Bill C-452 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Competition Act (inquiry into industry sector)

This enactment amends the Competition Act to authorize the Commissioner of Competition to inquire into an entire industry sector.

[Richard Bilodeau]

You are right. Investigating an industry sector without any specific allegation of an offence under the act could affect the reputation of that sector. That is particularly worrisome in situations where there is no allegation of collusion or anti-competitive behaviour. There is always that concern.

That is one of the problems with Bill C-452. There are no specific grounds for initiating an inquiry. What is the trigger for launching an inquiry? What are the parameters of an inquiry? How long may it take? It also raises questions about confidentiality, because our inquiries are conducted confidentially.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Yes. Bill C-452 creates an investigative power. The Competition Bureau does not have that power.

If you look at Bill C-10, it creates a power to prosecute and to impose fines, but not to investigate. If you want to prosecute and impose fines, you first have to be able to prove that the companies formed some kind of cartel. If you cannot investigate, then even with all the power in the world to impose fines, you will not be able to exercise that power.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I may be giving a few questions over to Mr. McTeague.

Thank you very much, Mr. Vincent, for being here. Welcome, welcome back. It is nice to see you again.

We have heard that as a result of changes to the act a few months ago, Bill C-452 may not be necessary. The bill was introduced into the House before those changes came into effect. We think it is very important to protect consumers.

What are the gaps in the legislation that was passed—Bill C-10, I believe—that your bill will fill in or make up for?

[Richard Bilodeau, Acting Assistant Deputy Commissioner, Competition Bureau, Civil Matters Branch Division B, Department of Industry]

Good morning, my name is Richard Bilodeau, and I am the Acting Assistant Deputy Commissioner of Competition for the Competition Bureau's Civil Matters Branch. With me today is Rhona Einbinder-Miller, Acting Executive Director and Senior General Counsel with Competition Bureau Legal Services.

I would like to begin by thanking the committee for the invitation to appear on Bill C-452, An Act to amend the Competition Act (inquiry into industry sector). I would like to focus on two aspects that have an important bearing on the bill that you are considering today. To begin, I will briefly explain the importance of some of the specific amendments to the Competition Act that were made in 2009 as they relate to the issues before the committee today. Second, I will provide you with a short assessment of some of the implications of this bill, should it be enacted.

The Competition Act and Canada's competition regime changed significantly as a result of the amendments passed by Parliament in March 2009. These amendments, which represent the most significant changes to the act in over 20 years, were aimed at modernizing the legislation and bringing it more closely in line with the competition laws of Canada's major trading partners.

With respect to the issue before the committee today, probably the most important amendments were those that affected the criminal conspiracy provision, more generally referred to as the anti-cartel provision. Those amendments created a significantly more effective criminal enforcement regime for the most harmful form of cartel agreements. These changes now make it illegal to engage in agreements to fix prices, allocate markets between competitors, or to restrict output, regardless of factors such as the impact of the agreement on competition in that market.

Penalties for criminal cartel behaviour were also increased. The maximum term of imprisonment for individuals was increased to 14 years, while the maximum fine per violation was increased to $25 million.

The changes to the anti-cartel provision came into force on March 12, 2010, a year after the other amendments, thereby allowing businesses time to adjust their practices to ensure that they were in compliance with the new law. At the same time, the amendments created a new provision that allows other forms of potentially anti-competitive competitor collaborations to be reviewed by the Competition Tribunal under a companion civil provision.

With all of the amendments to the act now in force, a top priority for the bureau is to ensure their efficient and effective implementation. Equally important for the bureau is to bring cases forward in a responsible manner to fulfil the enforcement mandate given to us by Parliament.

As well, in this new legal environment, it is important to clarify the bounds of lawful and unlawful conduct, while ensuring Canadian business and consumers are confident the law will be enforced with vigour. This brings me to the bill under consideration today.

I would like to take this opportunity to set out some of the issues we see arising from this bill regarding both the workings of our legislation and the nature and extent of the powers that will be conferred on the bureau, should the bill be adopted. As we understand the intent of this bill, a primary concern underlying its introduction is that the commissioner does not have the proper tools to successfully investigate and prosecute price-fixing in the petroleum sector.

However, the bill before you today was introduced before the new anti-cartel provisions of the act came into force. These amendments now make it clear and unequivocal that it is illegal to agree with your competitor on price, market allocation or restrictions on output. The previous provision did not provide this clarity. The new law establishes easily understood boundaries for all businesses regarding what is lawful behaviour. The commissioner no longer has to prove that these arrangements have a negative effect on competition, which will improve our ability to hold accountable those individuals and businesses who engage in these harmful practices.

In effect, the commissioner now has access, through the legislation, to new and powerful provisions that clearly strike at the issue at the heart of this legislative initiative. Moreover, it is premature for the bureau to measure the success of these new and clear provisions, having only had them in place for eight months. We are confident that the true effectiveness of this new and clear provision will become apparent in the years to come.

One question that came up during debate on this bill was whether the commissioner has the authority to commence an inquiry on her own initiative, or whether she must receive a complaint before she can begin a formal investigation.

Let me be clear that the commissioner does not have to wait for the filing of a complaint with her office before starting an inquiry. Whenever the commissioner has information that indicates that one of the enforcement provisions of the act has been or is about to be violated, regardless of the source of that information, section 10 of the act provides the commissioner with the authority to commence an inquiry into any matters she considers necessary. Of the formal inquiries that are currently being conducted by the bureau, approximately 30% were initiated without complaints.

To conclude, I would like to emphasize that when Parliament amended the Competition Act 21 months ago it provided the bureau with effective means to enforce Canada's criminal conspiracy laws against those serious offenders who agree to fix prices, allocate markets, and restrict output. These amendments, which came into effect in March 2010, combined with our existing powers to collect evidence and protect those who come forward to disclose anti-competitive activity, allow the bureau to act more effectively in the best interests of Canadian businesses and consumers.

Without question, the debate around Bill C-452, and the bills that preceded it, highlight issues in certain industry sectors that are important to many consumers, and to the bureau. We have, particularly since the March 2009 amendments, effectively legal means, and corresponding evidence-gathering tools, to respond vigorously when issues are raised under the Competition Act.

The Competition Bureau is pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the committee's deliberations. We remain confident that under the new rules passed by Parliament, we can continue to ensure that Canadian businesses and consumers prosper in a competitive and innovative marketplace.

I will now turn to any questions that you might have. Thank you.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, Bill C-452, An Act to amend the Competition Act (inquiry into industry sector), would give the Commissioner of the Competition Bureau the authority to make an inquiry into an entire industry sector if the commissioner believes grounds exist. Bill C-452 aims to fill an important gap in the Competition Act, giving the Competition Bureau more teeth. The objective of this bill is to give the Competition Bureau the authority to start inquiries without having to wait for complaints from citizens in order to act. Bill C-452 would give the Competition Bureau the authority it needs to take action against corporations and people who are trying to take advantage of Canadian consumers.

A brief look at past legislative reform of the Competition Act shows us that the MacQuarrie Committee review, in 1952, brought about several amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, including a provision that provided for research inquiries. At that time, the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, the RTPC, acted as an adjudicative body that also conducted investigations and research inquiries.

After minor amendments were made in 1976, the research inquiry section provided that the director upon his own initiative may, and upon direction from the minister [...] carry out an inquiry.

Officially, the goal was to ensure that the new Competition Tribunal (the tribunal) would be a strictly adjudicative body.

A Competition Bureau of Canada publication titled Market Studies: A Contextual Overview states that "There have been no inquiries related to competition issues starting under the Inquiries Act since section 47 was repealed in 1986." The reason is simple: the Competition Bureau had lost its authority to make inquiries.

How then, can the Competition Bureau make inquiries? The commissioner cannot begin to investigate until a judge is satisfied by information on oath or solemn affirmation that an inquiry is being made under section 10 of the Competition Act, and that a person has or is likely to have information that is relevant to the inquiry.

The Competition Bureau would be much more effective and credible if it had real investigative powers. It is difficult for all of the current conditions to be met.

Mr. Konrad von Finckenstein, former commissioner of competition and current chairman of the CRTC, made the following statement: "While the Bureau's mandate includes the very important role of being an investigator and advocate for competition, the current legislation does not provide the bureau with the authority to conduct an industry study."

The Competition Bureau certainly does not hesitate to intervene when it discovers proof of price fixing. In 2008, the bureau uncovered a price-fixing agreement between gas retailers in four Quebec municipalities. In mid-April 2009, several individuals and companies pled guilty. The investigation is still ongoing.

However, the bureau needs a sworn statement before it can begin an inquiry. Furthermore, the commissioner has access only to information that is available to the public or that is provided voluntarily by the industry.

During our committee meetings, the key question that came up was how this issue was approached in other countries. Here are my findings. In the United States, these studies can be started in three ways: when Congress exercises its legislative authority and calls on the Federal Trade Commission to do a specific report; when members of Congress or Congressional Committees, without using legislative authority, ask the FTC to conduct a study; and when the FTC decides to launch an investigation on its own.

In the United Kingdom, the Office of Fair Trading carries out market studies in various sectors of the economy, including the liability insurance market, new car warranties, private dentistry, taxi services, store cards and pharmacies.

The OFT is also able to make a market investigation reference when it suspects that a feature, or combination of features, of a market prevents, restricts or distorts competition.

The European Commission may conduct its inquiry into a particular sector of the economy "where the trend of trade between member states, the rigidity of crisis or other circumstances suggest that competition may be restricted or distorted within the common market". This authority, while used in a limited extent in the past, has been used more frequently since 2005.

In January 2005, two sector inquiries were launched, one into competition in the energy sector, specifically gas and electricity markets, and another into the financial services sector.

In Australia, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission can conduct general inquiries in all sectors of the economy. The inquiry can be opened by the commissioner.

Some people would tell me that Bill C-10 gives the Commissioner of the Competition Bureau more authority. I would have to disagree.

These are the key elements of Bill C-10: increasing applicable sanctions; redacting certain criminal provisions on price-fixing practices; creating a more effective mechanism for criminal cases; introducing a mechanism to investigate mergers; giving the Competition Tribunal the ability to impose administrative fines on companies that abuse their dominant market position.

Based on the history of the Competition Bureau, particularly as regards the repeal of section 47 in 1986, and the minimal efforts made by the current government to improve the legislation, and based on what goes on in other countries, I believe that we must pass Bill C-452 and reinstate the Competition Bureau's authority to make an inquiry into an entire industry sector. To close, I still question how gas stations can all have similar prices without consulting each other. I'm now ready to answer questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Bonjour à tous. Welcome to the 51st meeting of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Today we're going to be examining Bill C-452, a private member's bill.

Mr. Vincent is here. We are supposed to have two other witnesses--from the Industry department, Mr. Bilodeau and Ms. Einbinder-Miller. Please come forward. Have a seat.

I'll start with Mr. Vincent for ten minutes, then Mr. Bilodeau for up to ten minutes for opening remarks. Then we'll go into our regular question period, and members can ask questions either to the mover of the bill or to the department officials.

Without any further ado, Mr. Vincent.

Mr. Vincent, welcome! You have 10 minutes, sir.

Industry, Science and Technology

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology concerning the extension of time to consider Bill C-452.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th and 12th reports of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in relation to its study of Bill C-501, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and other Acts (pension protection), and in relation to its study of Bill C-452, An Act to amend the Competition Act (inquiry into industry sector).

The committee requests a 30 day extension in order to give the bills their proper consideration.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That's how we'll handle the business, then, and we've already said consensually that we will deal with the extension on this bill as well as Bill C-452.

Without any other business, the meeting is adjourned.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay, our speakers list has been exhausted.

To get some momentum, I think I have consensus on reporting to the House and asking for a 30-day delay on this bill, as well as Bill C-452.

Is there consensus on that?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I have said that I don't agree with the process. I decided to run for politics because I actually want to change things, not because I want to look like I'm changing things. I really want to make things better.

I don't think that meeting with the same witnesses, hearing the same testimony, is going to change anything. But it's clearly the will of the committee to go down that road, so my suggestion would be to fine-tune it and make some sense of it. If we're going to do this anyway, let's also ask for an extension for Bill C-452. We might as well continue these hearings now. There's no sense in waiting for two months and then continuing these hearings. Let's continue these hearings for the next four meetings and see if we can come to some resolution on this bill before we move on to another one. That's my suggestion.

Mr. Garneau, I don't know if you're amenable to that as an option.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

We would probably then want to ask for an extension on the other private member's bill we've talked about, which we have scheduled for the next four meetings, Bill C-452. We would need to get an extension on that, as well.

To the officials, could we have a comment on the package of amendments and the impact they have on the bill? Mr. Garneau has suggested it is a major impact. I wouldn't mind hearing from you about how it changes the bill and how major the impact is.

Fairness at the Pumps Act

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member made an excellent presentation on Bill C-14.

Clearly, the issue here is the empowering of the Commissioner of Competition to act against price fixing. The government has moved against monopolistic practices in real estate at least twice in the last 20 years, and against travel agents and other groups. The question is, if the government can enforce competition in real estate, travel and other industries, why can it not do something about price fixing in retail gas pricing?

To that end, the Bloc has introduced Bill C-452 which accomplishes exactly that. If the government is interested in actually doing something that would get to the root of the problem in this country, then perhaps the government should be looking at supporting the Bloc bill and allowing the Commissioner of Competition to conduct an inquiry into this issue.

Over 125 studies have been done over the last 20 years in the area of price fixing at the pump. The fact of the matter is pretty much everybody concludes that we cannot get a conviction under the current legislation. The key is to change the legislation. That is what we should be doing in this House.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-14, which deals with an amendment to the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act.

As my colleague before me, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord and Bloc Québécois industry critic, said, the Bloc Québécois will support this bill in principle. However, I would like to say that this has been a lot of work for not much result. I will explain why. If the government thinks that with this bill it has done a bold stroke of business, to bring the oil companies into line, that it has come up with the most important thing since sliced bread, it is sadly mistaken. That is why we will agree that it should be considered in committee, subject to our later position over the stages to come.

I listened with interest to the discussions—if I may put it that way, the puck passing—among the NDP members in their speeches and questions and comments. Those discussions were very appropriate, very much on point, and very much in tune. My NDP colleagues have also recognized the private member’s bill introduced by my colleague in the Bloc Québécois. However, everyone will acknowledge that Bill C-14 does not allow for a direct response to the problems of collusion such as have recently been brought to light in Quebec, or for effective prevention of sudden gas price increases. The government thinks the solution is inspections of the pumps and penalties imposed by the courts, ranging from $1,000 to $10,000 for minor offences and from $5,000 to $25,000 for major offences. We should not be fooled. Those fines are peanuts for oil companies raking in billions of dollars in profits. I certainly do not think the oil companies deliberately alter the way the pumps work, to steal a half-cent more per litre sold from us. I certainly do not think that is done. But we do agree that there should be more in-depth inspections. We are not against motherhood, any more than we are against apple pie. With fall upon us, we all agree that apple pie is a good thing. During apple season, I have the apple growers on Île d'Orléans and Isle-aux-Coudres in my riding, and they are very skilled and efficient.

All kidding aside, this is not the discovery of the century. The Bloc Québécois would have expected the government to take responsibility, pull up its socks and address the root of the problem in the oil industry, namely collusion between companies. We did not expect to be told that the Competition Bureau looked into the situation and it cannot conduct an investigation itself because that requires accusations and well-documented cases. As far as the case brought to light in Lotbinière, Arthabaska and the Eastern Townships is concerned, fortunately someone from the oil sector blew the whistle. That is how we came to find out about this. However, it is just the tip of the iceberg.

The problem is much more serious. I hope no one will be surprised to learn that the Conservatives are doing nothing to rein in the oil companies and to discipline them. Just look at who is financing the Conservative Party. It is mostly the oil companies. Who needs tax benefits to explore and exploit the oil sands in Alberta? The Conservatives need the oil companies to finance them in the next election campaign as they needed them in previous elections.

Increasing the retailers' responsibility by imposing mandatory periodic inspections of the measuring devices is truly very important, without a doubt, but it is also highly ineffective. We were hoping and we continue to hope that the competition commissioner would be given more powers. The Bloc Québécois has introduced Bill C-452 as a clear response to gasoline price increases.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you understand. I know that your role as Speaker requires you to be completely neutral. You are listening to what I say. You can do two things at once: speak to your colleague on the left and listen to me. You are clearly talented. I will continue to address you, but I will also address the people watching us at home. Do they realize that in Quebec, increases in the price of gas generally happen on Thursdays, when people get paid? Increases can be seen before a long weekend, when there is a statutory holiday. Before Thanksgiving, prices in Montreal jumped by 10¢ or 12¢ just like that. Nothing happened, and the price per barrel around the world is decreasing. Why did the price in Montreal jump by 10¢, 12¢ and even 15¢?

In the past, the oil companies would tell us that the prices were based on what was going on around the world, on the rising price of a barrel of oil, on the wars in Iraq and the invasion of Kuwait. Any excuse would do. We could understand it if there were instability in the countries that produce oil, or if something specific happened. But in this case, nothing happened. On the contrary, the price per barrel is decreasing, but the price at the pump is going up. That is what makes us say that the oil companies are gouging us.

I will give some more examples for the people at home and for my colleagues in the House who are listening. I do not think there is an equivalent in the other provinces, but in Quebec, the last two weeks of July—sometimes up to the beginning of August—are usually what we call the construction holidays. Hundreds of thousands of construction workers are on vacation at the same time. Generally, construction workers are people who work hard. They get up early, and they are at the mercy of the elements and the weather. They are subject to stress on the construction site, and must meet the deadlines on these construction sites, whether they are residential, commercial or industrial. They must complete the buildings and finish their work on time. In Quebec, construction workers take the last two weeks of July to unwind, and many take that opportunity to travel throughout Quebec.

In Quebec, we are naturally attracted to New England, the coast of Maine and the beaches. Some construction workers take long distance or interprovincial buses, some take the train or plane, but the vast majority generally travel by car. If my colleagues would like proof, they need only travel on Quebec roads during the construction holidays.

It is funny that a few days before July 15, 16 or 17, poof, prices suddenly go up. How can that be? What happens?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-14 today.

I wanted to start out by making some comments about the Bloc's initiative in Bill C-452, because I really feel that that is a game-changer. That is an actual solid response to a long-term problem.

The bill is a very short bill, but it basically amends the Competition Act to authorize the commissioner to inquire into an entire industry sector. As the previous Bloc speaker has pointed out, in order to launch an investigation under the Competition Act, a complaint has to be made, and that is essentially the problem that has occurred over the years. We really need the Competition Bureau to be able to act very independently and be very proactive when it sees price-fixing going on in the gas industry.

I have been dealing with this issue now since probably 1988, when we went from government to opposition in Manitoba, and my job was to ask a lot of questions every day about gas prices. We looked at a whole range of ways to deal with the issue. As a matter of fact, the Conservative minister in Manitoba at the time, Jim Ernst, who was very frustrated too, I might say, was determined to follow this issue through as far as he could. He was aware that there were already 125 studies on this very topic sitting on the shelves gathering dust. Nevertheless he went and commissioned another one, so we are up to 126 now probably, and at the end of the day that study came up with the same conclusions that all the others did, that yes, in fact there was price-fixing going on but the Competition Act would have to be changed in order to get a conviction. So we found that that was not going to be the route to go.

Once again, he was the minister and I was the opposition critic, so we were not exactly working together on the subject because I was asking him questions every day as to what he was doing about the matter.

That was the issue of the study. Then we looked at the regulatory options, and we were aware that in the Maritimes there were regulatory boards available, regulating gas prices, but we watched them closely over the years and found out that they were not the answer either, because in fact they tended to regulate simply to the highest price.

I think the public would be very supportive of a monitoring agency or a regulatory agency if in fact they were going to see a regulatory agency with teeth, one that was going to be able to reduce the prices and not just approve the increases. What we will find, if we look at the Maritime regulatory boards, is that they regulate up to the higher price, and that has always been my objection to that approach.

At the end of the day of course, the gasoline prices are pretty much dependent upon world pricing, world events and availability of supplies. When there are examples of refineries impacted by severe storms and hurricanes in the southern United States, such as Louisiana, when refineries are shut down because of weather, storms, explosions or work stoppages, there comes a shortage of product and that creates problems.

We have seen a huge reduction in the number of refineries over the years. In Manitoba, as recently as 20 years ago, I believe we had 2 refineries in the province, and today we have none.

So during this period of the early 1990s, when we were looking at the whole area of studying the issue and changes to the Competition Act and we were looking at regulating gas prices, we were also observing some other developments that were happening within the market. One was to look at possibly bringing gasoline through the port of Churchill because, as members know, we have a port in Manitoba that is very underutilized. However, we have some tanker farms up there where there are a number of tanks, which hold gasoline products that are actually shipped further north. And so, we were looking into the possibility of actually shipping them down to the south by rail.

We also had a number of independent operators who were taking advantage of a very low American price at the time. There was at least one in particular, but I think there were two or three. What this operator would do was drive down to Fargo or Grand Forks, North Dakota, load up from the pipeline there, truck the gasoline up into Winnipeg and sell it at perhaps 10¢ or 20¢ less per litre. It was a substantial amount. The point was that when we turned on the evening television news on a day-by-day basis, we would see cars lined up for blocks to buy gasoline from this gas station, which was being supplied by tankers that were bringing the gas up from the States. But of course this fellow could only operate to the extent of his ability to fill up his tanker truck and bring it back up. He could not get beyond supplying the gasoline for one or two gas stations.

We did look at perhaps expanding on that a bit and trying bring in more tankers of gasoline into some other stations, and we did encounter a lot of different problems in that the transfer of gasoline is certainly not done the way it used to be done years ago. Some of the members opposite who were on farms in the 1950s would know that gasoline was transferred from a little truck that drove to the farm. It would be transferred by a hose into a big tank and then transferred from there into the farm equipment, the tractors and so on. However, things have changed and we cannot drive into town or into a big city anymore with a big tanker truck and start selling gasoline out of the tanker. We did discover that was a fact.

So, we did look at all sorts of areas to try to act on behalf of consumers at that time, and it is easy to do when the prices skyrocket very quickly.

I want to take a minute to talk about the member for Pickering—Scarborough East because he is a long-time Liberal member in this House. We have had Liberal members today talk about this issue as if it were something that they had newly discovered and other members who think it is a big Conservative problem, that this problem only surfaced since the current Prime Minister and the current Conservative government came to office and now this is all their problem.

The fact of the matter is that all through those periods of time that I spoke about earlier, the Liberals were in power, from 1993 on, and every attempt that was made to do something about high gasoline prices was thwarted. As a matter of fact, with regard to the member for Pickering—Scarborough East, his own Liberal caucus thwarted his efforts on many occasions, I believe. I used to hear him many times over the years, on the radio, being a champion of the consumer and trying to do things with regard to the Competition Bureau and trying to deal with competition and the price-fixing issues in this country, and he was getting nowhere with his own caucus, with his own government and with his own prime minister.

This has been a longstanding problem. Price-fixing is not something that is just peculiar to the gasoline industry. Since the mid-1980s to the present, we have seen at least two major initiatives on the part of the federal government against price-fixing in the real estate industry. The latest one is being resolved as we speak. Within a number of weeks, the real estate boards across Canada will be getting together to ratify a deal that was made to prevent price-fixing. If that deal is not ratified then, of course, they will proceed through court action.

There are anti-competitive activities that have been around in our society for many years and they have been allowed to foster over the years. It takes strong initiatives on the part of government and law enforcement to attack this and try to break it up, so that the public is better served by true competition.

It is not only real estate agents that have been dealt with over the years but the travel agency business and the property and casualty insurance business. I believe the Toyota Motor Corporation was challenged when it tried to set a fixed price. I am sure members will recall five or six years ago when Toyota tried to dictate to its dealers that in fact there was a fixed price, there was a no-haggle pricing and they could not cut the price. That was dealt with by the government in a positive way.

This is not exciting stuff for the average member of the public, but it is very crucial to a proper competitive environment in which business has to compete. A series of monopolies governing the country is not the way our system is supposed to be operating. We try a lot of things, like monitoring. People think it is a good idea, but we have proven it does not work. However, there are a lot of other things we could look at here.

I want to talk about some of the elements of this bill that people on our side of the House have found objectionable. I do not think we would have a problem if, in fact, these gas pumps across the country were being inspected by government inspectors.

I mentioned earlier that for many years in the province of Manitoba, and maybe some other provinces too, we had a system of random inspections of cars. If a car was bought today, owned for 10 years, it would probably be called in once or twice for an inspection and repairs would have to be made to keep the car in good shape to keep it on the road. People trusted that system because they knew it was government inspectors who were doing the inspecting.

Around 1995, the Conservative government of the day decided to turn the whole inspection system over to private garages. The economy was probably tight, they were not making enough money and this was a way to give them a bit of a cash cow. When cars needed inspecting, they would have to go to a local garage and it was up to the garage to tell the owners what was wrong with their cars. We have seen many terrible examples of gouging, where people have bought a car, taken it to a garage, and found out they have to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars for repairs before they could put that car on the road. We have seen totally different examples of people who have taken cars in and have found out later from a friend in the business that in fact cars that are really not safe at all are being approved, are being certified as safe and being allowed to be driven on the road, because someone has an in with somebody or has a relative in the garage or dealership.

This system was brought in as a sop to the car industry, and overnight the price of used cars went up. We used to see $50 cars, $100 cars, back in the early 1990s. Then, overnight, because of the safety inspection system, the worst-looking car on the road was a $1,000 vehicle.

After a couple of years, the CBC and other news outlets, based on complaints, started to do investigations of what was happening. They found all sorts of examples of gouging in Manitoba, where people were being taken advantage of. The CBC would take in cars that they had previously had inspected; they knew what was wrong with them. I will not mention the garages, but some of them hon. members would know, because they are nationally known chains. The cars would be taken to five or six different garages, and most of the garages, if not all of them, would find huge problems with the cars, when there was nothing wrong with them. That was a blatant example of gouging. Some of the garages lost their licences because of this. Then, a year or two later, a follow-up was done. They found still more cases of gouging. In fact, the second time around, some of the same garages that were caught the first time were cited once again.

Hon. members should know that we cannot get rid of the system once it is in place. The NDP, under Gary Doer, became the government in 1999. It did not get rid of this system and go back to a centralized government inspection system. In fact, it changed the safety inspection period, from two years to one.

As for keeping cars safe on the road, safety inspections are required only when we sell our car. If we have a car and it is sold three or four times in the first two or three years, it will have safety inspections over and over again. However, if we buy the car and drive it ourselves and keep it, we could drive the car forever and it will never be called in for a safety inspection. Potentially, we may have many unsafe cars on our roads. This is a result of turning a perfectly functioning system over to the private sector.

Let us take a look at what could happen and probably will. Members have already said that, if we are dealing with rural areas, northern areas, then we are talking about the private sector. Who will be doing the inspections of the pumps in Yukon? Who will be doing them in the Northwestern Territories, northern B.C., in rural areas? It is a licence to print money. It is a recipe for abuse to have a system like this.

I also want to deal with some aspects of the weights and measures issue. But this is not the way to go. The public and the retailers would accept it if the government were to do the inspections. The inspections should be done over a period of time, but the government should do them. We should not allow the private sector to do these inspections.