purpose with Bill C-23.

Once again, I would like to express my gratitude to the members of the committee, the competition commissioner and all the stakeholders that provided their comments for the monumental work that was done in order to ensure that the Competition Act remains effective and up to date.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, for the Minister of Industry]

moved that Bill C-23, an act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act, be read the third time and passed.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Madam Speaker, I too am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-23. Before I begin, I will say how happy I am to have this opportunity, as this legislation has been in the making for a long time.

First, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Laval Centre. The amendment she put forward is, in my view, quite relevant and interesting. By putting forward this amendment, I believe she proved how competent and multi-talented she is. My colleague from Laval Centre excels in a number of areas, including culture and health care, as she said herself. But I did not know she had such expertise in the area of competition. I want to congratulate her and tell her how happy we are to be able to debate this brilliant amendment in the House today.

That being said, we must give credit where credit is due. Although the government is unable to do so, for our part, we routinely recognize the value and merit of our opponents' work. This bill is the result of the work done by a number of members who do not belong to cabinet. They put forward private members' bills that caught the eye of the government to such an extent that it decided to include them in what I would call an omnibus bill, as it deals with various aspects of the Competition Act, with a view to amend and improve it.

The bills I refer to are Bill C-402 inroduced by the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Bill C-438 by the member for Kitchener Centre, Bill C-471 by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and Bill C-472, again by the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge.

I am not sure that we need to conclude from this listing of the work by members, which the government has decided to use as a basis for drafting is Bill C-23, that the government is not interested in, or does not take into consideration, or does not choose to use, anything but suggestions from its own members. We must, however, be glad that the work done by MPs on an individual basis, or in other words the private members' bills and motions can gain momentum and end up with a positive outcome in the House, as is the case with Bill C-23.

I hope that the minister is lending an attentive ear to what we are saying this afternoon, because his very careful attention to the first speeches was obvious. Let us hope that same attention has been given to the last ones. I think he was justified in pointing out that the bill is the outcome of conscientious and non partisan efforts by departmental staff, of course, but also and primarily by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. For some months now, the committee has been addressing a potential review of the legislation and of the options and avenues that might be envisaged to tighten up Canada's Competition Act .

It is fortunate that, at the conclusion of this work, we were able before its examination to debate Bill C-23, which, as I was saying, is intended to act on certain suggestions.

However, it is unfortunate that the bill did not go further and that this pre-examination did not allow us to go further. The pre-examination should have allowed us to do so, because we had not accepted the principle of the bill. We could therefore have possible expanded the scope of concerns and the various amendments that could have been proposed.

It is also regrettable that the minister, while his speech was very carefully worded, if I can put it like that, set a rather partisan tone at the end of the debate, because, as he had indicated, up to that point the debate had been non-partisan.

We worked together as a committee to improve the bill. I think the amendment by my colleague from Laval Centre would have had the effect, the advantage, of improving the bill substantially. But since this amendment, it appears, did not come from a government member, arguments that I consider fallacious were cited to reject it, politely, I must say, but reject it nevertheless.

But it is not quite true that this amendment came from a member who is not a government member. And no, I am not announcing publicly that my colleague has decided to cross the floor of the House. However, her amendment was largely based on the work done by the hon. member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge. This work resulted in certain provisions being included in Bill C-472, which sought to protect small retailers, particularly in the oil industry, and small businesses against bigger ones.

In this regard, when they appeared before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, the representatives of the Association québécoise des indépendants du pétrole mentioned—and the minister should reread their evidence—that some provisions in Bill C-472 seemed to promote their interests, including their access to the resource.

Right now, we have a quasi-monopoly in which the resource—crude oil, oil, gas, refined product—is provided by a very small number of companies. These companies are in a position to drive independent retailers out of business.

Bill C-472 included provisions which eliminated this power of the major oil companies over the small independent businesses. The Association québécoise des indépendants du pétrole had just one small reservation and its concerned the expression standard market conditions used in Bill C-472, which it wanted to see removed from the bill.

Why? Because the standard market conditions are defined by the major oil companies in this instance. These companies determine what these conditions are. So, they could have argued before the competition tribunal that the demands of the independent companies went against the standard market conditions they themselves established.

Also, as I said, with extraordinary prescience, my colleague from Laval Centre took from Bill C-472 the relevant provision but without the expression standard market conditions. She presented this amendment, which the hon. member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge had himself considered, to the House.

Therefore, the minister should be more open to this motion in amendment since it came initially, not from an opposition backbencher but from a government member.

I invite the House to vote in favour of this amendment, which I believe is important for small businesses, independent distributors and everyone who is faced with a monopolistic or oligopolistic situation. I hope all members will support this amendment.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand during second reading of Bill C-23, the amendment to the Competition Act, and speak not only to the amendment of the member for Laval Centre but to the entire bill.

As mentioned by the Minister of Industry, the amendments were proposed to make it easier for the government to co-operate with foreign competition tribunals. In the global economy it is important that governments have the ability to co-operate with each other when dealing with multinational organizations.

The bill was also introduced to prohibit deceptive notices of prizes. The member for the Canadian Alliance mentioned that it was the responsibility of the individuals receiving such notices to know there was a scam and that they were being set up. A lot of the people who respond tend to be elderly people who are lonely, who are by themselves, who do not get much mail and who in many cases are not completely aware of what is happening in the world and have no reason to suspect a it may be a sham.

For a lot of our older generation that is not part of the culture it grew up in or is one of which it is aware. It seems to be a relatively new phenomenon that letters go out telling people they have won a prize but must put money into it to collect. It is important that we have measures to limit and legislate against that kind of deception through the mail.

Bill C-23 was also introduced to streamline the Competition Tribunal process. Lord knows that any process dealing with quasi-judicial bodies needs to be streamlined. It was interesting to hear the minister's comments about not wanting to establish a culture of unnecessary litigation. His government seems to think it is quite all right to take Canadians to court and get into the litigation process. It will be interesting to see whether the government will take note of the amendments it has put into the Competition Act to limit unnecessary litigation.

The bill was also introduced to broaden the tribunal's ability to issue temporary orders. I know from my days as transportation critic that the competition commissioner and tribunal need to be able to react immediately to situations, even if the actions are temporary, to put cease and desist orders in place and allow some kind of remediation to occur.

Bill C-23 has already been to committee. It was dealt with at the committee level. Witnesses from the business community and elsewhere appeared at the committee to give their impressions of how the amendments might affect them. Two additional amendments were recommended at committee so we now have two amendments to the legislation that was originally put before committee.

One of these concerns is the private right to access. We have heard how important it is for companies, corporations, small business people and individuals to have the ability to advance their causes even though the Competition Tribunal may not think they are as important as other issues. As in many cases, once something is put on the back burner the damage is already done before it can be dealt with. It is important that private right to access be added to the legislation.

There are also tough new measures to deal with anti-competitive practices in the airline industry. Canadians across the country know the difficult times the airline industry has been through. We have recently seen the demise of the second largest air carrier in Canada, Canada 3000. Although the competition commissioner was prepared to put a cease and desist order, the process of applying for the order and having it put in place is often not quick enough to stop the damage that takes place through predatory or overtly anti-competitive practices.

The private right to access is extremely important. It allows private parties to apply directly to the Competition Tribunal for remedies concerning refusal to deal, tied selling, market restriction and exclusive dealing.

As I mentioned earlier, it is important for people to be able to challenge what is considered to be unfair practices by a competitor trying to put out a smaller competitor simply through the use of these kinds of tactics. It is very important to the well-being of members of the small business community to be able to fight back. This legislation will provide them with an opportunity to challenge larger businesses that are trying to put them out of business. It is a very healthy thing in the bill.

Private access also means that if the competition commissioner feels that something is not as important as, say, airline restructuring, it can still go through the process and it is not be tied up for years.

The legislation will create additional case law that will provide the business community with a better understanding of what the laws of the land are and how they might fall under the practices considered not to be in the best interests of competition. It will develop case law that can be used for the furtherance of fair business practices.

The amendments will allow for new penalties, including fines of up to $15 million for an airline acting in an anti-competitive manner. One of the concerns we heard in reaction to Canada 3000 going under and other complaints before the commission, was that the legislation had no teeth to allow the competition commissioner to respond in a way that would stop predatory behaviour. It is nice to see that the legislation will finally contain teeth so the competition commissioner will have some meaningful input into keeping anti-competitive behaviour at bay.

The ability of the competition commissioner to extend cease and desist orders beyond the current 80 days is very important. Because of the time it takes to prepare a case and to bring the complaint against a competitor, it is very timely and sometimes the application has not been processed before the cease and desist order expires. We are very pleased to see this extension because it will make the process more meaningful.

I want to bring up the fact that Air Canada is objecting to the amendments. It feels that it is not right that the competition commissioner or Competition Act would single out one industry, it being the industry being singled out.

Letters were sent from one of its bankers to members of the transport and industry committees claiming that this amendment will prevent the issuance of new equity shares to assist the airline in raising new funds. It should be noted that this would appear to have been very poorly handled by the company seeing as it was the Prime Minister's former chief communications officer who forwarded the letter to members of parliament. The letter which was forwarded to members and both the transport and industry critics was seen by some to have the appearance of a threat. From my discussions with many government MPs, it would appear that there is not a great deal of fondness for the message from the Prime Minister's former chief spin doctor.

The airline is concerned that these amendments were tabled after its appearance at the industry committee. I would think that is a legitimate complaint.

Some have sympathy for the airline because it was not given an opportunity to respond in kind to the industry committee after the fact. The industry committee would probably be wise to allow Air Canada to appear before it and have its case heard.

This is important legislation. We must make sure there is competition, particularly in the airline industry. The coalition will be supporting Bill C-23 at second reading.

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to take part in the report stage debate on Bill C-23. The bill has had a lot of work, as many members have already identified.

Four main components were originally identified in Bill C-23. They are: the co-operation between Canadian and foreign competition authorities; the prohibiting of deceptive notices of prizes; streamlining of the tribunal; and also the broadening of temporary orders. We have added an important fifth category, that of right of private access. The Bloc members are trying to make some amendments today through Motion No. 1, which I want to speak to in a moment.

It seems to me that the amendments to be made to Bill C-23 regarding co-operation between Canadian and international authorities really just are a reflection of the nature of business. More and more business is international in scope and therefore we need co-operation in these areas. These amendments concern the civil competition matters and essentially mirror existing arrangements that we already have on criminal matters with the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. This just applies to the civil aspect.

The change will assist the Competition Bureau in gathering information it needs to make decisions affecting competition in Canada. It will ensure that the decisions about domestic competition matters are made in Canada. We support that.

We are a little more ambivalent to the second category of prohibiting deceptive notices of prizes, We cannot hold people's hands; they have to take some responsibility for their own lives. If this would help, I guess we could go along with it. There needs to be more individual responsibility. When people get a phone call and are told that they have won $100,000 but they are going to have to send in $5,000 to get it, they should be pretty wary of what is coming at them.

The third category is the streamlining of the Competition Tribunal process by providing the tribunal with the power to award costs. I think this is an excellent one especially as we move into the area of private access in order to make sure that no frivolous actions come before the tribunal. It needs that.

It also has the power to make summary dispositions and hear and determine references. The summary dispositions essentially just mean that the tribunal can consider whether it wants to hear the case or not. If it is a trivial matter or one designed to find out what the competition is doing, the Competition Tribunal can dismiss it out of hand.

In order to deal with a couple of other aspects of broadening the powers of temporary orders, that is important, especially in the case of the airline industry where a huge industry can be put out of business in a matter of a few months. The cease and desist orders do need to be strengthened with perhaps longer periods of time. This is also aimed at putting severe penalties against those companies which embark on practices essentially to put a competitor out of business. If they ignore the cease and desist order they will be hit with severe penalties.

These are all important elements. However, I would suggest that competition law, although very important, is no substitute for competition. Sometimes Liberal members on the industry committee and here in the House tend to reflect on the idea that we do not need to have healthy conditions to allow business to operate here in a very competitive manner; we can just substitute that with regulation and intervention. If that were to work in the airline industry, this country would have a thriving airline industry. We know that it has not worked.

Intervention and regulation has hurt the airline industry. It hurts most industries. I believe that competition will flourish if we have the necessary business environment to allow that to happen. That means low taxes and low regulation. Also, things like interprovincial trade barriers have to be eliminated so that we can do business inside our country as well as we can do business outside our borders.

It seems to me that while we need to have this competition law, for those who will not abide by the competitive process, it is no substitute.

I want to deal for a moment with the Bloc amendment to Bill C-23. Our concern is that we think several of the amendments are redundant because they are already in Bill C-23. They are specifically subclauses 1, 3, 4 and 5.

In regard to subclause 2, currently under the refusal to deal provisions, the tribunal can order a supplier to do business with a distributor under usual trade terms. If the amendment were passed, it would cause the tribunal to become a trade regulator which is exactly what we are trying to avoid.

It seems to me that the people who came before the committee and who probably caused this amendment to happen were from the independent petroleum producers. I asked them whether the right to private access satisfy them. They agreed it would. They said that in the past the competition commissioner would not take their case up and bring it forward. He was acting as a gatekeeper. I asked specifically if they had the right to take the case directly to the tribunal, would that satisfy them. The answer was clearly yes. Having said that, they should pursue that option and not try to make more regulations. Let them make their case before the tribunal and determine who is right or wrong on the issue and live by it.

Subclause 6 would limit the commissioner's ability to participate in a private access case. He would get 30 days to intervene and after that he could only do it if the tribunal requested it. That is not necessary.

Subclause 7 would require consent agreements to be filed with the tribunal. Then it would be as though the tribunal had ordered an agreement.

We disagree with those aspects. The others as I named before, subclauses 1, 3, 4 and 5, are already in the bill. We do not support the amendments to the bill that are presented today.

Largely, we believe that the competition policy is serving us well. It is not meant to protect a competitor; it is meant to protect competition throughout the country.

It is very clear to the Canadian Alliance that there is no substitute for a healthy business environment. All the competition policy and law in the world, all the regulation, is not going to accomplish what we can accomplish by allowing as many competitors as possible to be in business. That is the best insurance that there is good, healthy competition across the country, lots of companies competing on a healthy market basis. They will provide the kind of assurances that we need in terms of competition policy.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-23 at report and second reading stage.

First of all, I would like to say that we support this bill. Amending the Competition Act, certain provisions of which go back to the last century, is a step in the right direction.

However, we find it somewhat unfortunate that every time there is an opportunity to improve a situation, to improve a bill, to give it more teeth, and there are often arguments in favour of a complete overhaul, the government prefers a strategy of baby steps.

As I mentioned, this bill is a step in the right direction. But it is the same as the reform of the criminal code, where the government had to take two runs at it before it finally came around to what the Bloc Quebecois had been arguing for a long time.

So it is with the Competition Act. It is entirely to the minister's credit that he accepted these amendments to the Competition Act, which is toothless in Canada, if we compare it to the U.S. legislation. But the government could have gone much further.

As for what is good about this bill, one good idea is encouraging private access since, in the previous legislation, competitors were not allowed to take a case directly to the competition tribunal on their own behalf. I think that this is one notable improvement. It also improves the effectiveness and handling of complaints.

This is limited to four areas. However, they are major ones, if compared to all the complaints referred to the competition tribunal in recent years, including complaints regarding the refusal of suppliers to sell in an anticompetitive context, exclusive dealing, tied selling, and market restriction.

Tied selling is a very important matter. There was a loophole in the legislation with respect to the definition of tied selling, as well as the precise situations in which tied selling could be said to exist, and the measures which were proposed to reduce the risk of the practice.

I will give an example of just how important tied selling is. You are clients of a financial institution. You go to this institution for a loan and you are forced, or strongly encouraged, as a precondition to obtaining the loan, to buy insurance or other financial products offered by the same financial institution.

This kind of tied sales strategy by financial institutions or others is illegal. In that regard, we now have an additional tool to at least reduce the possibility of tied sales, without eliminating it completely, of course, since that is practically impossible.

The fact that interim orders can be issued in cases where a business is suspected of anti-competitive practices is a good idea. Monetary penalties also give more teeth to the legislation, particularly with regard to air carriers.

As I was saying, this is not enough. A few moments ago, the minister promised to continue reviewing the act and to look at further amendments. I would like to mention to him that the first improvement that should be made concerns section 45 of the act. This section, which dates back to the end of the 19th century, allows some form of collusion between multinationals to fix prices or to carry out other anti-competitive activities, such as predatory practices or market segmentation. These practices are totally shameful when one considers what has happened over the years in the oil industry.

Then there are price fixing practices. Our legislation does not have enough teeth to prevent that. We may have our doubts about certain price fixing practices, but we do not yet have the necessary tools to lodge formal complaints in that regard. We saw that in the oil industry in particular.

There is another element missing, namely the merger review process.

Two years ago, there was a major debate on mergers, particularly bank mergers. The debate was very productive, because it gave us a better understanding of what was going on in the industry and what its future might be in light of globalization and the opening up of markets.

On that point, we discovered some flaws in the legislation dealing with competition and we also discovered that parliament lacks the authority to review these merger issues, other than through the Minister of Finance's office, which has the final say on any merger plan and on the analysis resulting from its refusal or approval.

Moreover, when mergers are approved, we do not have the required criteria, analysis mechanisms or legislative tools to deal with any unfair practice that might occur once the mergers are completed.

The minister should examine the issue more thoroughly and maybe, in a way, copy the U.S. legislation, which offers several more remedies than the Canadian legislation.

Finally, as the minister mentioned earlier, the Liberal member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge put forward amendments pertaining to normal trade conditions.

In the legislation, with regard to suppliers, for example, who are in a monopolistic situation where businesses have to buy their input from them, or in an oligopolistic market where three or four suppliers control most of the market, a provision allowing recourse to the Competition Tribunal, which requires, however, that complaints be made in a context of normal business conditions, is not good enough for this kind of market.

I will give an example. In the oil industry, the major oil companies control 85% of the wholesale market for oil products. Then what are the normal conditions in their case? Can they rely on the fact that there are abnormal market conditions, which prevent them from supplying independent retailers, small retailers for example, with crude oil or more refined oil? They can argue that conditions are abnormal, but they forget that they are the ones setting the conditions, determining the market conditions.

So, we would have liked the minister, right from the start, to accept the amendment, which came initially from one of his colleagues and which was picked up by the Bloc, because we are non partisan when the time comes to stand up for the interests of consumers and the industry.

We accept the notion that a Liberal can have a good idea. It happens from time to time. But we would have liked the Minister of Industry to accept this amendment of ours right away. There is still time to do so.

The minister could accept this amendment, which would better protect independent retailers, particularly in the oil industry. It is not really any big deal, just a small additional amendment for the government—the minister is able to do it—to remove the issue of normal conditions, and that is all.

But you can rest assured, Madam Speaker, and I would ask you to speak for us to the minister, that we will make a positive contribution to improving the legislation, because it has needed to be updated for years. It needs to be given some muscle, more teeth, in order to better protect independent retailers in a market often dominated by the big boys. We especially need to protect entrepreneurs and consumers, ultimately, from anti-competitive predatory practices, such as price fixing, as we have seen over the years in the oil industry.

By the way, the price of gas today is at 55 cents per litre, approximately. But we are still not protected—due to shortcomings in competition legislation—from practices that we believed to be predatory in the past, and that allowed gas prices to be set at unprecedented levels, to the detriment of consumers, independent truckers and the economy as a whole.

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to take the opportunity to participate in report stage consideration of Bill C-23. As colleagues have said, this is a bill that is a result of a great deal of very good work by members of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. No doubt the bill has been very much improved as a result of the collaborative approach that members have taken and their commitment to working together to make this a much better bill.

The main elements of the bill comprise the prohibition of deceptive prize notices, enhanced mutual international assistance in civil competition matters, streamlining improvements to the Competition Tribunal process, broadening the scope under which the tribunal may issue an interim order, a limited right of access to the tribunal and specific measures to protect competition in the Canadian airline industry.

On the issue of private access there has been a great deal of debate. There have been a great many witnesses and those who spoke who were diametrically opposed to each other with respect to the right of private access. I will come back to that issue in just a moment and refer specifically to the amendment being proposed by the hon. member who spoke just a few moments ago on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois.

First , I want to talk about deceptive practices. The amendment to prohibit deceptive prize notices addresses unscrupulous promoters who mislead their victims into believing they have won a prize without disclosing the excessive costs associated with collecting the prize. The commissioner has testified that this is a growing problem in Canada and the bureau, quite literally, receives thousands of complaints each year.

We have all heard of Canadian seniors receiving scratch and win cards in the mail. People scratch the card and discover they have supposedly won a prize. They then follow instructions and place a telephone call in order to claim their prize. However, they are not forewarned and they cannot know or be aware that the cost of placing the call is generally greater than the value of the so-called prize.

In short, senior citizens across the country are being targeted by corrupt and unscrupulous individuals seeking to quite literally take advantage and to steal their saved, hard-earned monies.

The approach proposed in Bill C-23 sets out a balance between capturing improper conduct and the legitimate practices of the majority of the business community. No doubt there are legitimate prize contests that do in fact treat citizens appropriately.

With respect to foreign evidence gathering, Bill C-23 proposes amendments that will facilitate the gathering of evidence from foreign jurisdictions with respect to civil competition matters. This is similar to what already exists for criminal matters under the mutual legal assistance treaty to which Canada and several dozen other countries are signatories. I believe these amendments will help us do a better job in a wide variety of areas but notably with respect to these corrupt so-called competitions or prize scams.

On a more technical side, the bill proposes to streamline the tribunal process and broaden the powers available to the tribunal. First, the amendments will permit the commissioner and the person who is the subject of an inquiry to refer to the tribunal any question of law in relation to the application or interpretation of the act. This is also available to private parties that agree to refer a question to the tribunal related to part VII.1 through to part IX of the act.

Also, the tribunal will be able to assess costs. The initial position of the government was limited to the assessment of cost by the tribunal in the case of frivolous or vexatious litigation intended to hinder or delay procedures before the tribunal.

Many witnesses before the committee urged the adoption of the ordinary cost rules of commercial litigation in order to have a proper deterrence against strategic litigation. Therefore the government tabled a motion to reflect this concern. Other changes permit the tribunal through summary disposition to rapidly deal with unsubstantiated matters.

The last amendment proposed with respect to tribunal improvements addresses interim orders. We have heard that certain anti-competitive practices cause irreparable harm to the Canadian economy.

Up until now the commissioner could not apply to the tribunal during an inquiry to obtain a cease and desist order to stop anti-competitive conduct. First he had to obtain sufficient evidence to make a case before the tribunal. The problem is that these inquiries are time consuming and they are resource intensive.

The amendments proposed will now allow the tribunal, when certain conditions are met, to render an interim cease and desist order. The order will be issued for an 80 day period with the possibility of extension where the commissioner has not received the information necessary to complete his inquiry and to determine whether an application should be made before the tribunal.

I want to address the matter of private access. Under the current system, the commissioner is the only person who can submit an application before the tribunal. This monopoly has been the subject of several studies over the past three decades. Many proposals have been made to permit the right of private access to the tribunal without involving the commissioner. One of these proposals was contained in a private member's bill tabled here by our colleague, the member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge, and was part of the public policy consultation.

A great deal has been said about private access, during the consultations and again during the committee hearings. There were strong views expressed and, I think it is fair to say, a division, primarily between those who belong to the small and medium sized business community and those who belong to Canada's largest corporations, those that are members of the chamber of commerce. On the one hand, there is a concern for a right to private access, and on the other, the concern that Canada not become a litigious society where strategic litigation occurs primarily for reasons of corporate warfare rather than genuine need or concern. The committee worked very hard to try to resolve both, on the one hand the request for private access, and on the other the concern about not creating an overly litigious corporate environment in Canada.

The amendments that we now see and the manner in which private access is described is very much the result of the good work of the committee and very much the result of the compromise which has been reached between the parties that had diametrically opposing views on the matter as they testified before committee. It is for that reason, because we now have, I think, a measure of harmony and a measure of agreement after a great deal of hard work, good work, by members on all sides of the House,. that I would submit that further amendments or further changes at this stage of the game may very well undo, although that would not be the intention, the consensus and the compromise that has now been reached.

There is one other matter I want to speak to during the time that is available to me and that is that the last set of amendments added to Bill C-23 are specific to the airline industry. This industry was severely affected by the tragic events of September 11. Canadian airline passenger volumes have dropped. Airlines have lost passengers to alternative tourist transportation methods. In the midst of this turbulent period, airlines in Canada and abroad are trying to continue normal operations while adjusting to the impact of the events of September 11.

All the airlines have been affected. At the time of the collapse of Canada 3000, the commissioner had sufficient evidence to issue a temporary cease and desist order against Air Canada for abusing its dominant position to the detriment of Canada 3000. Air Canada's competitors, starting with WestJet, identified shortcomings in the Competition Act that could and, they submitted, should be remedied.

The events, as we all know, attracted much media coverage and commentary across the country, especially after the news that additional amendments would be added to Bill C-23 to address the airline industry specifically. We need to remember that since the coming into force of Bill C-26 in 2000, the Competition Act has included a specific regime for domestic air transport. The amendments tabled today will close a potential gap that was created by Bill C-26 and will encourage compliance with the abuse of dominance provisions of this act.

The commissioner has indicated that based on his experience in the use of the temporary cease and desist power he obtained in Bill C-26 it was possible that the order would expire before an application could be made before the tribunal. The commissioner has an 80 day window in which to determine whether to make an application before the tribunal with respect to an abuse of dominant position by a dominant air carrier, but that determination is dependent upon having the necessary information in his hands.

The perverse effect of the rules as they currently work is that if information is not forthcoming and if in fact an investigation is not completed, the dominant carrier to whom an order is made can return to the abusive conduct the day after the commissioner's order expires. Hence, we have amendments designed to extend the cease and desist period, amendments designed to give real teeth to the powers available to the commissioner, amendments which are timely in the context of returning Canada's airline industry to a stable operation.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I too will join in the debate at the report stage of Bill C-23 and on Motion No. 1 which seeks to amend the bill.

We believe the issue brought forward by the member for Laval Centre would benefit the bill and strengthen the intention of the amendments put forward at the committee stage.

I would like to remind all members that there was a great deal of co-operation at the committee stage. We agreed with the general thrust of the motions brought forward at that time. I see nothing in this motion that does anything but augment the direction in which we wanted to go at committee. I admire the hon. member for taking the trouble to introduce it at this stage.

I noticed that sections 75 and 77, which the hon. member seeks to amend, would have the effect of strengthening the private access to the Competition Tribunal for the offences that she mentioned: tied selling, market restrictions and exclusive dealing, and a number of the issues that came forward as being offensive to most Canadians and most Canadians I think wanted the industry committee to deal with these issues in a very strong way.

We look forward to the motion getting the same sort or co-operative support that many of the other amendments received at the committee stage. We hope to approve the amendment as it has been brought forward. I extend my compliments to the member for Laval Centre.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-23 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 28 the following new clause:

“11.31 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 77:

77.1 (1) A person who alleges that they are directly affected in their business or are precluded from carrying on business due to their inability to obtain adequate supplies of a product anywhere in a market may, with leave of the Tribunal, make an application under section 75.

(2) A person who alleges that they are directly affected in their business by exclusive dealing, tied selling or market restriction may, with leave of the Tribunal, make an application under section 77.

(3) No application may be made under section 75 or 77 by a person referred to in subsection (1) or (2) more than two years after the practice has ceased.

(4) Any person making an application under section 75 or 77 shall serve the person in respect of whom the order is sought and the Commissioner with a copy of the application for leave.

(5) The Tribunal shall give notice to the Commissioner of its decision on an application for leave pursuant to this section.

(6) Within thirty days of the granting of leave to a person to make an application under section 75 or 77, the Commissioner may become a party to the application but, after thirty days, may do so only at the request of or with leave of the Tribunal.

(7) Where an application is made to a court for an order under section 75 or 77 and the parties agree on the terms of the order and such terms are in accordance with the terms of this Act, whether or not any of the terms could have been imposed by the court under this Part, the order agreed to may be filed with the court for immediate registration.

(8) On being filed under subsection (7), an order shall be registered and, when registered, shall have the same force and effect, and all proceedings may be taken, as if the order had been made by the court.”

Madam Speaker, I suppose you are rather surprised to see me rise to speak to Bill C-23, an act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act, at report and second reading stage.

As you know, I am much more comfortable dealing with issues regarding health, culture, citizens' relationships and pedagogy. But the House being a forum for pedagogy, you will see that I am very comfortable talking to Bill C-23.

Every day, as private citizens, we are faced with competition. With globalization and the opening of markets, competition is often fierce, and it is not rare to see the little guys being swallowed up by the big guys, at the expense of consumers. Competition is a rather neutral concept. It all depends on how we use it. We all know that this neutrality is all the more delicate as the interests involved are greedy.

I often go for advice to my friends the dictionaries, Robert and Larousse —you know, the one that scatters to the winds . They are a wealth of information that never cease to enrich me. Here is the definition of competition that can be found in the Larousse dictionary.

Competition: Competing interests between several persons creating a competition and, in part, between merchants or firms trying to attract clients with the best price, quality, etc.

It goes on to say:

Free competition: An economic system without any intervention from the state to limit industry and trade freedom, and under which producers coalitions are viewed as a crime.

That is it for definitions. In the end, competition is a bit like what Aesop said about the tongue as being the best and the worst of things. A twisted tongue is as troublesome as unfair competition.

As a matter of fact, Bill C-23 is aimed at improving, albeit slightly, the competition framework. In this area as many others, rules are needed as people should have access to quality products and services at acceptable prices instead of being the victims of practices favouring the corporate bottom line.

If I may, I would like to take a minute to read the summary of Bill C-23, which goes like this:

This enactment amends the Competition Act and Competition Tribunal Act. The amendments include the following:

amendments to facilitate cooperation with foreign competition authorities for the enforcement of civil competition and fair trade practices laws;

amendments prohibiting deceptive prize notices;

amendments streamlining the Competition Tribunal process by providing for cost awards, summary dispositions and references;

amendments broadening the scope under which the Tribunal may issue temporary orders; and

some housekeeping items.

The Bloc Quebecois supports the objectives of Bill C-23 because they are in the interest of the public, since the parameters set in the bill should respond to the legitimate needs of small and medium size businesses and protect the rights of consumers to enjoy the benefits stemming from healthy competition.

Recent events have given us a telling example of what can happen when competition turns into a trade war. Indeed, the softwood lumber issue that comes up regularly, where the Americans impose excessive surcharges on Canadian softwood lumber exports to the United-States, clearly shows the negative and unfair consequences of decisions made in the context of fierce competition.

Another example, just as flagrant as the previous one, is the poor state or even the non-existence of air service to remote communities due to the fact that Air Canada has a quasi-monopoly on air service in this country.

The only way to calm those with an insatiable appetite for profit is to legislate both domestically and within international trade organizations and to be ever vigilant in all spheres of human activity.

Everyone recognizes that Bill C-23 is a step in the right direction, but we could go even further. Indeed, many aspects should be considered by the legislator, including price fixing practices and the merger review process, as well as proceedings before the competition tribunal.

In that spirit, I will read an excerpt from testimony given before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology on October 17 by a representative from the Association québécoise des indépendants du pétrole. He raised a real concern with regard to the fact that, and I quote:

—access to the Competition Tribunal [would be closed] except in situations of “usual trade terms”. We put it to you that suppliers of petroleum products would only have to illustrate that they cannot supply products because of abnormal trade conditions to stall access to the Tribunal.

We propose instead that the new provisions for access to the Tribunal provide for markets where trade terms are not usual. For example, should there be a relative shortage, supply should be provided to all undertakings on a prorated basis, in keeping with the way that the market usually operates. If, for instance, the amount of product available makes it possible to respond to only 80% of normal needs, the majors and the independents should each be able to obtain 80% of their regular supply. In this way, both types of undertakings would be subject to the same conditions and none would be forced into bankruptcy because of a lack of stock. Given the uncertain international situation at the moment, such a situation might easily arise.

Therefore, it was my great pleasure to introduce in the House, seconded by my colleague, the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes, an amendment to respond to the concerns of small independent retailers. Since the Speaker did not treat us by reading the amendment in her lovely voice, I should like to take a moment now to read it for the House:

That Bill C-23 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 28 the following new clause:

“11.31 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 77:

77.1 (1) A person who alleges that they are directly affected in their business or are precluded from carrying on business due to their inability to obtain adequate supplies of a product anywhere in a market may, with leave of the Tribunal, make an application under section 75.

(2) A person who alleges that they are directly affected in their business by exclusive dealing, tied selling or market restriction may, with leave of the Tribunal, make an application under section 77.

(3) No application may be made under section 75 or 77 by a person referred to in subsection (1) or (2) more than two years after the practice has ceased.

(4) Any person making an application under section 75 or 77 shall serve the person in respect of whom the order is sought and the Commissioner with a copy of the application for leave.

(5) The Tribunal shall give notice to the Commissioner of its decision on an application for leave pursuant to this section.

(6) Within thirty days of the granting of leave to a person to make an application under section 75 or 77, the Commissioner may become a party to the application but, after thirty days, may do so only at the request of or with leave of the Tribunal.

There are two sections left that I will read quickly:

(7) Where an application is made to a court for an order under section 75 or 77 and the parties agree on the terms of the order and such terms are in accordance with the terms of this Act, whether or not any of the terms could have been imposed by the court under this Part, the order agreed to may be filed with the court for immediate registration.

(8) On being filed under subsection (7), an order shall be registered and, when registered, shall have the same force and effect, and all proceedings may be taken, as if the order had been made by the court.”

This is an amendment in which we recognize the great work done by our colleague from the riding of Ajax—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

There is one motion in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-23.

This motion was reviewed, and the Chair is of the opinion that it meets the criteria stated in the note to Standing Orders 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at report stage.

Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon by itself.

I will now put Motion No. 1 to the House.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. First, I want to apologize to the hon. member. I had hoped to get consent for the motion that I am about to put a few minutes ago between two speakers but that was not possible so I apologize to the hon. member.

There has been consultation among parties and I believe that if you were to seek it there would be consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding Standing Order 76, the House may consider Bill C-23 at report stage at second reading on Friday, December 7, 2001.

This is for the convenience of members. Instead of doing it Monday, it would be done tomorrow.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon with Bill C-24, the organized crime legislation, which is currently before the House, and at least consider the Senate's amendments to Bill C-24.

This will be followed by Bill C-15B, the criminal code amendments, as I announced yesterday to the House leaders of the other parties.

Then, if there is any time remaining today, we will continue with Bill C-27, the nuclear safety bill.

Tomorrow, we hope to pass Bill C-46, the ignition interlock device bill sponsored by the Minister of Justice, at all stages. I thank the leaders of all parties for having consented to move this through all stages before the holidays.

We will then call report stage and second reading of Bill C-23, the competition legislation. If there is any time left tomorrow, we will turn to report stage and third reading of Bill C-43, the technical amendments bill.

On Monday, we will return to the bills I have listed, and those that have not been completed, that is unfinished business from today and tomorrow.

I would remind hon. members that the budget will be presented at 4 p.m. on Monday, of course, and the budget debate, that is the debate on the amendment to the amendment—in the improbable event of some hon. members wishing to propose an amendment to the amendment—would take place on Tuesday and Wednesday, with division at the end of the day, on Wednesday.

The business scheduled for Thursday and Friday of next week, if the House is sitting, would be Bill C-42.

Committees of the House

[Susan Whelan, Liberal, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology on Bill C-23, an act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act. The committee reports the bill with amendment.

I thank all witnesses, committee members, researchers and everyone for their hard work and co-operation throughout the proceedings with respect to the bill.

Marriage Capacity Act

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas for bringing forward this issue. It is an historic day because we are debating in the House of Commons the issue of same sex marriage.

I recognize the outstanding, tireless and very passionate efforts of my colleague from Burnaby--Douglas. He has been an advocate for all human rights as well as equality for gays and lesbians in Canada and around the world for many years. His work in bringing this issue forward today so we can debate the bill and hopefully move forward is something that is very important.

I listened carefully to the debate in the House. It was disturbing to hear some of the members who spoke in opposition to the bill because the reasons and excuses they came up with were simply indefensible. At the end of the day it comes down to this: we either have equality in the country or we do not. We cannot have half equality.

Bill C-23 was a good piece of legislation in as far as it went. It did not really deal with the issue of equality in terms of marriage. Therefore I feel very strongly about the importance of the bill. We heard arguments that too many laws would have to be changed and that somehow we could not do anything because Canada was based on common law. These were all weak excuses that really did not deal with the fundamental issue before us: equality for gays and lesbians.

I was involved with Bruce Eriksen for 24 years in a common law relationship. During the course of that relationship I never opposed or denied the right of heterosexual couples to have the choice to marry. I am now involved in a same sex relationship. I do not deny or oppose anyone's choice either to be involved in a common law relationship or a relationship that is affirmed by marriage. That is really what the debate is about today.

We must be careful that we do not go down the road of hypocrisy. We heard members say that they do not support discrimination against gays and lesbians. If that is correct we must be true to what the charter says. One of the unfortunate things is that so much legislation comes about because of litigation, forcing people through the courts.

It would be preferable if parliament, as the federal body in the country that has the leadership and mandate to deal with issues like this, would send a clear signal that equality includes the right of gays and lesbians to marry if they so choose.

I hope there are other members of the House who will put aside their prejudice and discrimination and will recognize that if they support the charter and equality then they will support the bill. They will make sure people are not forced into incredible litigation when it is an issue that should be decided by the House of Commons.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver East.

It was just over a year and a half ago that we celebrated in my riding the passage of the historic Bill C-23. It was an amazing step in terms of the equality of our gay and lesbian couples, in terms of their common law relationships and being treated the same as heterosexual couples.

It is important now that the member for Burnaby--Douglas has brought to the House the final step in achieving ultimate equality for these couples. It is clear that couples who would like to formalize their relationship would like the state and their religious faith to recognize that commitment.

Our country will only ever be as strong as the individual family units that have decided that they will look after one another. It is extraordinarily important that these units are recognized and have the full right of other couples. To have any less a relationship speaks against the diversity that we welcome in this country. We must move beyond tolerance and into the respect and the true equality that is beyond the kind of discrimination that prevents these couples from marriage.

There are times for parliament to lead and this is one of them. To be spend time and money in the courts when the Canadian public is way ahead of us on this is a shame. It is truly an important time and it is disappointing that the bill is non-votable because some of the small concerns around the bill could have been very easily sorted out in committee.

It is important that we move forward in addressing this discrimination. I, together with the member for Toronto Centre--Rosedale, support the member for Burnaby--Douglas, EGALE and all the people who have worked so hard to achieve this final step in true equality for all Canadians.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Burnaby--Douglas for his initiative in presenting his bill to allow marriage between persons of the same sex.

In my opinion, it is high time we put an end to this anomaly, this discrimination which spoils the reputation of Canada and that of Quebec by expressing our collective will to fight against discriminations of all sorts.

According to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms already recognizes the equality of gays and lesbians. Therefore, how can we explain that the legislator refuses to grant same sex couples the right to marry legally? We are talking here about civil weddings of course, and I think the member explained that quite clearly in his presentation.

Last year, passage of Bill C-23 repealed almost all explicit references to the gender of partners in federal statutes. As far as we know, there are only four acts left where partners in a couple are specifically defined as heterosexual: the Divorce Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Criminal Code and the Canada Shipping Act.

What the member is asking for would require very little effort on the part of the legislators. A few amendments would suffice to put an end to this incredible discrimination.

I listened to representatives of the Liberal Party and the Canadian Alliance mention various legislative objections to passing this bill. I do not think that is what is at issue.

If a certain number of amendments to legislation must be made in order to meet the bill's objectives, we will make them but I think the crux of the matter is whether or not Canadian parliamentarians are prepared to remove this obstacle, this discrimination, in order to allow same sex couples to be married in a civil ceremony.

In my opinion, the legal arguments should naturally be consistent with our vision of respect for the freedoms and equality of all citizens of Canada and Quebec.

What is really at issue here is our concept of citizenship. Is every member of society, regardless of religion, political beliefs, sex or sexual orientation entitled to the same treatment, rights and obligations? This is where we must respond in the affirmative by making civil marriage open to same sex couples.

I am referring here to a dissenting opinion by Justice L'Heureux-Dubé, who said in a ruling concerning a civil marriage case:

Given the marginalized position of homosexuals in society, the metamessage that flows almost inevitably from excluding same-sex couples from such an important social institution--

She is referring here to civil marriage.

--is essentially that society considers such relationships to be less worthy of respect, concern and consideration than relationships involving members of the opposite sex.

I share this view entirely. In response to this comment by Justice L'Heureux-Dubé, it seems to me that we must make it very clear that citizenship as we understand it in Canada entitles one to the same rights, obligations and institutions, including civil marriage.

As I mentioned earlier, I think it is time to end this discriminatory situation, which reflects poorly on Canada.

Obviously, there is nothing preventing same sex couples from living together. This, I think, is what many of them decide to do, as do many heterosexual couples now.

However that is not the issue. It has to do with whether or not they will be given access to the institution of marriage if they so wish. Some people decide that they do want to marry. I do not see why the fact that they are a same sex couple should prevent them from being able to marry if they choose it freely. Marriage would provide them with some additional protection under certain statutes.

More fundamental, in the context of a relationship between two persons, the decision to marry can improve the quality of the relationship. This reflects their perception.

Let me give a personal example. I lived common law with my wife for several years. There came a time when we decided to marry. We felt that marriage would strengthen our commitment to each other. It meant something more than being in a common law relationship. This was our perception of the situation as a couple. There was no institution preventing us from having a civil wedding, and that is what we did in the end. This year we celebrated our 10th wedding anniversary.

As I see it, the situation is the same for same sex couples. They must have the right, if they so choose, to marry if they think that it will improve the quality of their relationship. Once again, I repeat that it is up to the couple to decide. Granting gays and lesbians access to civil marriage reflects what society believes. Clearly, the law is totally outdated on this score.

In a Canada-wide poll conducted in June by Léger Marketing, Canadians were asked if they believed homosexuals had the same rights as other Canadians: 75.7% answered yes. Thus, more than three-quarters of Canadians believe that homosexuals deserve to have all of the rights available in our society.

As concerns civil marriage more specifically, 65.4% of people said they agreed that same sex couples should be able to marry under our laws.

On a personal level, this is a commitment or a position I have had for over 15 years at least. As for unions, as the secretary general of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux since the early 1990s, I fought for the removal from collective agreements of all existing discrimination with regard to same sex couples. We worked hard at that, which led to passage of legislation on this subject by the National Assembly. I think we have to follow that logic through to its conclusion and give same sex couples access to the institution of civil marriage.

During the election campaign I also made a commitment to ensure that gays and lesbians had access to all the civil rights in Canada, including the right to get married. In my case, this is tied in with this notion of citizenship, which I find extremely important. I share the opinion of the hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas that, following the events of September 11, Canada must become even more exemplary with regard to the defence of rights and freedoms. What we are doing here is, first and foremost, fighting for rights and freedoms.

I will conclude by saying that two of my three children are still rather young and I do not know yet what sexual orientation they will choose. No matter what their choice will be I hope they will not become social outcasts and will have access to the same rights as all the citizens of Canada.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

moved that Bill C-264, an act to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act (marriage between persons of the same sex), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, today is an historic day for the gay and lesbian community in Canada. It is the first time in Canadian history that legislation is being debated that would allow gay or lesbian couples to legally marry in Canada.

I want to begin my comments this morning by thanking some of my colleagues in the House for supporting this landmark bill. I want to first thank my colleague, the member of parliament for Vancouver East, for seconding the bill and for her long history of support for equality for gay and lesbian people throughout Canada.

I also want to thank those members of the Liberal Party who supported the bill: the member for Toronto Centre--Rosedale, the member for St. Paul's and others. I hear some Liberal backbenchers heckling and indicating they do not support the bill. I would ask that they at least show respect for their own colleagues and for other members of the House. They may not accept equality but surely they can accept the right of members of the House to debate this important issue in an atmosphere of civility and dignity.

I would also like to thank the members of the Bloc Quebecois who supported this important bill and especially the member for Hochelaga--Maisonneuve, who cannot participate in the debate this morning but who has, for a long time, been promoting justice and equality for gay and lesbian communities in Canada. I also thank the member for Joliette, who will participate in the debate and support the bill.

I would also like to extend my appreciation to the member for Kings--Hants from the Progressive Conservative Democratic Coalition for his support for the principle of this important legislation.

It is clear that the Canadian public is well ahead of political leaders and of the government when it comes to this important issue of the basic right of equality of gay and lesbian people who choose to marry to be able to do so. The most recent public opinion poll showed that something like two-thirds of Canadians across Canada in every region of Canada were prepared to accept this equality. We are not talking about any kind of special rights or privileges. What we are talking about are equal rights, equal rights that are guaranteed to gay and lesbian people under section 15 of the charter of rights and freedoms.

Under section 15 of our charter, which came into force in April 1985, all Canadians are equal. With respect to gay and lesbian people, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that gay and lesbian people are included under section 15 when they are involved in committed and loving relationships.

We have certainly made significant progress on the journey toward full equality both federally and at the provincial and territorial level. Last year landmark legislation was passed in the House of Commons, Bill C-23, legislation that extended a whole range of rights and responsibilities to gay and lesbian people and couples.

However Bill C-23 fell short in the critical area of recognition of the right to marry. In one of the final days of debate on the bill, the Liberal Minister of Justice introduced an amendment that shamefully explicitly excluded affirmation of the right of gay and lesbian people to marry.

I am confident the courts will ultimately rule that equality means equality and that we as gay and lesbian people should be entitled to the equal right to marriage.

I also want to acknowledge the important work EGALE has done on the issue of equality for gays and lesbians and on many other issues. EGALE is a national organization that speaks out on behalf of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people across the country. It has been tireless in its advocacy of equality and I salute the members of EGALE for continuing to work hard on this issue.

Many individuals, couples and organizations across the land have supported the right to full equality. I am proud as a New Democrat that my party is the only national party with a clear policy that calls for recognition of equality for gay and lesbian people in marriage and in all other areas of society. I speak today on behalf of the members of my caucus and the leader of my party, the member for Halifax, who has also, from the very beginning of her career and days in politics, been a tireless advocate for equality for gay and lesbian people.

A number of churches and religious leaders have also been in the forefront of this struggle. I particularly want to acknowledge the work done by Rev. Brent Hawkes of the Metropolitan Community Church who has been promoting equality for many years. On January 14, 2001, Rev. Brent Hawkes, the pastor of the Metropolitan Community Church in Toronto, celebrated the marriage between Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell, as well as the marriage of Elaine Vautour and Anne Vautour.

As Rev. Brent Hawkes said:

We look forward to the day, when Canada embraces the diversity of all people, and legally recognizes what God already knows--that love has no bounds.

The bill itself is a very short bill. It is entitled the Marriage Capacity Act and states that “a marriage between two persons is not invalid by reason only that they are of the same sex”.

I would note parenthetically that obviously all of the existing barriers to marriage, for example, barriers to marriage between relatives, or between brothers and sisters, remain in the existing legislation under the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act. Nothing changes that at all. Those barriers remain.

This would simply remove the common law barrier to same sex marriage. I would like to emphasize that this barrier goes back to a decision in the British courts from 1886 in a case called Hyde v Hyde. Those were the days when marriage had a very different meaning. In fact those were the days in which within the institution of marriage rape was legal and violence was legal. A husband was allowed to beat his wife as long as the stick that he used was no wider than the width of his thumb. Certainly a precedent dating back to those days and that recognition of marriage is not one which should be used to deny equality to gay and lesbian people today. It should certainly not be used in that way.

Indeed there are challenges to that. As I said, there is no statutory bar at the federal level. It is strictly judge made law and in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia there are currently cases proceeding in the courts to challenge that legal barrier.

In Quebec, a gay couple launched a court challenge, and we hope the two partners will win their case.

In Ontario the city of Toronto is supporting that legal challenge and in British Columbia the former attorney general, Andrew Petter, had the courage to speak out in support of the legal challenge as well.

There has been one ruling to date specifically on these challenges. It came in a British Columbia court decision by Mr. Justice Ian Pitfield, and I must say that many of us were astonished at that decision because it flies in the face of not only justice and reason but fairness. He found that the constitution of Canada itself, in his words, expressed an intention that discrimination would be permitted. This is an extraordinary ruling and one that I am confident will be overturned by the courts when it goes to the British Columbia Court of Appeal and ultimately to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The bill would change the law to allow those gay and lesbian people who choose to marry to do so. It would not in any way affect religious marriage and it is important to underline that. It is strictly about civil marriage. Those faiths that are prepared to celebrate and affirm the marriages of gay and lesbian couples within their faith community would be permitted to do so. Those not prepared to do so would not in any way be required or forced to do so. Just as, for example, within some faiths there are barriers to interfaith marriages today that are not legally challenged in any way so too would that discretion still be there for religions not prepared to recognize the equality of their gay and lesbian parishioners.

I might be asked, what difference does marriage make and why do gay and lesbian people want the right, the choice, the option of marriage? I think it is important to recognize that marriage is the most prominent way today in which two persons' romantic love and commitment to each other are recognized and affirmed. Excluding gay and lesbian people from the institution of marriage sends a clear message that our relationships, the relationships of same sex couples, are somehow not as worthy of recognition and affirmation. On the other hand, including same sex marriages in civil marriage would send a positive message to all Canadians, one that says that regardless of whether someone loves a man or a woman that love will be valued, honoured, affirmed and treated with equal dignity and respect.

I often have the privilege of speaking in schools in my constituency and elsewhere. Kids like to talk about the lives of members of parliament and they ask what kind of life I have, what the challenges are, what I like about the job and what is difficult about the job. Sometimes kids will ask if I am married. I tell them I am not married, that I have a partner whose name is Max, we have been together for seven years and love one another very much, we want to spend the rest of our lives together and that relationship is very important to us and is the most important relationship in my life. Those kids will often ask why I cannot get married or why I do not get married or if I do not want to marry him. I tell them I do want to and I would like to have that choice, but I do not have it because the laws of this country do not allow me, as a gay man, that choice.

How would giving me and my partner Max that choice in any way weaken heterosexual marriage? How would it in any way weaken the strength, the love, the commitment of heterosexual partnerships? It would not change that at all. Surely heterosexual marriage is not so fragile that allowing gay and lesbian people to marry would cause it to come tumbling down like a house of cards. Surely in this time of such pain, in the aftermath of the horrors of September 11, any steps that we can take as a society to strengthen the affirmation of love in our society in a positive way is something we should be encouraging.

Marriage is about love and commitment. It is true that some gay and lesbian couples would not want to get married if that choice were available, just as some heterosexual couples choose to live common law, but surely we should recognize the right of choice. Canada would not be the first country to do so. The Netherlands moved earlier this year to fully recognize marriage for gay and lesbian couples.

I am confident that it will happen in Canada as well, but why should gay and lesbian people be forced through the courts? Why should we be wasting taxpayers' money to fight for this small but important step on the road to full equality?

Sometimes it is said that we cannot allow gay and lesbian people to marry because marriage is about children and procreation. The best answer to that came in a very eloquent editorial in the Globe and Mail just this month. It said:

The issue of children is a red herring; many couples who are married do not procreate, many couples procreate outside marriage and many gay couples raise children, adopted or conceived with the egg or sperm of one partner. Expanding the tent would enable loving gays in committed relationships to agree to the solemn obligations of the marriage contract. And what are we talking of, if not respect for family values?

That is what I want to appeal to today in closing, those traditional family values. We as gay and lesbian people are families also. The bill would allow the full and equal recognition of our families. I call on all members of the House to support this important legislation.

Competition Act

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON]

moved that Bill C-248, an act to amend the Competition Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of the members of the House as well as those who, like myself, sat on the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I would also like to take this opportunity to say that this is not the first time, that we have been given the consent of the House to discuss the issue of competition. It has happened on numerous occasions.

I am pleased to be here today to discuss Bill C-248, which in the previous parliament was known as Bill C-509. The bill deals with a substantive change to section 96 of the Competition Act. It is part and parcel of the efficiencies defence. There is the following exception in the Competition Act:

The Tribunal shall not make an order under section 92 if it finds that the merger or proposed merger in respect of which the application is made has brought about or is likely to bring about gains in efficiency that will be greater than, and will offset, the effects of any prevention or lessening of competition that will result or is likely to result from the merger or proposed merger and that the gains in efficiency would not likely be attained if the order were made.

These are the factors to be considered. On July 20, 1998, Superior Propane announced that it was about to formalize an agreement with ICG from Petro-Canada. Some three weeks later the competition commissioner commenced the inquiry into the transaction as is required under law for all merger reviews.

On December 1, 1998, the commissioner applied to the Competition Tribunal for an interim order to prevent the completion of the transaction. The tribunal rejected the application and the parties completed the transaction.

The commissioner filed to obtain a divestiture order from the tribunal under section 92 of the Competition Act that would have Superior divest itself of ICG. On December 11 the tribunal issued a hold separate order pending its decision.

In the period of time from December 11, 1998 to August 30, 2000 the tribunal announced in a rather interesting landmark precedent setting decision based on section 96 that it was dismissing the application brought forward by the competition commissioner under section 92.

It found that the merger was likely to prevent competition in Atlantic Canada and lessen competition substantially in many local markets and for national account customers. The majority of the tribunal dismissed the application brought by the competition commissioner pursuant to section 92 on the grounds that the respondents had been successful in demonstrating their efficiency defence in accordance with section 96.

The commissioner appealed that finding. I introduced the first bill on October 17. On April 4, 2001, on the request of the competition commissioner the Federal Court of Appeal allowed an appeal.

In the decision on that date the court ruled that the tribunal incorrectly applied the efficiency defence in section 96 of the Competition Act. It found that according to the tribunal the fact that the merged entity of Superior and ICG would eliminate all consumer choice and remove all competition in the propane supply market, as it is likely to do in Atlantic Canada, is not an effect that legally can be weighed under section 96 against the inefficiency gains in the merger.

Justice Evans looked at the decision and stated that such a conclusion seemed so at odds with the stated purpose of the act, namely to maintain and encourage competition and the statutory objectives to be achieved thereby, as to cast serious doubt on the correctness of the tribunal's interpretation.

The federal court effectively ordered that the matter be remitted to the tribunal for determination and in effect to rehear the case.

In his case the competition commissioner stated that the court agreed the efficiency defence was not intended to sanction mergers that result in a monopoly or a near monopoly without taking the impact on consumers into consideration. The issue was then appealed by Superior to the Supreme Court of Canada which literally refused to hear Superior's appeal.

We have an example of where private members' business and initiatives by the House have anticipated a concern in many respects. If we think for a moment about the potential impact this had on the farming community in western Canada, suppliers, producers and consumers in Atlantic Canada, and ultimately its devastating impact on the competitive process, the decision by members of parliament to correctly put this issue before the House of Commons and deem it votable was the correct one.

Last year I was responsible for assisting a number of Canadians through a very difficult winter when energy prices were soaring, much as a result of arbitraging the market.

We saw natural gas prices, home heating fuel, propane and the like all rising rather dramatically and suddenly, causing the government to try to take correct appropriate action to help stave off what would have otherwise been a perilous situation for many Canadians. I compliment the government for having taken that position. I believe it was the correct one at the time.

I also believe the House has a responsibility to ensure that our Competition Act is interpreted in such a way that the precedent set by the Competition Tribunal is clearly set aside by the House of Commons.

There may be members of parliament who would dare to suggest that this is rule made law and that somehow the supreme court or the federal court has made decisions. I assure the House that they have not come to any decision. We must ensure with respect to Bill C-248, if we are to qualify the efficiencies defence in the Competition Act, that those efficiencies and gains which occur when two entities merge together to create a substantial and possibly dangerous monopoly are found to be transferred either to customers or to consumers, not simply to individuals who happen to see a good deal, take over their competitor, shut their operations down and consolidate their monopoly.

This is the shortcoming of the way in which the act is written. The act also suggests incorrectly that it is possible to use a hypothetical economic efficiencies defence argument. Again there is no clarification. Parliament is being called upon to ensure that the clarification coming from those who understand the Competition Act as I do, because I have interpreted and worked in many facets of that act, also gives them an opportunity to have a say in terms of how the deliberation occurs.

I well understand there will be those who will make the argument that it is before the courts. I can assure my hon. colleagues it is not sub judice. It is not a criminal matter. This is before the Competition Tribunal, a quasi-judicial body which will have to hear it again. I suspect the decision may very well come ultimately some time in the month of January.

That does not preclude parliament because it ultimately wrote the Competition Act with the help of certain very powerful individuals in 1996.

I am interested in this issue because I also find that even our friends at the OECD make it very clear to many of us who have looked at the issue time and time again that using gains in efficiency is simply not acceptable.

As I try to find the appropriate document, it is very clear to me that other international bodies have already spoken very eloquently to the need to ensure that a merger request which results in and is designed to create an efficiency situation for a particular entity is not used in a way that does not see the value being returned to customers or consumers or, more important, to offend the competitive process.

OECD roundtable No. 4 competition policy on efficiency claims and mergers and other horizontal agreements states very clearly:

--there is a clear limit for the efficiency defence: the elimination of competition. Therefore, even if the parties can prove that an agreement would bring about high efficiency gains, these efficiencies are not able to justify an elimination of competition.

It says, in terms of the European act:

--85(3) provides for a kind of “sliding scale”: the more competition is restricted by means of co-operative agreement the higher the efficiency gains have to be in order to qualify for an exemption--up to the limit where effective competition is eliminated--

Given the OECD's position, given what we experienced last winter in a very cold winter for many, and given what the House has seen with respect to the right decision that was taken by a competition commissioner, I do not think we have much time for silly arguments that it should not be considered because we want to wait for the tribunal to ultimately make a decision.

It is not that we in the House want to rush judicial or quasi-judicial interpretations. The interpretation of the federal court not to hear this and the decision taken by the commission bears out the validity. This is a clear sign that members of the House should take inventory of what is currently before us and be able to point the Competition Act in a direction to ensure that above all it meets the goals and expectations of the Competition Act.

I want to point out to members of parliament that the federal court did point out the purpose and interpretation. Article 1.1 of the Competition Act states:

The purpose of this Act is to maintain and encourage competition in Canada in order to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy, in order to expand opportunities for Canadian participation in world markets while at the same time recognizing the role of foreign competition in Canada, in order to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises have an equitable opportunity to participate in the Canadian economy and in order to provide consumers with competitive prices and product choices.

A lot of us in the House have this great fear that if a large corporation says it must be bad, and it has a few jobs in the riding, we should ultimately ignore the plight of many of our small and medium sized enterprises and, more important, the very people who elect us, the consumers of this country.

We have every bit of evidence to demonstrate that there are shortcomings in the Competition Act. I will not get into the details as to who wrote the act. No doubt a select group of individuals may have had something to do with it. However I assure members that when it comes to the interpretation of this important regulatory body, which is there to protect a market oriented process, it is the plaything of a select group of individuals who, in their infinite wisdom and reason, may have another interest, and that is of course of their clients. In the House of Commons, we have a greater obligation to the broad public interests in this country.

That is why I say that the provisions in the bill make good sense. I urge other members to support them, not just to improve competition but also to assure our constituents that this parliament is alive, is capable of being effective and can easily react to problems peculiar to the times we live in.

That is why I am here, not just to debate the issue of competition. Obviously there are other members sitting on various committees. Generally speaking they recognize the need to supply our country and to anchor this bill in reality.

It is important to infuse a reality check in what we are doing here. I commend members of parliament who have worked with me on previous endeavours and initiatives such as Bill C-235 in the last parliament.

Mr. Speaker, you were part of the Liberal committee on gasoline pricing many years ago. On a very cold day in January you invited us to talk about the plight of individuals who could not get supplies or consumers who were having difficulties. I recall that it was in Timmins where people were forced to pay 10 cents or 15 cents more than people were in southern Ontario. Everybody knew that driving a truckful of gasoline from the Toronto refineries all the way up to Timmins could cost no more than a cent or two a litre more. Yet we were seeing various discrepancies of 10 cents to 15 cents and even more in remote areas.

That is only one segment. The media will also look at gasoline. I find it funny when my little four year old son, Bradley, calls me the gas man. I am not sure what he means by that. However, I assure hon. members that the concerns this side of the House has raised, and I see that members on the other side of the House are starting to raise similar concerns with respect to the Competition Act and gasoline, apply to a general pattern of concentration in Canada which is in need of review.

We know that concentration may be, of necessity, an inevitability of globalization. We have the authority and the ability to ensure that at the end of the process its effects can be minimized if consumer choice is removed or, worse, if consumers are forced to pay more for a product which in many respects is one that comes from under the ground or is harnessed by other means.

A nation that is abundant in so many resources finds itself in a bit of a contradiction where it may pay more for its products or have less choice than our competitors south of the border.

I do not want to go on at great length about that. The reason that parliament should now address the efficiency defence is important because a dangerous precedent has been set.

The tribunal said that it was okay to have a harmful, anti-competitive merger as long as one could prove that one could have some kind of efficiency gain. It did not say to whom that efficiency gain had to go, but presumably corporations are not stupid. They will put it in their own pocket. That will benefit those who are interested from a shareholder's perspective.

However that flies in the face of the intention of parliament in 1986. The parliament of today must ensure the enhancement of the competitive process whereby consumers and business can enjoy the fruits and labour of a competitive process. It is for these reasons that parliament has an obligation to ensure that it provides timely and effective responses to individuals who may from time to time find themselves without a voice.

I find it interesting and passing strange that in terms of this bill and other bills that come before the House on the issue of competition, and we see this in committees, the only individuals who tend to speak out against these things are people who are there on behalf of very large entities. The irony is that at many of the meetings I attend off Hill and on Hill as a guest speaker, an intervener or facilitator, I always see the same people.

One of the most important pieces of legislation including amendments and considerations tends to be decided by a handful of individuals. The same individuals probably have a lot to do with being able to attend various international competition conferences around the world. It is interesting because they tend to knock the lack of timing, effectiveness and efficiency of our competition bureau.

I would probably have some cause with that except I see it from their perspective. They are not getting their mergers quickly enough. They think that the process of enforcement in the writing of the guidelines should be toward their own ends.

I think that is a very dangerous thing for us to observe. In papers like the National Post and the Financial Post we always see articles written about how international bodies, which tend to be our own competition lawyers who work for some of the largest corporations in this country, are out slagging the bureau. They cannot do it locally, they have to do it internationally and hide behind that sort of shield.

Let us expose this for what it is. Let us begin to take back a piece of legislation that is important to all of us. It is a piece of legislation that is critical to the good functioning of our economy. We need to stand and become relevant as members of parliament to ensure that a handful of individuals is not going to be the gatekeeper of what is in that act. If they can get away with it in the Competition Act, I am sure there are possibilities for them to do it elsewhere in other pieces of legislation.

Just to qualify, that is not to suggest there is not an important reflection and review of the Competition Act. Again, it is very strange that I always see the same individuals coming forward. Members of parliament more often than not receive criticism from small business or consumers who are left with no choice and wonder why there is no effective enforcement of our act, real or perceived. We as members of parliament are their best shot. It is for that reason members of parliament have to take the time to write legislation that makes sense, that is reviewed within the context of the decisions that are made, but also responds effectively to the needs of Canadians.

This bill is the third such bill that has been made votable on the Competition Act which I have been able to bring forward. With the private right of access I am proposing with respect to Bill C-23, I believe we are now making headway. It is important to recognize that I applaud the government for allowing members to do this, but let this not stop in the House. Let us ensure that the Senate also understands its validity and impact on Canadians.

I believe we will have gone a long way not only to address the shortcomings that are clear and abundantly obvious to anyone, including our government and opposition, with respect to the Competition Act, but we will have done something to improve legislation generally in Canada and earn our own pay.

Petitions

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions from different groups. One is a petition from people in Shelburne County on Bill C-23 from the 36th parliament. They would like to petition on the clarification of marriage.

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in the debate. Many of the comments I would like to make have been made quite eloquently by previous speakers. However there are some points I would like to add in order to add clarity and in some cases to point out the contrast in the point of view of our caucus.

We believe there is a role for omnibus bills in the House of Commons. The very idea of having an omnibus bill is not in and of itself some affront to democracy.

There are times when using the omnibus bill as an instrument to achieve administrative tasks helps to speed up issues of social justice. Bill C-23, the same sex benefits legislation, was passed in the 36th parliament. We would have used the entire parliamentary session on that one subject had we been forced to go through the laborious process of debating each stage or every bill that had some reference to same sex benefits. By using the omnibus bill process we were able to implement those changes with one debate. I believe the public recognized that and appreciated what we were doing.

What we are dealing with today is quite a different matter. We are not dealing with one subject spread out over many different bills. We are dealing with many different and unique concepts within the realm of the criminal justice system. These are all quite separate issues which merit individual debate and which have complex circumstances surrounding them.

It is hard to justify using the instrument of the omnibus bill in dealing with these things. It makes one wonder and a bit suspect of why the government chose to fold all these together into one package.

Having heard many of the speakers today, I am ready to accept a bit of subterfuge on the government's part. It is a way of introducing through the back door subject matter or bills that it does not really want debated in the full light of day under the scrutiny of debate.

It puts members in a very awkward position. It does a disservice, not only to the issues which have merits of their own that warrant the full scrutiny of public debate, but also to the many Canadians who are waiting in many cases for years to have these issues dealt with by parliament.

The one example that everyone cites first is the luring of children on the Internet for the purposes of sexual exploitation. That has been around in the form of private members' bills since I came to parliament. Chris Axworthy, the former member for Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar, had a private member's bill dealing with that subject as early as 1989.

A significant number of Canadians flag this as a serious social problem and look to parliament to intervene by finally introducing some steps to put a stop to this terrible threatening practice to the nation's children. Those people have been waiting for a decade or more for some satisfaction, and now they are being held up again unnecessarily.

We all agree that if it were introduced as a separate bill we could have adopted it in one day with unanimous consent of the House. That is how the debate around that subject has matured and developed to the point where consensus has been reached. That is something we all agree we want.

The government then ties to that, attaches and suckers on to that, a number of things where frankly there is no agreement reached. In other words it is trying to sneak some things in through the back door, cashing in on our eager and genuine interest to have that one particular bill passed.

The analogy I would use, and I think others would use it, is that it is like tied selling. In the financial community there is an unethical practice called tied selling. If people want to finance mortgages through a mortgage broker.,the broker will not give them a good rate unless they also agree to do their car loans through that broker and put their credit card loans through that broker.

In other words the deal is packaged. In order for those people to get what they want, they will have to accept a bunch of things that they neither want nor need and are vehemently opposed to, as in the case of a number of opposition parties that have spoken against some of the other issues.

Another example where there is broad consensus across the country is that we would be eager to adopt and accept readily the issue of the laws dealing with crimes where people disarm police officers and execute crimes with weapons they have taken from them.

Members of the police association visited most members of parliament. I think they went away feeling that just about every member of parliament in the House committed to them that if and when that piece of legislation came forward it would have broad acceptance in the House.

That is one piece of legislation we could agree on. Again it could be dealt with tonight if there were the political will. That could be introduced and we all believe the country would be a better and safer place for it. Yet it is being held away from us. It is being deliberately kept out of arm's reach by the ruling party, by the Liberal government, so that it can force down our throats a bunch of things that we are not interested in, we do not want, and some people are vehemently opposed to.

This is a bastardization of democracy as has been pointed out by other opposition members. It affronts basic democratic principles when the omnibus bill process is used in that way.

Another issue I very much want dealt with from my own personal point of view and the point of view of the riding I represent, an inner city core riding in downtown Winnipeg, is home invasion. We would finally have legislation, were this bill to ever get through, to deal with the relatively new issue of people being accosted and assaulted in their own homes by thugs.

This piece of legislation would contemplate dealing with that type of break and entry differently from a normal break and entry. That is valuable. That is important. That is necessary. Canadians want it. Canadians are eager for it. Again it is being denied to them so that the government can achieve other secondary purposes.

It makes us wonder if it is really worth it. The three things I have cited are of great importance and of great interest to Canadians. What is so special about the cruelty to animals bill, for instance, that is worth denying Canadians what they want in all these other important areas of criminal justice?

I have heard the subject raised. I am not from a farm background. I have a more difficult time grasping the concept. However, as I understand it, and perhaps people could correct me if I am mistaken, the bill would almost humanize animals to the point where the treatment of an animal would be the same as the treatment of a human being in terms of cruelty.

That is a huge leap which warrants debate. That is the type of debate which should take place independently in the House of Commons because it is a fundamental change in the way we view the world around us. It should not be bunched in with a bunch of other pieces of legislation.

For those reasons I too as an opposition member am critical of this use of omnibus legislation. I want to see legislation on child pornography on the Internet. I want to see home invasion legislation and I want to see the disarming of police officers specifically referred to in the criminal justice code. The other things I am not interested in. Let us hide them, separate them, deal with them quickly for everybody's best interest.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise in part to say how much I enjoy the speeches from the member for Elk Island. He has a very soothing way of addressing the House of Commons. It is not unlike the late, great Mr. Dressup who just passed away recently. His oratorical style reminds me a bit of Mr. Dressup.

I would like to ask the member for his point of view on one subject. In his opening comments he spoke on the relative merits of the omnibus bill as a concept. Would he agree with me that the idea of the omnibus bill does have its place? For instance, in a case like Bill C-23 it was necessary to make the same change to a bunch of different bills all at once. In that case it was to make sure that same sex benefits were provided to gay and lesbian couples. This had to be corrected in a number of bills at the same time just for the sake of process.

However, would he also agree that when we try to put together an omnibus bill that is actually many different things rolled into one it then starts to resemble what we see in the financial sector, what they call tied selling? Someone goes into a bank asking for a mortgage and the lender says he can give him a rate of 6.5% if he moves over his car loan and takes out a credit card with that bank. That is tied selling. In other words, to get what he wants he will have to accept a bunch of things that he does not want.

Would he agree with me that this bill is tantamount to tied selling, which is illegal and for which measures are put into place so unscrupulous people cannot force things upon other people in that way? Would he see the comparison?

Competition Act

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-23 today on behalf of our industry critic, the member for Kings—Hants, who has been very much involved with these issues.

All of us are involved with competition issues almost every day. During my former job as transportation critic there were several instances where the competition bureau was involved, especially during the evolution of the airline industry. There was a lot of involvement by the competition bureau when Canadian Airlines was consumed by Air Canada. There still is and will be for some time.

The competition bureau has outlined rules whereby Air Canada must allow competition to start and flourish in order to create a competitive environment in the aviation industry in Canada. Air Canada is so strong that it effectively could put new companies out of business before they even start. It can subsidize four revenue lines from its better revenue lines, thereby competing with other smaller airlines that do not have access to the more profitable lines. It can lower rates on its lower revenue lines by subsidizing from the higher revenue lines.

Everyone understands how the system works. Air Canada has complied quite astutely but the competition bureau has been involved in a couple of cases. That is just an example of what we are talking about here.

I have another example that is a little closer to home. A member of my family received a call saying that she had won a car or some huge prize. She had to call a 1-900 number and answer a few skill testing questions. I remember that the low end of the prize award was $2.73 and the high end was a car. When she called the number she was kept on the line for almost an hour. They charged her a lot of money, and sure enough she had won the $2.73. It was a total scam to make money on the phone call.

Another senior lady in my riding was scammed out of hundreds of thousands of dollars by two or three different outfits from the province of Quebec. They were the same people who just changed names, identities and addresses. They used all kinds of excuses to access this lady's money. In the end she lost her home and her money. It was a confidence scam. She should have had quick and easy access to the Competition Act to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

Our party is pleased to see these amendments come in. It is a credit to parliamentarians and private members' bills that have come before. They have all been generated by people who have come to us as members of parliament and advised us that they had been scammed, cheated or were victims of abuse in some way.

Members of parliament have responded by raising the issue with several private members' bills which are now reflected in Bill C-23. Quite often people do not give us credit but the system actually does work. It may take a while but it does work.

People are concerned about issues of conspiracy, bid rigging, predatory pricing, misleading advertising and deceptive marketing practices. Many of us have been victims of those practices, including me and certainly some of my constituents. When the bill is in its final form hopefully it will address those issues.

Non-criminal or reviewable matters include mergers, abuse of dominant positions and people taking advantage of others. They may not be criminal but they are reviewable and they are not fair. This is where the competition commissioner should have the power to intervene and protect the citizens who have no other avenue or no other source of protection.

The competition tribunal and the competition commissioner have done a good job with the tools they have had to work with. Bill C-23 would give them more tools. In any case I have been involved in the competition commissioner has done a thorough investigation, has heard both sides of the story and has done a good job.

The bill was developed because parliamentarians responded to citizens through private members' bills. However it has also come about through consultations across the country, through public policy forums and a consultation paper that formed the basis of the discussions entitled “Amending the Competition Act: A Discussion Paper on Meeting the Needs of the Global Economy”. All these sources of information certainly enhanced the bill.

Part of the issue is international co-operation. That is important because the same people from the province of Quebec who were scamming other people were doing the same in the United States. The American authorities had limited access to address this issue because of international rules. The bill would allow a closer relationship between the law enforcement offices and the competition bureaus of both countries to deal with these international issues.

The bill would deal with deceptive practices such as the notice of winning a prize as in the case of my family member. A lot of Canadian companies are providing these services or promoting these scams in the U.S. The same can happen the other way around. American companies can scam Canadians. There has to be some international co-operation, and the bill would do that.

The bill intends to streamline the litigation progress, which is a good thing. It would help the tribunal that manages each case it hears to be more efficient and to give easier access to people. The tribunal would be able to award costs against a party, which is also a good thing. Many people have taken on incredible legal bills to fight the mail and telephone scams I have mentioned. In a decision the tribunal would at least be able to award costs to the victims.

The tribunal would gain the power to summarily dispose of a matter that it believes has no genuine basis for application. That is a good thing as well. Frivolous actions are taken and it would have the power to determine whether or not an action is frivolous.

Under the new proposal the bureau would be able to issue temporary or interim orders prior to completion of the litigation. This was perhaps led by some of the Air Canada judgments. Powers would be given to the competition commissioner in the aviation case. It could make judgments early and immediately, before the case even comes to the tribunal.

Therefore there is a lot of good in the bill. Our party is anxious to get it to committee as well. We want to make sure that it has teeth, as the government has proposed. We want to make sure the teeth are actually there. We want to make sure the competition bureau is independent. We want to emphasize that this whole issue evolved from citizens complaining to members of parliament, who brought it forward in private members' bills and now in a government bill.

We will be pleased to see the bill go to committee and we will make our decisions and amendments there.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, this morning we are debating Bill C-23, an act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act.

In essence the bill brings together a number of initiatives from MPs' private members bills. It is a bit of a cobble of a number of bills and initiatives proposed by various members on, among other things, the practices and procedures of the competition tribunal.

There are four aspects to the bill. One concerns changes to the procedures of the competition tribunal in order to make it more effective.

Another aspect concerns the interim orders the competition tribunal can issue to prevent situations causing such lengthy prejudice that a corporation, even if it knows it is causing a prejudice, will eliminate a competitor and prevent his or her subsequent return.

The aim of it is to eliminate a practice that could make it advantageous to behave illegally, since it means that competitors will be eliminated and that the price to pay for this is perhaps less than the value of the resultant benefit. The tribunal could have more teeth and greater effectiveness as regards these two aspects.

There are also amendments to facilitate international co-operation. In this age of globalization and rapidly evolving communications technologies, we now know that greater international co-operation is needed to improve the effectiveness of the consumer protection measures in the Competition Act.

A fourth aspect of the bill, which everyone has heard about and which is perhaps the simplest to understand, includes amendments to prohibit deceptive contests, the kind that suggest we have won something and must pay money to receive our prize. The bill contains provisions which make it an offence to send a deceptive notice by electronic or regular mail to an individual suggesting that he or her she has won a price and must pay money to receive it. We know that this kind of practice very often leads to abuses and questionable situations.

I therefore urge everyone to exercise the greatest caution. When people win something and have entered no contest they should be on their guard. There is something very fishy about this and, in general, the problems will be greater than the rewards. There have been so many abuses in this area that the time has come for legislators to send a clearer message that these practices will be dealt with much more severely.

The bill has many laudable goals. We will obviously have to examine it in greater detail in parliamentary committee. Then we will debate it in the House again. We will be able to hear from witnesses on various subjects they feel we should know more about. We will also have to take into account the jurisdictions of the various levels in order to ensure that the bill respects the work already being done by the provinces. I am thinking, for instance, of Quebec, with its Consumer Protection Act.

Before having had the opportunity to examine the bill in detail, one has to wonder how it will ensure that consumers are well protected when a province already has consumer protection legislation to regulate such practices and the federal government gets involved with the Competition Act? There is a grey area but I am sure that the work done in committee will shed more light on this issue.

This is what the bill is all about. My disappointment has to do with the fact that while the government is dealing with competition issues, one of the great frustrations and concerns of consumers right now is the gasoline issue and the behaviour of the oil industry.

If the government is serious about finding tools to improve business and competitive practices, the oil industry definitely deserves greater attention because gas prices are reaching record levels and are constantly increasing. The prospect of paying even more for a litre of gas is a major concern to consumers, to those whose livelihood is dependent on an industry in which transportation is an important component and to those who live in regions where transportation is an unavoidable reality and a major production cost.

That is the case in a region like mine, the Abitibi-Témiscamingue. We have to make heavy use of trucking to get our products out and others in, which adds considerably to our production costs. It affects agriculture and it affects the trucking industry. In the urban centres, it affects the taxi industry. Thus there are many groups affected by the rise in prices. I do not need to list them all but many people are seriously penalized by high gasoline prices.

It is not true that the increase in the price per barrel is the only reason we are paying such a high price at present. The trade practices of the major oil companies are dubious, to say the least, and unfortunately are not being given any specific scrutiny by the government.

We would have liked to have seen action on a number of fronts, such as, first, in the short term, helping out the consumer by doing something about the tax in order to keep the prices down. At the same time, however, something needs to be done about the variables of competition.

There is no way I will ever be convinced that it is normal competitive practice for major competitors such as the big oil companies to always all have the same prices at the same time, for gas stations on four corners of an intersection to raise prices at exactly the same time in one place, while another place only a few kilometres away will have different prices. The transportation variable does not explain these price differences, nor do the variables of competition.

Certain trade practices are used to do in all the little independents. It is very clear that this is the strategy and action plan of the major companies. Obviously it is in their interest, and understandably so; they are in business to make money. If we do not do something they will use these strategies to increase their share of the market.

I cannot believe, and this is a common perception, that the business practices of these firms cannot comply with the usual rules of competition. There is a sort of collusion between these companies. A mechanism must be put in place to continually monitor the conduct of the oil industry. For example, let us give the competition bureau additional means to set up an oil industry monitoring section. Let us ensure that the law makes sentencing or proof of anti-competitive practices easier to obtain. In this regard, I wish the current bill had opened this window.

In committee, we will study the subjects presented. Obviously, people will appear before the committee, but I fear that when we study the bill we will limit ourselves to the subject matter of the bill and not deal with this very important section of the Competition Act or the ways in which competitive practices in the oil industry may be improved.

Here, I repeat remarks shared by many of the members opposite at one time. Over 50 of them signed a report stating that the Canadian market was a real treat for the oil companies. The report also stated that, on average, Canadian consumers were paying 4 cents or 5 cents more for a litre of gas than U.S. consumers, and that taxes should be removed because of competitive practices in Canada where the federal government's approach to promoting the establishment of a strong industry has gone too far, to the extent that this was done at consumers' expense.

I am somewhat surprised to see that only a few still hold this view, that the others have forgotten that they signed this report and that this issue is no longer one of their political priorities even though it is more important than ever to consumers.

I hope that at third reading some substantial amendments will have been made to improve competitive practices in the oil industry and to control these companies somewhat. People can no longer stand to see these companies making huge profits while they are paying exorbitant prices for gas.

This has to stop at some point. We must send the signal that we are concerned about this situation. Even though the bill has some good features, it overlooks an extremely important component in our daily lives, namely the oil industry. I find this difficult to accept.

I hope that in the end the bill will include a clause amending the mandate of the competition bureau regarding the oil industry.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, the purpose of the motion is to provide members of the House with a greater role in preparing legislation through House of Commons committees. It is only the third of three bills referred to committee before second reading in this parliament.

On behalf of the Minister of Industry I am very pleased that Bill C-23, an act to amend the Competition Act and its related statute, the Competition Tribunal Act, will be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. This will give members of parliament a greater role in the development and passage of legislation. It should also be noted that this government bill was developed on the principles underlying four private members' bills.

The initiatives proposed in the bill would ensure that key marketplace framework laws remain effective and efficient in promoting and protecting competition to the benefit of consumers and the business community.

The Competition Act maintains and encourages competition in order to enhance economic welfare, to ensure that small and medium size enterprises have an equitable opportunity to participate in the Canadian economy, and to provide consumers with competitive prices and product choices.

Last year the competition bureau, with the assistance of the public policy forum, undertook extensive consultations on the principles underlying four private members' bills that proposed amendments to the Competition Act. Stakeholders representing consumers, businesses, and the legal and academic communities were encouraged to provide their views. The bill is the product of that consultation process.

The bill proposes improvements to the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act in four key areas: first, prohibiting deceptive contests; second, broadening the scope under which the tribunal may make temporary orders; third, streamlining the competition tribunal processes; and, fourth, facilitating co-operation with foreign competition authorities.

Let me say a bit about deceptive contests. Accurate information in the marketplace is critical to all Canadians. In 1999 provisions were introduced to the Competition Act to address telemarketing scams. However the competition bureau's crackdown on deceptive telemarketers has caused some con artists to migrate to other technologies such as mail and the Internet.

Deceptive contests involve the mass mailing of announcements which tell recipients that they have won a valuable prize. Sometimes the prospective victim is told that he or she must first pay a fee or taxes before delivery. In other cases the recipient is duped into telephoning a toll number to obtain further details or to claim the prize. In most cases the prize turns out to be worthless or of minimal value. That pales in comparison to the charges the recipient incurs.

The bill creates a new criminal offence to combat deceptive contests sent by mail or the Internet. This new provision will prohibit any person from sending by mail or otherwise material which gives the general impression that the recipient has won a prize and that in order to receive such a prize he or she must make a prior payment of money or incur a charge such as a telephone toll.

I will say a bit about temporary orders. Complex competition cases can often require extensive investigation by the competition bureau before any proceedings are commenced with the competition tribunal. In cases of serious anti-competitive conduct a victim might very well have gone out of business before the issue is resolved.

Effective enforcement of our competition laws calls for powers to put an immediate temporary halt to anti-competitive conduct where circumstances warrant. This type of injunctive power is presently available with respect to alleged offences under the criminal provisions of the Competition Act and with respect to the civil reviewable provisions once proceedings have been commenced before the tribunal.

Except in the case of a merger there is presently no interim remedy available to prevent anti-competitive conduct while the Competition bureau is investigating a matter but has not yet filed a case with a tribunal. The bill would fill that gap by enabling the tribunal to issue temporary orders on application of the commissioner of competition.

Turning to streamlining competition tribunal processes, it is important that the competition tribunal not be impaired in its ability to make timely and relevant decisions. The proposals in the bill would amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act to streamline the tribunal processes in three key areas.

First, the tribunal would be empowered to make an award of costs in order to discourage frivolous or vexatious litigation.

Second, the tribunal would be able to summarily dispose of an application without having gone through a full hearing in cases where there is no genuine issue or genuine defence.

Third, a means would be created by which references would be brought to the tribunal on a specific issue. In some cases the outcome of a tribunal case might depend on a single pivotal issue such as the appropriate definition of the market. An early ruling might obviate the need for a full hearing on all the remaining issues. These streamlining measures are consistent with similar procedures followed by most courts.

Facilitating international co-operation is very important. Continuing technological changes and falling trade barriers today have resulted in a rapidly changing global economy. It also raises the risk that the effects of anti-competitive conduct will spill across borders and that the evidence necessary to combat this activity will be located outside Canada. For these reasons we need to be able to exchange information with competition authorities for the purpose of evidence gathering if we are to ensure that our competition laws remain effective.

One of the key objectives of the bill is to provide for enhanced international co-operation on competition matters. There is no better example that I can provide of the benefits that flow from international co-operation than the recent series of cases involving international price fixing cartels. Let me point out that in the last few years there have been over 40 convictions of multinational corporations for price fixing offences under the Competition Act, resulting in fines in excess of $160 million.

These remarkable achievements in anti-cartel enforcement were due to the regime of international co-operation for criminal matters under the mutual legal assistance treaty. A similar tool is now required for the civil provisions of the Competition Act.

Canadians are being well served by our competition laws. The amendment initiatives before us today represent the latest step in a continuing legislative evolution which will ensure that Canadians and Canadian competition laws remain up to date and operate effectively and efficiently.

At this juncture I commend the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, the member for Kitchener Centre and the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine who worked diligently and hard through their private members' initiatives in shaping these amendments.

I note in closing that the public policy forum concluded from consultations that a consensus on private access might be possible. While there have been significant concerns expressed by some stakeholders on the subject, it has evoked some strong support from other quarters. This motion will give the committee the opportunity to explore the benefits and necessity of such a proposal. I personally look forward to seeing whether the committee can find consensus in this area.

I ask that the bill be referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology before second reading. I look forward to hearing the committee's views on the government's proposed amendments.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, for the Minister of Industry]

moved:

That Bill C-23, an act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Income Tax Act

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-342, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (volunteers).

Madam Speaker, I thank all members of the House for allowing me to introduce the bill.

The bill recognizes that this is the international year of the volunteer. The bill would amend the Income Tax Act to allow all volunteers, who donate a minimum of 250 hours a year or more to a registered service, charity or non-profit sporting organization, to a tax deduction of up to $1,000. This would be similar to the tax deduction claimed by individuals who give cash contributions.

In my conversations with charity groups across the county, they think they would support the legislation. I look forward to its speedy passage. Again, this is another great idea by the NDP.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Bill C-23. On the Order: Government Orders

April 4, 2001—the Minister of Industry—Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology of Bill C-23, an act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act.

Business Of The House

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place among all parties and I believe you would find consent for the following motion. I move:

That if a recorded division is requested Thursday, May 3, on a motion to refer Bill C-23 to committee before second reading pursuant to Standing Order 73(1), it shall be deemed deferred until the end of government orders on Tuesday, May 8.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that it is the intention of the government to propose that Bill C-23, the Competition Act amendments bill, be referred to committee before second reading pursuant to Standing Order 73(1).

Competition Act

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-23, an act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Immigration And Refugee Protection Act

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will start by congratulating you on your appointment to the chair. It is a real honour for me to be able to speak to this piece of legislation, Bill C-11.

I will first talk about what Canadians want from an immigration system. Second, I will address what they do not want. Then I will go through the legislation and point out 28 different areas that must be focused on and seriously looked at, at committee level. Those areas must be examined and in many cases modified through amendments to make the legislation something which serves what Canadians want and helps prevent what they do not want.

What do Canadians want? They want a system that works first for economic and independent immigrants. The current system clearly does not work well. Any one of us as members of parliament could point to individual cases and lots of them. In each constituency across the country there are hundreds of cases where the system has failed people and where it has taken them too long to work their way through it. The result has not made sense. These are not isolated cases. They are very common.

Our system in the past worked extremely well. I think about my constituency. I think about the immigrants who developed the area of Lakeland constituency. In the latter part of the 19th century immigration to Canada began with immigrants from Britain and then expanded to include Germany and almost every country in western Europe.

In the late part of the 19th century we had a Lebanese settlement which is still prominent in Lac La Biche and in parts of our constituency. They are a well established part of the community. They have helped build the community. In the late 19th century and in two other instances, after the first world war and the second world war, we had Ukrainian immigration from eastern Europe.

These immigrants have built our country. I think we all recognize this point. Every member of parliament could point to his or her constituency and to how immigration has worked in the past.

Why do we not learn from what has happened and what has worked in the past so that we can build a system that will work better in the future? That is what Canadians want in terms of independent categories.

Canadians also want a system which will reunite families quickly. When families are separated, either because family members have come as refugee claimants or have come under the independent categories, Canadians want a system which will reunite families quickly.

Again, every member of parliament in his or her constituency can point to dozens of situations where a member of a family came to the country and where a spouse or dependent children have not been allowed to come. The process has taken months and even years in many cases.

I can point to situations in my own constituency where husbands and wives have been waiting to be reunited for more than three years. Canadians want a system which will allow that to happen much more quickly and in a fashion that is expected from a well developed country like Canada.

Canadians also want a system which will accept genuine refugees. There is no doubt that Canadians support accepting genuine refugees. I have heard nothing but support for that from people from across the country. They want it right now. They know our system is failing genuine refugees.

For example, fewer than 5,000 of the 23,000 refugees that we accept each year are actually chosen from camps overseas where they have been designated as refugees by the United Nations. We bring in fewer than 5,000 of those people a year, and most of the people we bring in are not actually from camps. They are brought in from overseas, but they have been rejected by the system in another country. Very few actually come in from camps each year. Canadians want the system to focus on genuine refugees, and it is not doing that.

Canadians do not want a system which would allow abuse of our immigration system. Canadians do not want that. They do not want queue jumpers abusing the goodwill of our country and pushing aside others who would go through the system properly. That happens all too often. We all know that and I do not think there is any real doubt about it.

Canadians do not want people, who are not genuine refugees and who have been rejected by the system, to be allowed to stay in our country. Yet that happens. While our official acceptance rate for refugees is something like 50%, which is many times higher than the rate of most other countries, only 15% of all people who come to Canada claiming to be refugees are ever known to leave the country. That is what makes Canadians angry about our system and about the way the government allowed our system to fail. That is what Canadians do not want.

I want to read into the record the Canadian Alliance policy on immigration. The Canadian Alliance is a new political party. We are only slightly over a year old, so we do not have policy that is completely fleshed out in a lot of areas. There is a lot of work to be done. We are looking forward to our convention about a year from now where we will have a lot of policy fleshed out in a lot more detail.

Here is exactly what the Canadian Alliance policy book says about immigration. I am proud of it and I want Canadians to know about it. I do not want the misinterpretations and the false statements made by members of other political parties, by the media or anyone else to be allowed to stand, because they should not stand. Here is our policy:

We see Canada as a land built by immigrants and will continue to welcome new immigrants. We support sponsorship for immediate family members. Our immigration policy will take into account Canada's economic needs and we will introduce greater fairness and security into the system, including enforcement of sponsorship obligations. We will work co-operatively with the provinces on the settlement of immigrants.

We want to protect the integrity of the valuable contribution made to the fabric of Canada by millions of law abiding immigrants. We will not allow their good reputation to be jeopardized by non-citizens who engage in criminal activity and will speedily deport such individuals once their sentence has been served.

We affirm Canada's humanitarian obligation to welcome genuine refugees and are proud that our country has provided a safe haven for distressed people from across the world. To ensure fairness and end queue jumping, we will immediately deport bogus refugees and other illegal entrants, and will severely penalize those who organize abuse of the system.

That refers to people smugglers, people traffickers and that kind of thing. It continues:

We will ensure that refugee status is arbitrated expeditiously, consistently and professionally. We will end the abuse of refugee claims as a fast track to gain the benefits of landed immigrant status.

That is the Canadian Alliance policy on immigration, and I am proud of it. This policy came from the membership and all our members support it. I think we had the support of roughly three million Canadians in the last election. I am not sure of the numbers but 25% of all Canadians supported us in the last election. I think every one of them would be proud of our immigration policy. It is something we should all be proud of and I do take pride in it.

I will now get a little more specific. There are 28 areas of the bill that I believe require careful scrutiny by the committee. Now 28 is a large number, and every one of them is important, but I have only targeted the ones that I feel are important. As my time allows, I will quickly go through and point out the areas that must be carefully scrutinized by the committee. The committee must also have expert witnesses come in to present their views. This information will be valuable to make the legislation better.

First, the objective section of the bill, which is at the very beginning, says, in general terms, that what the immigration act is based on is new. That is one of the things that is new about the legislation. It is important that it is carefully discussed and scrutinized by the committee.

Some of the aspects of the new bill concern some very specific areas while other areas are very general and cover many different clauses of the bill. I wanted people to understand that as they are listening to these comments.

Second, I will deal with charter considerations. Clause 33(d), without much doubt, seems to be offering Canadian charter protection to non-citizens. No other country in the world does that. People who are not Canadian citizens and who do not even live in our country would be granted protection under our charter. How could a country do that? That protection is in the bill and it needs to be carefully scrutinized and changed as required. I encourage the committee to look at that.

A third very broad aspect of the legislation deals with what is actually in the legislation and what is left to regulation. A regulation can be changed by a minister or by department officials who tell the minister to change it. It can also be changed through order in council at any time without ever passing through the House.

This piece of legislation is very general and leaves far too much to regulation. There would be a void of accountability resulting from the legislation. That will become very obvious as I move ahead in my comments.

The fourth general area is the federal-provincial agreements and the consultations with the provinces. The agreements are referred to in the bill but there are no assurances that the provinces will have to go along with what the federal government proposes and what is put forth in regulation. The government only says that it will listen to the provinces on these issues. It will not necessarily demand the approval of the provinces. I think that is a concern. When we have an issue such as this, which has such a profound and direct impact on each province, the provinces should have a real say in what is in the immigration law.

The fifth point is the whole area of economic immigration which is the backbone of our immigration system. The independent categories of immigration consist of people who can very quickly add to our economy and make our country a stronger and better place to live. It is the guiding principle in the selection process that I will refer to first.

I find it of great concern that the single most important and a valuable component of Canadian immigration, the economic category, is only dealt with by a single sentence in the bill. It is hard to believe that there is only one sentence.

The single sentence in clause 12(1) would be the guiding principle on which countless regulations would be developed. The law in fact would be created through regulation. It is not in the bill. This is a real concern to me. How can we hold departmental officials, the minister and the cabinet accountable if there is no assurance that changes will be made by passing them through parliament?

I fully understand and accept that certain aspects of any legislation have to be left to regulation, but the balance in this legislation is way out of line.

The sixth area deals with the attempts made to streamline the immigration process. I have listened to new immigrants from one end of the country to the other, particularly from the greater Toronto area. Half of all immigrants settle in the greater Toronto area.

I actually set up a task force there over the past few years and had input from hundreds of new immigrants. Having listened to them, I found there was a recurring theme. People said that immigrating to Canada takes a painfully long time; the system does not work well; it is bureaucratic; and the people they deal with just do not seem to care. These were common sentiments. I am sure every member has heard these sentiments from people they have met or helped who had gone through the system.

The bill does not address in any way the effectiveness of the immigration department. It places no legislative requirement for setting or meeting stated immigration goals. How do we know whether we are succeeding if we do not have the goals clearly laid out in the legislation? It is not here and I think that certainly creates a real problem.

Guiding principles on family class immigration is the seventh point. The bill is excessively vague on who could be considered family. Only clause 12 actually defines family. The details are left to regulation through clause 14. That is the fact of the bill. As with the economic class, there are a few guiding principles regarding the family, which are laid out pretty much in one sentence in the legislation. Subsequently everything else would be left to the interpretation of the bureaucrats, the minister and the cabinet of the day.

Relying on regulation to guide Canada's immigration policy has failed thus far. It has failed Canadians and the people applying to come to our country alike. We must change the system so that we have clear principles laid out in the legislation which define the family, and I would encourage the committee to ensure that happens.

The eighth point is family class immigration reunification. It is important and goes along with defining a family and family reunification. It is important to determine whether a situation is actually a case of family reunification. If grandparents are brought to Canada, for example, when the majority of the family still lives in the country of origin or in another country, is it family reunification to bring the grandparents over to live with one child in Canada? That question has to be examined very carefully. It will be important for the committee to look at it and determine that.

The ninth point is a more narrow one. It is the issue of the common law spouse provision. In keeping with the first draft of the bill, Bill C-23, and this is the third draft, the minister has included a provision to define a family member as a common law spouse. This raises more questions than it answers.

Presently the immigration department has a very difficult time verifying a legitimate marriage. The department cannot deal with the huge problem of verifying whether a marriage is a marriage of convenience to accommodate immigration or whether it is a genuine marriage. How on earth would we deal with that when we allow a common law marriage to be used under the bill? It is an administrative impossibility and an administrative nightmare.

The tenth point is the authorization to enter and remain in Canada, the dual intent as it is laid out in the bill or the in Canada landing class. The legislation outlines a provision which would allow for that depending on the regulation. We do not know how wide or narrow it might be. It would allow a foreign national to enter Canada with the dual intent of visiting and then immigrating later.

Furthermore, the same section of the bill would create an in Canada landing class. This was taken out several years back because when it was in place it created a nightmare. It is exactly the same as it was 15 or 20 years ago in the old Immigration Act. The last major situation was created about 11 years ago in 1990. This exact situation led to a mass amnesty for anyone who came into the country illegally by the immigration department. These amnesties have not served us well. We are letting everyone in those situations, no matter what their background and without scrutiny, come into the country. This change would lead to the need for another amnesty.

I have only dealt with 10 out of 23, but I know I will have a chance to deal with the legislation in the future. I will close with a 30 second comment which has to do with the suitability of the current immigration minister to remain as minister.

She made comments about three million or more Canadians who supported the Canadian Alliance. She referred to Canadian Alliance members as racists, bigots and Holocaust deniers. I question whether that person has any right to remain as a minister of the crown, particularly the minister of immigration. I want her fired. I expect nothing less.

Petitions

[Art Hanger, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the last two petitions both deal with Bill C-23.

Fifty-seven petitioners request that parliament withdraw Bill C-23, affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and to ensure that marriage is recognized as a unique institution.