Jim Jones

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more that there is a virtual surplus of over $20 billion. We know a tax on unemployment insurance is really a tax on small business and other employment. The government should be reducing that. Also we are too highly taxed in this country . It was interesting to see over the summer when the Asian flu was starting to impact the dollar in Canada that all the money that was leaving those countries was not coming to this country but was going to the U.S. I think a good reason for that was that investors viewed the risk they saw in this country as not being worth the payback. Maybe our taxes are too high, both our personal income taxes and also the way the government is milking the employment insurance fund.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure you can hear me from way down here, but the positive of being down here is now we can always look right instead of having to look left.

Today I rise to speak on Bill C-53, an act to increase the availability of financing for the establishment, expansion, modernization and improvement of small business. For the purpose of brevity, this bill seeks to replace the Small Business Loans Act with the new Canada small business financing act. In essence parliament will be attempting to guarantee that the principles of the success story known as the Small Business Loans Act will continue into the next millennium.

Since 1961 the Small Business Loans Act which was implemented by the Progressive Conservative government under John Diefenbaker has helped over a half million Canadian businesses. In the 37 years that have followed, parliament has shown its resolve to assist small business by continuously updating and innovating the act to ensure that it remains responsive to the needs of Canadian small and medium size enterprises.

By and large this duty has been discharged with commitment and diligence. I remind the House of this because the same hand that passes this torch on will be expecting much of us. Since its inception the Small Business Loans Act has experienced a successful repayment rate in excess of 94% of all loans. When we consider that during this period the program has guaranteed loans worth $22 billion, the numbers become all the more impressive.

In 1997-98 the Small Business Loans Act borrowers reported that they would create 74,600 new jobs. This is even more significant when we understand that over 50% of all loans made under the provisions of the act would never have been made under conventional lending practices.

This is easy to believe when we note a 1996 study entitled “Economic Impacts of the Small Business Loans Act”. The study found that approximately 45% of the borrowers in the sample were companies that were less than one year old. In comparison, only 5% of non-SBLA loans went to start up firms.

Much has already been done to facilitate the work of this House as well as the industry committee when it begins its in-depth examination of Bill C-53. To date, a comprehensive review of the financing needs of small business has been completed with special emphasis on the following areas: the economic impact studies; the compliance and default studies; the stakeholder consultations; the cost benefit analysis and future evaluations; and the capital leasing studies. As well, our hon. colleagues in the other place finished the committee report entitled “Review of the Small Business Loans Act”.

In dealing with this bill, I would like to stress both what has been included and what has been excluded. As for what is in this bill, many provisions of the Small Business Loans Act have remained unchanged. The loan loss ratio remains at 85% of the cost of claims for loans in default. This is the same rate that it has been since 1995. Lenders remain responsible for the remainder.

Members of this House will recall that the Liberal government reinstated this ratio in 1995 after the Conservative government had reduced the risk to lenders in 1993. The Conservative government did this to encourage a greater participation by the financial sector in the Small Business Loans Act.

When a government sets up a program like the SBLA which guarantees loans for small businesses, it does so for one very obvious reason. Without such an act, loans would be labelled too high risk by lenders and they simply would not be given. Therefore I have to question the judgment used by the government when it increased the risk to lenders.

At the risk of attributing motives, this appears to be an instance where good politics took precedence over good policy. I say this because since the Liberals did this, we have studies which show that small and medium size enterprise lender dissatisfaction has been steadily increasing. Rather than pointing fingers at lenders or borrowers, this legislation should be focusing on improving the environment for both.

A few other program parameters which have not changed should be noted. The maximum loan size remains at $250,000. When this issue was reviewed it was found there was very little support for increasing this figure. Until recently the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses was arguing for a reduction of the loan threshold. One notable exception to this is the tourism industry where many have called for a doubling of the $250,000 threshold. This has been due in part to the significant capital investment required for facilities. The percentage of the costs of eligible capital assets accepted for financing remains at 90%. This is a reasonable figure and there is no need to review it.

However, there is a shortcoming with this bill that lies in its failure to come to grips with the issue of the lack of access to the Small Business Loans Act that currently exists for knowledge based industries. The minister raised hopes when he asked for a report that asked for the Small Business Loans Act to be expanded to target knowledge based industries. Unfortunately when the answer comes back that something definitely needs to be done, he chooses to ignore it.

Knowledge based industries are among the most dynamic job producing companies in Canada today. The problem lies in the fact that their major assets are intellectual and thus are not capable of being financed under current criteria. So what are we to do, ignore them? Based on the industry estimates which I read this year, the same estimates which place so much emphasis on the importance of thriving as a knowledge based economy, I am more than a little surprised that we have no firm plan from the minister.

It is not my intention here to cast aspersions but in the past the Minister of Industry has indicated his willingness to encourage the development of our knowledge based economy. My party stands ready to assist with this. Perhaps Bill C-53 is the vehicle we can use.

I turn my attention to the specific changes that will come about if Bill C-53 is implemented. First, there is a mandatory program review provision. If passed, this would mean the end of the current provisions that require an automatic ending of lending authorities if a new bill is not passed as we saw last year with Bill C-21. While we are still a little short on the details that would constitute this review process, in general terms it appears to be a good idea.

I say that for the following reasons. Under the current system, the government is in a situation where it must present a bill to parliament in order to keep the program alive. This bill could potentially contain clauses the government of the day would like to slip through while at the same time keeping the opposition handcuffed by the inherent time constraints. After all, who wants to be the party that takes the blame for the demise of such an historically important and successful act? With this in mind the review process is a better way to deal fairly with any necessary changes.

Under the proposed process the review would see data collected over a five year period prior to the review used to give parliamentarians and policy makers the tools needed to evaluate where changes need to be considered. At the end of the five year period, currently designated as March 31, 2004, the minister would have 12 months in which to cause a comprehensive review. At this point we are not prepared to comment on the reasonableness of these time constraints as we look forward to reviewing them at the committee stage.

Bill C-53 proposes a new component to the act, the idea of pilot projects both for capital leasing and for the voluntary sector. Capital leasing has been an ever growing and popular financing option for small and medium size enterprises. This particular type of lease ensures that the lessee will own the equipment at the end of the lease. A provision of this nature serves to protect the interests of taxpayers as the equipment will become an asset of the company at the end of this lease. Or so one would believe if one were to read the memorandum that was distributed by the minister to all parliamentarians. However, Industry Canada's report “Access to Financing for Small Business: Meeting the Changing Needs” is not so definitive in its treatment of capital leases. I refer to page 17: “Capital leasing is the leasing of equipment for the major part of its useful life, with the expectation that the lessee will obtain ownership of the equipment”. If the intent of the bill is to guarantee that all capital leases under the program will be lease to own agreements the wording should be carefully considered.

At present the leasing industry does not approve leasing for firms under two years old seeking less than $100,000. This typically excludes the majority of present Small Business Loans Act borrowers. Parliamentary committees will be consulted for the implementation of such a pilot project. In doing so, I trust we will come up with a program which is responsive to the stated needs that exist.

The other proposed pilot project deals with the voluntary sector. The document “Securing Our Future Together” makes a commitment to reviewing federal small business programs with a view to extending their mandate to the voluntary sector. This program raises many questions. In recent hearings conducted into this issues witnesses generally were opposed to extending provisions of the Small Business Loans Act to the voluntary sector.

Some of the reasons cited included costs as well as instability of revenues. These are legitimate concerns and I also would be concerned if we were to put in place a program which would allow non-profit or voluntary organizations to unfairly compete with other business interests. This is something that needs to be more thoroughly explored at the committee stage.

Contingent liabilities are a new addition to the act. The claim being made is this is somehow necessary to shield the taxpayers against incurring more than $1.5 billion liability should all loans default. Based on the fact that the program as it stands is only experiencing a 5.6% default rate coupled with the fact that the program would have to be five times larger for such a large payout to be made, I am suspicious of this clause.

A cynic might suggest that this is merely window dressing and marketing to make the government appear fiscally responsible. The reality is the threshold is set so high it will never come close to being tested but it does sound nice.

Cost recovery is a worthy goal of the program. Toward that achievement, Bill C-53 seeks to allow the government the ability to restrict access to program loans or guarantees. Too little has been released on this clause to discuss it with any depth and I would caution that any legislation covering this area must be generous in scope with allowance for various contingencies. We have a heavily regulated financial services sector already. If any abuse of process is suspected other avenues may exist to achieve compliance.

The next area I wish to address is that of the proposed accountability framework. This proposal by Price Waterhouse will access the Canadian small business financing act over the next five years. Several criteria will be used, including the visibility of the program to potential borrowers, its impact on creating and maintaining jobs and the performance of the borrowers. The auditor general in his report on management of the small business loans program points out that claims audit procedures need to be strengthened. This is an area that will have to be dealt with with great sensitivity to the viability of the program as a whole.

I remind the House that the reason this act exists is due to the undeniable fact that a problem exists. The problem was the unwillingness of banks to lend to small and medium size enterprises. Any attempt to change the program so as to put greater compliance demands on lending institutions will only result in fewer small businesses getting the financing they desperately need. While I am not opposing the provisions at this time I am suggesting that we tread carefully.

Finally, I would like to address a clause in the Industry Canada review of the Small Business Loans Act. Specifically in the booklet “Meeting the Changing Needs” on page 17 there is a reference to asset transfers.

Included in this is a reference to non-arm's length transfers of assets of going concerns.

The issue I raise is that specifically itemized as being excluded from the CSBFA act guaranteed loans would be the sale of a business from a parent to a child. This needs to be reviewed and for very good reasons. We no longer live in a time where the purchase of family businesses is financed by long apprenticeships, that is to say children working at below market value with the understanding that some day the businesses will be theirs.

Rather, the inherent value of small businesses represent the equivalent of an RRSP to many business owners. This provision would result in children being unable to secure the proper financing. What would happen then? I suggest that parents who are facing the insecurity of retirement would be forced to look at selling their business to a non-relative who would not know the ins and outs of the particular company and would have access to the Canadian small business financing act loan guarantees.

Is this fair? I think not. At a time when high taxes and a lack of opportunity are leading to brain drain and breaking down the family unit, we do not need to make the situation worse with punitive anti-family legislation.

Once again I look forward to working at the committee level to see if we can change this.

[Competition Act, September 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on a bill that is important to the success of business competition in Canada, a bill that introduces amendments that will modernize regulations for Canadian business environments.

The Progressive Conservative Party is generally pleased with Bill C-20 and its intentions. Specifically, the time has come to aggressively respond to the ever growing problem of telemarketing fraud.

In recent years total telemarketing sales in the United States and Canada have exceeded $500 billion per year. While most telemarketing activities are legitimate, unfortunately some are not.

It is those initiatives I am concerned about. The report of the Canada-U.S. Working Group on Telemarketing Fraud highlights that telemarketing has become one of the most pervasive and problematic forms of white collar crime in Canada and the United States.

It has been estimated that telefraud cost Canadians in excess of $60 million in 1995. This figure ballooned to over $75 million in 1996. Worst of all, in many cases these frauds are committed against the elderly and those who least can afford the losses.

It is estimated that this form of crime accounts for as much as 10% of the total volume of telemarketing. In Canada that would mean $400 million annually. Studies show that those targeted are the vulnerable and the lonely in society.

Unfortunately that equates to millions of dollars from the pockets of many of our seniors, the very same seniors who are experiencing lower and lower GIC or guaranteed income supplement payments and old age security benefits.

We believe that the new crime offence of deceptive telemarketing is a proper response to this activity. The acts of these scam artists are hurting the legitimate telemarketing industry that created employment for thousands of Canadians. Today we begin fighting back. Five years in prison and fines at the discretion of the courts should be enough of a deterrent to these would-be fraudsters.

As we know the promotion of competitive markets is of fundamental importance to today's economy. Competition stimulates innovation and growth in jobs, provides businesses and consumers with competitive prices and product choices, and increases the average standard of living in society.

Without a modern competition law Canadian businesses may encounter anti-competitive barriers to their entry or expansion in their markets. They may find it difficult to source input at competitive prices or they may encounter other refrains in their ability to remain competitive.

Bill C-20 proposes amendments to the Competition Act, an act that strives to guide businesses in a fair and equitable way. It is time to bring this act up to date with contemporary business practices. Canada needs a legal framework which supports up to date competitive business practices. This framework is an essential contribution to sustaining the competitive strength of the private sector.

Bill C-20 was reviewed exhaustively by the Standing Committee on Industry. As a result of these hearings my party believes that we have an acceptable response to many of the concerns of companies operating within the Canadian marketplace.

Notably we are pleased with the intent of the bill in the area of misleading advertising. Bill C-20 represents the beginning of an important principle as it applies to misleading advertising. Specifically with this legislation the Competition Act will be stressing the importance of compliance over punishment.

The government said the criminal sanctions were an incomplete response to false advertising. On this point we agree with the government.

The drawback includes the stigma attached to the criminal process; the inability to stop misleading advertising quickly; and the cost, time and resources needed for a successful prosecution. The Retail Council of Canada believes the availability of a civil offence will result in fairer and more effective enforcement and will recognize the true nature of many of the offences which are not done with any criminal intent.

Because of this move Bill C-20 should be able to achieve its goal of a quicker and more efficient process leading to compliance. We in the Conservative Party believe that the time test and volume test provisions of the bill are a fair response to the issues of regular price claims. Retailers will no longer be able to make claims about the regular price of a product unless that price was charged on a substantial volume of sales over a substantial period of time.

Canadians have shown a preference to sales and sale priced items. The bill aims to clarify what is a sales item and how a sales price is established. Claims about regular prices and related savings can be powerful marketing tools. However, both retailers and consumer groups say that the current law is unclear on what constitutes a regular price.

My party will be supporting the bill but that is not to say we are completely satisfied with all its provisions. The business of mergers was not satisfactorily dealt with in the bill. The threshold for mergers was not raised to $500 million from the existing $400 million as has been requested by several witnesses. Simple inflation would have dictated that this was a reasonable request. It also would have brought the act in line with the Investment Canada Act which contemplates an annual increase to reflect inflation.

I have spoken to several interest parties and groups that have expressed their concern about the bill. They and the PC Party see the need to update the bill to contemporary practices. We acknowledge that there are several discrepancies.

Businesses call for change that will bring the act more into line with current market practices. They also want the intention of parliament to be clear. They stress that greater clarity regarding the intent of the law is needed by both retailers and consumers, their customers.

The definition of telemarketing should be clearer. What exactly does telemarketing constitute? Bill C-20 tells us that telemarketing is the practice of using interactive telephone communications for the purpose of promoting directly or indirectly the supply or use of a product and for the purpose of promoting directly or indirectly any business interest.

The Retail Council of Canada would like to see a clearer definition of what constitutes telemarketing. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce also wants a clearer description of the term interactive. So too was the recommendation from the Canadian Bar Association. That means putting a clear definition in the legislation. Unfortunately this was not changed in the committee process.

The Retail Council of Canada also points out that the wiretap provisions have had relatively little public discussion and were not part of the report of the consultation panel. The issue of wiretapping should be of great concern to all Canadians. There is some uncertainty as to how this might be applied.

The Competition Bureau tells us that it intends to seek permission to wiretap only in cases of egregious behaviour. However, this is a way to capture this focus in the law.

My party would liked to have seen this provision opened up to more public input. The legislation needs to include just how and what are misleading claims when it comes to telemarketing. It is simple for the government to say that telemarketers cannot make any false or misleading claims that would influence a customer to buy a product. However, stringent guidelines should be set to stop this activity.

We would like to see a more detailed plan on how the government plans to coordinate efforts with the United States on telemarketing fraud. Lack of coordination only puts a damper on effective cross-border enforcement. Co-operation and strategy, education and prevention need to be looked at. The PC Party would encourage the government not to jeopardize our relationship with our largest trading partner on this issue. Let us give this legislation all the teeth possible.

If Canadian operations are crossing borders into the pockets of United States citizens illegally, we must put a stop to it. Bill C-20 is a good first step but is not all encompassing on this issue.

Evidence shows that telemarketing fraud is a serious economic crime problem. Immediate and effective steps need to be taken. This means aggressively stopping those operators who insist on choosing targets that are out of province or in another country simply because they know police authorities have difficulty dealing with victims in other jurisdictions. Lack of coordination is an obstacle to effective cross-border enforcement.

Through education, prevention and a strong strategy, notorious operators can be shut down. As long as the government seeks to achieve this the PC Party will back it up.

I do not agree that the Internet should have been included in the bill because proper consultation was not done with all interested parties. I know that the industry minister is well aware of the high tech industry and the fast movement of the Internet. I think over the next year or so we will be looking at incorporating Internet into the Competition Act. However this was not appropriate without consultation.

In spite of its shortcomings, the PC Party will be voting in favour of Bill C-20.

[Competition Act, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-235, an act to amend the Competition Act, the protection of those who purchase products from vertically integrated suppliers who compete with them at retail.

That is a long way of saying let us go after the gasoline companies and try to score some easy political points. The problem is that it is not that simple. It is not that easy.

I want to deal with the bill in a thoughtful manner and outline the many serious concerns my party has with it. Canada has been oblivious to the issues addressed by the bill. The Competition Act implemented by the previous Conservative government to replace the Anti-Combines Act deals with the inherent issues of Bill C-235 without making any amendments.

The issues of price discrimination, price maintenance and abuse of dominance are already addressed by the act. Let us deal with the issue of fair pricing first. The problem with the legislation is that it would create an artificial profit margin by gearing pricing to competitors based on any formula that includes retail pricing.

The bill would be creating a floor price below which no one could go. The elimination of the ability to engage in discounting would be a peculiar approach to addressing fair pricing. The result would in fact be higher prices, which certainly is not in the best interest of the Canadian consumer.

The Liberal government has already overburdened small and medium size businesses across the country with outrageous reporting requirements either in the area of sales tax, payroll tax, Statistics Canada or any other number of government bureaucracies or agencies that enforce different degrees of compliance.

Legislators must begin searching for ways to ease the paperwork burden and let Canadian businesses get back to their core services. This would not happen under Bill C-235. In fact the opposite would be the case.

Let us imagine how the government could possibly begin tackling the issue of what constitutes proper wholesale prices, profit margins and marketing expenses of firms. Quite simply it could not be done. We would be creating another level of bureaucracy, an extra burden of government, an enormous enforcement cost.

I am concerned about another implication of the bill. If a vertically integrated company sells only a small portion of its product to independent outlets, what would happen? Will it submit to the burdensome review process it is required to go through in order to change its prices? I suspect it would not. In fact it would be my guess that it would cease selling to competitors at all. This would lead to a very negative impact on the independent retailers that my hon. colleague seeks to champion.

Fundamentally this comes down to whether or not governments should be trying to interfere in those affected industries or allowing market forces to prevail. The fact is that price regulations work well when prices are on the rise, but they do not work well when they are coming down. We would in effect be artificially skewering the marketplace to favour small independent companies over the interest of consumers.

I would like to address something that was raised the last time the bill came before the House on May 27 of this year. At that time the hon. member for Palliser rose to give his support to the bill. In so doing the spectre was raised of the Irving Oil Company. It was as if the mere mention of this bogeyman should be enough to rally support for the bill. While I understand the rabid hatred the NDP harbours toward successful Canadian companies, Irving Oil Company Limited does not sell gasoline to its competitors so it would not be affected by this legislation. That is why facts get in the way of good speeches.

I realize the bill is generic in its wording, but it is clear that it will have a great impact on the retail gas industry. The result would be to abandon market based forces as the proper determinate of gasoline prices and instead move to a cost based formula.

The hon. member who sponsored the bill is well known for his tendency to do battle with oil companies. Motivations aside, I am fearful that the implications to other industries have not been fully thought through. He would not want to inadvertently undermine another industry out of some sort of zealous drive to take on the oil companies.

The final issue I wish to discuss is that of alternatives to the bill. During the last session of debate it was mentioned over and over again that many of the provisions of Bill C-235 already exist in the present Competition Act. They are sections of the Competition Act which relate to abusive dominance and price maintenance. Sections 50.1(c) and 78 on their own without any amendments are currently drafted in a manner which addresses the issues raised by Bill C-235.

Predatory pricing, which is defined as selling products at prices unreasonably low, has the effect of substantially lessening competition or pricing aimed at eliminating or impeding the expansion of a competitor, is a criminal offence under the act as it now stands.

In addition, abusive dominance in situations where substantial lessening of competition results is a civil provision. One of the subsections of that provision deals specifically with the issue of dominance of vertically integrated firms squeezing the profit margin available to non-integrated customers and competing with the suppliers for the purpose of impeding or preventing the customers' entry into or expansion in the market.

Even without the reassurance that comes from these provisions my hon. colleague should take comfort in the M. J. Ervin report which shows that since 1994 Canada has enjoyed retail gasoline prices that on a pre-tax basis are among the lowest in the world. Whereas the pump price of gasoline is made up of more than 50% excise taxes, maybe the member's time would be better spent lobbying his own government to reduce these if he wants to see a real benefit.

I do not wish to appear to be advocating a laissez-faire approach to industry. However, I prefer to see legislation that creates an environment where businesses can operate and flourish under normal marketing conditions. This is not a component of Bill C-235. In effect it would be shackling the marketplace with a central command approach to economic questions.

The reality is that the Competition Act must be above all else focused on achieving desirable results for our consumers. It should not be used to undermine the legitimate outcome of competition such as low prices.

[Competition Act, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address Motions Nos. 9, 10 and 11. These motions as they pertain to Bill C-20 deal with the director of the competition bureau and what constitutes a reviewable matter.

At present we have a system in Canada whereby any six Canadians can petition the director of the competition bureau to begin an inquiry that he can then forward to the competition tribunal. These motions would effectively change this provision to allow any one Canadian to petition the director and force him to begin an inquiry.

I fail to see how this can in any way be perceived as fair or reasonable. The opportunity for abuse by a corporation with an axe to grind is brazenly apparent. The present provision requiring six signatories is a reasonable approach designed to avoid such abuse. If the potential for abuse does not scare us off, the potential backlog that this would create within the director's office should.

The hon. member seems to be aware of the need to guard against such abuses when she includes the wording “frivolous or vexatious”. If this is the case, then it should be self-evident that the present provisions need not to be tampered with.

As for Motion No. 11, this deals with private access to the tribunal resolution process. In the early rounds of public input on Bill C-20, in fact while it was still known as Bill C-67, it was decided that this issue should be put off until the next round of public consultations.

There are many submissions that lead to this decision and as a result different parties with vested interests in such a move have acted accordingly. To change this now would be the equivalent of the unseemly marketing practice known as bait and switch. As law makers we need to be setting an example here. Toward that end the Progressive Conservative Party will be voting no to these motions.

[Competition Act, September 21st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party will be opposing Motion No. 6 put forward by the Bloc.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-20, a bill that we had hoped would be expedited so as to provide our law enforcement officials with more tools in their ongoing battle with telemarketing fraud.

Recent estimates have put telemarketing fraud figures at $50 billion annually in Canada and the U.S. A quick calculation tells me that this equates to over $137 million each and every day. I ask that members pardon my frustration, but I have to wonder why we are allowing even one more day of delay on this issue.

Perhaps these amendments are reasonable. However, I believe that deceptive telemarketing provisions are already adequately addressed by legislation.

I must add that perhaps if this motion, as well as the preceding ones, had been introduced at the committee stage we would have had the opportunity to study them in an in-depth fashion. That is the purpose of our parliamentary committee work. Once again I feel that we would be slipping into an indiscriminate approach to legislation if we were to pass this motion. This could only lead to shoddy legislation, and the PC Party will not be supporting it.

Let us stop battling semantics and let us get on with the job of battling crime.

[Competition Act, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Internet is very important but in this particular case it deserves special discussion and more public consultation with the people involved in it.

My party will not support Motions Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8. These are very troubling amendments in that they seek to put a certain level of regulation on the Internet in what can only be referred to as a haphazard attempt. There are questions to be answered and maybe we should be looking at ways to protect consumers on the Internet. It needs to be done in a thoughtful manner with greater public involvement. To do so in a reckless manner would be a disservice to the legislation and to all Internet users. We only need to look at our southern neighbours and their unsuccessful attempts at regulation of the Internet.

This is an issue where the public demands to be heard. No matter how well intentioned this amendment may be, we have not as parliamentarians had an opportunity to study all the potential impacts. Let us not deviate from our primary purpose with this Bill C-20. It is designed to deliver a crushing blow to fraudulent telemarketing.

While it is true that electronic commerce via the Internet is growing in an exponential fashion, it does not constitute the same insidious risk that telemarketing does. Professional telefraud artists know how to seek out the most vulnerable in our society. These slick individuals are more adept at defrauding the aged and the lonely merely by building a degree of empathy over the telephone. In this type of situation the victims, like most Canadians, do not wish to be rude and hang up on the caller.

No such situation exists on the Internet because one always has the opportunity to delete or to back page or just turn off the computer. The Internet is necessarily a colder, more impersonal means of communication. It lacks the necessary characteristics to create trust and empathetic relations.

While I respect the intention of my hon. colleague's amendment, let us seize this opportunity to handle one situation at a time. At this time our priority must be telemarketing fraud.

[Competition Act, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe we are to be talking on this go around only on the first three amendments. I notice the last two speakers have been covering all 11 amendments put forward by the Bloc. We should be addressing only the first three.

[Competition Act, September 21st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will restrict my comments to the amendments proposed by the Bloc in Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3. I believe we will have additional time to talk to the other amendments later.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to these motions which deal with a fundamental component of Bill C-20. The component is an effort to move many issues of corporate non-compliance out of the realm of criminal courts and into a civil resolution mechanism.

This is a practical solution that achieves several goals. First and foremost it reduces the cost of moving a corporation into a position of compliance. Second, it creates a more positive environment for dispute resolution. Third, it is a time efficient approach to an issue that has all too often seen disputes dragged out for excessive periods of time.

It is not necessary for me to emphasize the exorbitant costs of criminal proceedings. For that purpose, except for the most egregious situations the goal of Bill C-20 should be to make corporations conform. The bill in its form does this. The bill should also assist in lessening combative relationships between the competition bureau and corporate Canada.

Critics may claim that this is a watering down of present legislation. The Progressive Conservative Party does not see it that way. In fact quite the opposite is true. What we will achieve is successful compliance in a cost effective and time efficient manner.

This is an enlightened and reasonable approach to legislation. For that reason we cannot support the proposed amendments by the Bloc.

[Year 2000 Problem, June 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, that is an unacceptable answer. Caveat emptor is an unacceptable response to an issue of this magnitude. Governments and business continue to invest too much money and effort into this battle against the millennium bug to accept such a hands-off approach. October 1, 1998, sell any Y2K non-compliant product after this date and pay the price. What is wrong with this solution?