Debates of Oct. 22nd, 1996

Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) Act

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleagues to talk about the enormous powers the federal government is giving itself. As my colleague pointed out, the power to appoint tribunal members seems excessive. I think the power to change very quickly and without any compensation, as the federal government sees fit, the commissioners or chairs who do not meet all its requirements is really excessive.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on this, which I think is very important. Especially since this bill specifies that the provinces have no say in the appointments. As we know full well, the decisions taken in certain economic, social and other areas often affect one province more than another, and nowhere in the bill is it mentioned that a province could have a say in the appointments. I think this further centralization of powers benefits the federal government at the expense of the provinces, especially Quebec, which is a very important province.

Energy is a case in point. As we know, a tribunal could side with an energy industry against Quebec, for example with western oil interests at the expense of Quebec, whose main source of energy is electricity. I think the government is granting itself excessive powers by failing to consult with the provinces on appointments.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on this. Personally, I think there is danger of further federal centralization. The government claims it wants to decentralize powers, but I think that, with this bill, it is taking concrete action to further centralize powers.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Longueuil for his unexpected question. I heard some members yawn across the way while his asked his question. What we get are unexpected questions. I would like the people watching us or following question period to realize that, when a Liberal member puts a question to a Liberal minister, the minister has received the text of the question ahead of time and is then able to read his answer. Conversely, when the question comes from the official opposition, they do not get the text ahead of time. Just between us, the questions we are asking one another are real questions. I did not know ahead of time what my colleague, the hon. member for Longueuil was going to ask me.

I will answer him by expressing a difference.

I am talking about the distinction made in this bill between a superior court judge, be it the Quebec superior court, the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, and the judges sitting on administrative tribunals.

At the superior court level, judges normally remain on the bench until the age of 75, unless removal is considered in extremely serious and rare cases. A resolution has even to be passed by Parliament to have a remove federal jurisdiction judge.

It is like this case that was almost referred to us-it is common knowledge-the case of Judge Bienvenue, who eventually decided to retire. I think that was a wise decision on his part. Perhaps he suspected how the House of Commons would vote. Following a serious investigation conducted by the judicial council, judges from various provinces recommended that Judge Bienvenue be

removed from the bench. That is the procedure to have a superior court judge removed.

The offence has to be really very serious to warrant such action, while, with this bill, if the trust of the jurisprudence is not to the liking of the government, a judge may be removed, because, unlike the situation I described earlier, where judges were appointed for a fixed period, which provided a degree of job security and ensured a degree of independence in the decision making process during the three, five, or seven years of the mandate, they are now designated. "I designate you today and I can take your designation away the next day. You can get sacked whenever the minister feels like it." That is the difference.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

The hon. member for Fraser Valley West has three minutes for debate.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Three minutes. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It is a far cry from the 20 minutes I should have had.

It is said and it is true that a government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. That ideal is what pervades the whole issue of patronage in this country, in particular Bill C-49.

When we are talking about patronage, whether we are amending a bill or adjusting a bill or adding to a bill in this House we have to question whether the bill is even needed. Most people in my riding of Fraser Valley West would suggest that the issue of patronage is crude, embarrassing, insulting and very Liberal.

I have dealt in Atlantic Canada with a number of issues involving patronage. Today in question period I asked about it. It is not necessarily an appointment but we will get to that maybe tomorrow in question period. When we see a government like this that gives out $87 million and in return from a company like Bombardier gets $170,000 put into its coffers, we have to wonder exactly what kind of democracy we are in today.

I wonder how many people from where I come from are aware that this government in fact hands out their money to corporations and in return for that handout gets a share of that money back to its party in order to run elections.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

One of the members says hear, hear. He is very proud of it.

The concept under which this government runs is a terrible example of what is wrong with this country. If we take situations like in my riding where I ran and handily beat the Liberal candidate, what does the Liberal government turn around and do? He wins. It offers him a position with the Canada Development Corporation. If he runs again against me and when he loses, what is he going to get? He will go up to the next plumb, perhaps a harbours board job. Maybe a Senate seat, but those usually go to people who flunk out here.

I will be back tomorrow to talk about patronage. I know they do not like to hear what I say, but I will leave them with this. Economic dependence, which is the philosophy of this government, ensures political dependence. That is another reason this Liberal government must be defeated the next time around.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

It being5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Competition Act

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

moved that Bill C-266, an act to amend the Competition Act (protection of whistle-blowers), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to present Bill C-266, an act to amend the Competition Act, protection of whistle blowers. This bill is a relatively straightforward piece of legislation which seeks to improve the ability of the competition bureau to gather evidence of anti-competitive activities. More important, it legislates the principle that no Canadian should lose their job because they report a contravention of the laws of this Parliament or refuse to participate in the commission of an act which contravenes the laws of this Parliament.

This principle is sound and must be upheld as a test of our commitment to ensure the respect of the laws enacted by the duly elected representatives of the House. Anything less sends a signal to corporations and employers that they can entice or coerce law-abiding employees to engage in illegal activities. This is wrong and must not be tolerated.

With respect to the Competition Act, Bill C-266 legislates in three areas. First, it allows Canadians to report violations of the Competition Act anonymously and guarantees that their identity or the source of the information will be kept confidential. Second, it makes it illegal for an employer to discipline or fire an employee who refuses to participate in, or who reports a violation of the Competition Act. Third, it grants to an employee disciplined for respecting the Competition Act the right to sue for damages or reinstatement.

Although Bill C-266 was born from the need to redress the problems in the marketing and sale of gasoline in Canada, it is important to recognize that the bill applies to all businesses in all sectors of the economy.

I am sure that every member of this House has received complaints about the fluctuations in the price of gasoline. The retail price of gasoline fluctuates in unison. In any market when the price goes up, it goes up everywhere at the same time. Mysteriously, it always increases by the same amount. The gas industry calls these price fluctuations conscious parallelism. My constituents call it suspicious and they even call it price fixing.

The gas industry says it only reflects the industry's cost structure and the nature of supply and demand for petroleum products. Independent gas retailers say that the price fluctuations are an attempt by the majors to force them out of the market, to control the market and to lessen competition.

Here is the bottom line: Canadians do not trust how gas prices are set and Canadians have lost confidence in both industry and governments on this issue. They have both failed to adequately explain why gas prices fluctuate in unison and why the price of gas is higher in certain areas of the country.

Every week I drive to Ottawa from my riding in northern Ontario. The further east I get, the lower the price of gasoline. I can tell the House that higher prices in northern Ontario cannot be explained away by transportation costs.

This is an issue which irritates all Canadians. This is a problem for Canadians and they are calling on their elected officials to take action. Some governments have acknowledged the problem and are moving to address it.

In Nova Scotia the provincial government is concerned that the pricing policies of refiners are squeezing out the independents. It believes that this would eventually lessen competition, reduce consumer choice and lead to even higher prices. It is considering the introduction of anti-trust laws to protect independents and guarantee competition.

In response to the Ultramar situation of last summer, the Quebec government announced last week that it would legislate margins above wholesale prices. Prior to the announcements, even Quebec's Fédération canadienne de l'entreprise indépendante had requested that the government legislate to protect independent gas retailers and consumers at the pumps.

The premier of British Columbia is on record as stating that government action may be required to protect consumers at the pumps.

In Ontario the MPP for Ottawa West has introduced a private member's bill on fair gas pricing in the province. Even the premier of Ontario has acknowledged the problem. When in opposition, he pressured the Rae government to keep its promise to take action on the pricing of gasoline.

The Americans have and are facing the same problem. Their responses, more daring than ours, provide us with useful insights.

In the midst of the gulf war crisis, President Bush warned U.S. oil companies not to use the crisis as a pretext to gouge consumers at the pump. In the spring of this year, President Clinton ordered the sale of 12 million barrels of oil from emergency reserves in an attempt to hedge down the price at the pumps. However, these are incidental actions. The real tests are the actions taken by state legislators.

A large number of states, 21 I believe, have legislation that mandates refiners to sell gas at the same price to all retailers, independent and company owned stations. Maryland, Connecticut, Delaware, Virginia, Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico have gone further by enacting gasoline divorcement laws that prohibit the producer or the refiner of gasoline from operating service stations.

I find it ironic that on this issue the Americans are ahead of us in protecting consumers. Here in Canada the response from the federal government has echoed the petroleum industry's line that price fluctuations simply reflect supply and demand. Canadians are not convinced.

The competition bureau has held industry wide investigations but has failed to uncover price fixing. Investigations and prosecutions of gas companies and retailers suspected of price fixing have not met with resounding success. Another such industry wide probe is now under way.

Consumers and independents are travelling to Montreal and Ottawa to provide testimony on their experiences with anti-competitive pricing in the industry. However, they remain sceptical that the investigation will lead to any significant change even though they and their consumers know that they are being wronged.

There is little doubt that addressing the whole issue of pricing in the gasoline industry will require concerted action by both the federal and provincial governments, each acting within their respective jurisdictions. Some provinces are moving in this direction. It is now time for the federal government to follow suit. Bill C-266 is an important step along this path.

Industry Canada informs us that the sections of the Competition Act dealing with conspiracy, abuse of dominant position and others are adequate to ensure competition and protect consumers at the pumps. If this is the case, how do we explain the lack of successful prosecutions? I doubt that the majority of Canadians are wrong about the pricing of gas.

According to the former director of the competition bureau, Mr. George Addy, the problem lies in the collection of evidence needed for successful prosecutions. To prove the existence of illegal agreements to fix prices at the pumps, the assistance of the individuals who make and implement the agreements is needed.

In June 1995 Mr. Addy testified at the natural resources committee hearings on gas prices. He stated: "I need the co-operation of individuals and firms who have information". He later added: "A law is only as effective as the evidence one is able to assemble when a genuine contravention occurs".

I believe it is even more revealing to quote from the Globe and Mail , May 14, 1996 edition: ``Last year George Addy, the bureau's director of investigation and research, said his agency would be able to police the petroleum industry more effectively if it were easier for people to blow the whistle on illegal practices. Direct evidence of wrongdoing is difficult to obtain without the help of insiders, said Addy. As it stands, he noted, anyone who comes forward puts his livelihood at risk''.

In his testimony before the committee, Mr. Addy proposed to improve the operations of the Competition Act by better protecting informants and witnesses who disclose illegal conduct, and by pressuring firms to adopt voluntary whistle blowing mechanisms within their organizations.

Bill C-266 takes up and legislates Mr. Addy's recommendations because industry self-regulation of competition matters is simply nonsense. Delegating the responsibility for competition to corporations goes against public interest. Guaranteeing free and open competition in the marketplace is too important.

This brings us to the two fundamental questions that must be addressed in this debate. The first question is: Should an individual lose his or her right to earn a livelihood because he or she reports a violation of the Competition Act or refuses to participate in a violation of a law passed by this House?

The answer must be no, unless the members of this House deem that individuals standing up in defence of Canadian law are not worthy of protection. Here we are talking about individuals standing up for consumers, for us, for our constituents. The preamble of the Competition Act states as one of its purposes "to provide consumers with competitive prices and product choices". We must never lose sight of this.

The principles legislated in Bill C-266 are not new. They are well entrenched in Canadian and even in American law. For illustrative purposes, members can consult the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 and the Alberta Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

American law is also no stranger to whistle blower protection. For example, the Fair Labour Standards Act of 1938 and the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 among many other laws protect employees who report illegal conduct.

I would like to draw particular attention to New Jersey's conscientious Employee Protection Act. This law protects employees who report or refuse to participate in a breach of any law, whether federal, state or local. This type of protection implements the principles of Bill C-266 in the largest possible sense in all fields of human activity. It fully recognizes the premium society places on respect for the law.

The first principle on which Bill C-266 is founded is therefore sound.

The second question is whether a Canadian in possession of information that a breach of an act of Parliament has or will be committed should have the right to file an anonymous complaint.

An individual should have that right. That option serves as the operational foundation of Crime Stoppers. Few would question the effectiveness of that program. It is important to note that many of the violations of the Competition Act are also infractions under the Criminal Code.

Therefore, we have before us in Bill C-266 a bill that is founded on fundamental principles that I am confident the majority of Canadians and members of this House support, a bill that legislates recommendations made by the former head of our own competition bureau, recommendations which he stated would improve the detection and investigation of violations of the Competition Act in relation to price fixing in the gas industry.

In May 1996 the Minister of Industry stated that he would review the desirability of introducing whistle blowing protection into the Competition Act. That is the bill before us today. I regret to inform the House that the Department of Industry has advised me that it does not support Bill C-266 even though it follows the recommendations of the former head of the competition bureau.

Although we have all come to expect the near automatic disapproval of private members' bills by government departments, I was disappointed to learn of the department's continued inertia on the pricing of gasoline, a real and serious concern for consumers. Nonetheless, I am heartened that the final judgment on Bill C-266 lies with the elected and accountable members of this House and not the bureaucracy.

On a positive note, the department does support enhancing confidentiality protection offered to complainants, a key element of Bill C-266. The department states that it disapproves of Bill C-266, because it favours industry self-regulation of whistle blower protection. It wants employees of gas companies to lobby their bosses to permit them to report breaches of the law. It wants gas companies to offer bonuses to employees who report illegal

acts committed by the firm. It wants gas companies to establish internal procedures for reporting crimes. This is nonsense. Gas companies are the problem and the department wants them to self-regulate their own breaches of the Competition Act.

In the real world the employee who reports a breach of the law and costs his or her firm a fine, loses his or her job. They certainly do not get a bonus and a promotion. "Anyone who comes forward puts his or her livelihood at risk". Those are the words of the former head of the competition bureau, George Addy.

There is no doubt that we need legislation in this area to protect the individual who stands by the law and who stands up to protect our interests against anti-competitive practices.

There is also a double standard and contradictions in the department's approach. In June 1995 the competition bureau released a discussion paper on amendments to the act. It makes interesting reading. Do consumers know that the department wants to repeal the section dealing with price discrimination? This is the section that ensures that gas refiners offer similar price advantages to all outside retailers. I am confident that independent gas retailers and consumers will pay the price for this initiative should it ever become law.

It also wants to give the court the power to force a company to initiate a whistle blower program. This of course does not protect the employee from dismissal. Why extend any benefit to the employees of one firm and not to all Canadians? Why should we have to go to court to force the company to institute any program to facilitate the gathering of information?

It also wants to give the competition tribunal the power to make restitution orders when an individual or firm has suffered a loss due to anti-competitive and misleading advertising. Good for the company. But by rejecting Bill C-266 it is refusing the right of restitution to the employee who respects the law.

It wants to give firms the right to launch their own cases before the competition tribunal. But it wants to deny the right of an employee to keep his or her job after he or she makes a stand in support of the Competition Act.

It is clear that we are witnessing in matters of competition the development of double standards. An expansion of remedies for firms, including gas companies, and a denial of remedies for law-abiding employees who defend the interests of consumers in free and open competition.

I am sure we are going to hear representatives from the government raise jurisdictional issues. Often times a preference for the status quo and inaction is clouded in jurisdictional issues. The Competition Act is a valid federal statute as is any disposition which adds to the arsenal of tools needed to investigate and gather evidence of anti-competitive behaviour.

In June 1995 the competition bureau stated before a committee of the House that the measures found in Bill C-266 would improve policing of the gasoline industry. Bill C-266 only implements what the bureau recommended and I know the slew of lawyers at the bureau would not recommend anything outside their jurisdiction.

This bill does not regulate or mandate prices. This is the jurisdiction of the provinces and they must make their own choices. It improves the operations of the act and offers new tools to protect law-abiding Canadians.

Finally, the department objects to the use of the word commission in Bill C-266. I have reviewed the objection and I have consulted with the legislative counsel's office. In the proper housekeeping and the interests of open and free debate, I recognize this technical point. The issue can be resolved by simply replacing the word commission by director. I will propose an amendment when the House forwards the bill to the committee. It must be noted that this technical amendment in no way affects the general scheme or intent of the bill.

In closing, I would like to re-emphasize that this bill is straightforward. It makes sense. Canadians need it. Canadians want it. It brings us one step closer to solving the problems of pricing in the gas industry.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say a few words on Bill C-266, introduced by the hon. member for Nickel Belt. This is in fact an amendment to the Competition Act.

I am not saying I oppose this measure, but I do have some concerns. I believe that, in principle, it is a step in the right direction to allow employees, people who work for certain businesses, to enjoy an environment that is better, more fair and more honest. We cannot lose when we seek to promote honesty.

Honesty is the key to the establishment of stable, balanced and lasting societies. In this sense, the fact that the employees or contractors of an employer will be allowed to report injustices and to speak freely on illegal tactics by the company can bring some stability in businesses and promote fairness in our economic system.

But I do have some concerns. I fear that a business could be infiltrated by employees from competing companies who could then find all sorts of motives to blame the business. The hon. member referred to oil companies. We know that these are powerful corporations. It could happen that, from time to time, companies of this type might secretly delegate individuals to

infiltrate the competition and make accusations that could be harmful to their operations.

That may occasionally happen, but probably not often enough for me to want to oppose the bill. I think that overall the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.

Similarly, I also wondered whether certain dishonest, mistreated employees, if they had complete freedom to criticize their employer, might also abuse the privilege and blow the whistle on their own company, their own employer, and create an unpleasant atmosphere within the company.

Once again, having examined this question, I think that it would be a minority of these employees who might act in this way. Generally, an employee works for his employer, for the company. He does what he can to help the company operate as well as possible. For these reasons, I think that it is still a good idea to support Bill C-266.

There is also the fact of having employees or contractors, consultants within a company who act as watchdogs. As I said at the beginning of my speech, this also helps the company to continue to operate honestly, and to observe the Competition Act.

Sometimes an employer does not realize he is doing something wrong, but if all his employees have the right to point this out nicely, to advise their employer that they are in contravention of the Competition Act, they might avoid serious consequences for this company.

The fact that the employee has the right to advise his employer of fraud, of a tendency to commit fraud or of the fact that he is not complying with the Competition Act will also give the company a chance to quickly adjust its behaviour. Employees will be able to work in an environment where honesty is appreciated. And finally, this would give the industry a chance to clean up its act, and in the long run, everyone would benefit.

It is always important to have watchdogs, although sometimes people may find this unpleasant. It always leads to more fairness, a better balance and better continuity in the industry or the company in which we work.

I do not want to take up much more of your time with my speech on this bill. I will simply say I support the bill. It is a free vote, so I suggest hon. members support this bill in order to improve competition, as the hon. member for Nickel Belt pointed out, especially in the oil industry.

We know that in this industry, there are often cases of unfair competition, but perhaps when the rules are more clear-cut, when employees are able to advise their bosses or the shareholders that they are engaging in unfair competition which basically is harmful to the economic stability of the industry, this will benefit everyone, both the consumer and the companies. I will stop here, and I repeat that I support this bill.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-266, an act to amend the Competition Act. I support this bill although I do have a concern about it. I will address that in a moment.

I like the idea of there being a benefit to the consumer. I like the fact that it improves the policing and the consumer watch over product. That is something much needed.

Unlike previous bills which have sought to find measures that will prevent unfair gasoline pricing at the pumps, this bill works within the current provisions of the Competition Act without overtly increasing the size and the cost of the bureaucracy, or imposing unnecessary regulation on the marketplace.

The bill will enhance the commission's ability to conduct an investigation by allowing the commission to act on confidential information. Under the current legislation an investigation can only be carried out by the commission if supported by a six resident application for inquiry into allegations of wrongdoing or at the minister's request. We know where that goes with ministerial requests.

The Reform Party policy supports vigorous measures to ensure the successful operation of the marketplace through such means as the promotion of competition, competitive pricing, the strengthening and vigorous enforcement of competition and anti-combines legislation with severe penalties for collusion of price-fixing. This bill fits quite well within the scope of the policy that Reform has. There was mention by a previous speaker of the impact on employer-employee relations. Having negotiated collective agreements for many years in my career, there is an aspect of this that basically provides for an employer to be libel for a fine of up to $100,000 or two years imprisonment if found guilty of retaliatory action against an employee under the circumstances that were laid out.

I do not know of anywhere in this country that it is legislated where an employer may receive a $100,000 fine and in particular two years imprisonment for a dispute between and employer and an employee. In many cases we can probably get situations where a disgruntled employee, an employee who has been fighting with the organization itself, the owners themselves, says "I am going to rat on this certain circumstance", and perhaps they are wrong or half right. All of a sudden we find the employee taking the employer to task through court and demanding that there not only be restitution

but demanding that the employer be libel to a fine of $100,000 or two years in prison.

Those are the kinds of difficulties that legislators, in particular the federal government and provincial governments, get into when they try to right a situation, especially in the competitive markets and by doing so over react on the other end to the punitive measures if that situation is not fulfilled.

I worry about any kind of legislation where we are actually talking about employers who through a fault of their own are fined $100,000 or two years in prison.

In this country we have a hard enough time getting individuals for sexual assault to have these kinds of fines and two years in prison. I am not sure whether that strong punitive measure belongs in this bill.

I would sincerely hope that the member who brought Bill C-266 forward would reconsider that aspect and downsize the punitive measure. It should not be $100,000 and two years in prison, but something a bit more reasonable than that.

I recognize that there is a respect for the confidentiality of the employee except in cases where upon inquiry the commission finds that employee knowingly accused an employer falsely. Therein we get into employer-employee relationships again and the problems that can happen.

I do think this is a good bill. The difficulty with the other side of the bill is that the measures taken to ensure that it is enforced are too harsh. If the member wishes the support of this member, I would ask him to reconsider that. Then I think he has something that is very worthwhile. Indeed, it fits in with our policy. I would certainly be happy to go with it.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Nickel Belt on his excellent initiative. This is an issue that I have been involved with for over eight years now. This issue has received a lot of attention both in terms of public attention and attention in this House. A number of members have raised this issue on a number of occasions. I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has pushed forward the agenda on this subject matter.

The idea is an excellent one. It is not a question of whether there is a need for whistleblower legislation when it comes to gasoline pricing in Canada but a question of when and how fast we can introduce such legislation.

I have had a chance to look at the proposal of the hon. member for Nickel Belt and I must admit that on the surface it seems that a lot of adjustments would be required for his proposal to be effective. However, to reject it out of hand would be unfair. I suggest that the fair thing for us to do would be to allow this proposal to go to committee. At committee, if members of any party have suggestions or amendments which they would like to make, that would be the appropriate time to do that.

I do not think it is fair to reject it out of hand because the people of Canada have asked us to take action on this issue. They want a system which is transparent, just and fair. They want a system whereby if someone sees a wrong or a mishap in the industry, that person will be able to come forward with the information without the fear of prosecution, peer pressure or employer pressure.

The Minister of Industry and his department have done an excellent job. After eight years of pushing and shoving, finally we have a government that is very responsive. It is responding to a request by the people. The department has taken action on this issue and there is an inquiry under way.

I want to commend the minister for his leadership, as well as the people who are working on the inquiry, without commenting on the proceedings of the inquiry. It is an excellent beginning. It is my hope that in the near future the inquiry will produce a set of recommendations and the government, as has been promised by departmental officials, will complete its review of the Competition Act and will introduce measures similar to those introduced by my colleague from Nickel Belt so that we can once and for all return some justice to the system.

There is price fixing across the country. Sometimes it is sporadic but sometimes it is properly orchestrated and organized. I have said this over and over again and I will continue to say it.

For us as a government to be able to get to the bottom of it, we have to implement provisions to protect people who have information. We do not only have to protect employees, as my colleague has proposed, but also employers, independent retailers, people who have outlets on consignment and anybody who has information about price fixing. They should be able to come forward with that information without fear. Unfortunately within the present system it is extremely difficult for someone to come forward with information because they are afraid for their lives. They are afraid for their jobs. They are afraid that their supply might be cut off.

My colleague from Saint-Denis told me about a difficulty which exists in the province of Quebec.

There have often been fierce battles in the oil industry. People from various parts of Quebec have mentioned the incredible pressures that were felt when an oil company decided to sell its gas below cost. This is really running roughshod over the competition. It was incredible. Such procedures also violate the Competition Act.

There are unfortunate things happening. Certain companies and individuals know there are loopholes in the act and they can drive camels through them in some cases. They have studied the act and they know it inside and out.

In fairness to consumers, retailers and everyone, we have to come up with something which is fair and square and which will ensure transparency in the system. I would say it is fair to have legislation with a provision for people to come forward with information without fear.

I want to commend the department for taking the initiative to introduce the 1-800 line, an excellent initiative. I want to congratulate the department for taking the initiative in terms of the inquiry. I also want to congratulate the department for reviewing the act, which it is presently doing. That is excellent.

It would be fair to send the initiative proposed by my colleague to committee. There should be a provision within the committee to look at it. If the government comes forward with a proposal a month or two from now, my colleague may very well combine his initiative with what the government is trying to do.

In private discussions I had with him on a number of occasions he clearly stated that his intention was to see something happen because his constituents were demanding action. I join with him although I have a number of concerns. For example, retailers are not mentioned.

Discrimination also takes place against independent retailers, retailers on consignment or other individuals in the community who may have information. I discussed those concerns with my colleague and he was open to an amendment to his proposal. He was also open to allowing the government to make his recommendations part of a government proposal. That would be wonderful.

There is another element which is not addressed in this proposal, the relationship between oil suppliers and retailers. The relationship between the supplier and the retailer is not properly defined in the act and it must be. Unless we define the relationship between the supplier and the retailer we will find an undue influence.

Consider that a supplier of gasoline that owns company a sells to an individual who also sells gasoline from the same supplier. That particular supplier can influence the price of gasoline through his outlet and force the other person who is buying his gasoline to set their prices as per company a . It is a complicated issue to explain in the House but the bottom line is that it is time to pass this bill to committee.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague, the member for Nickel Belt, a fellow northerner from northern Ontario, on his private member's Bill C-266. It is important before we get into the substance of the bill to examine the historical context of why we are here today.

Madam Speaker, if you were a northerner from Ontario you would know that over the last number of years from the sixties through to the nineties a number of studies have been done. There have been discussions between northerners and southerners about the unequal treatment of consumers depending on where they live in the province of Ontario.

Those individuals have asked their governments, both provincial and federal, on a number of occasions to look at the fairness to consumers of gas prices in the south versus the north, to look at gas prices at the pumps at different times of the year and at different times of the week.

By looking at different studies, I know that every time one of those studies is completed its results and recommendations show that there is no proof that there is price fixing, but obviously something seems wrong with the system.

I will give an example from a southern Ontario perspective, which is hard to believe coming from a northerner from Kenora-Rainy River. When I drive to my residence during the week after I have finished my day's work in the House of Commons, the gas price will be fixed, at around 56 cents a litre. Lo and behold, come Friday night the price goes up. The price then stays up around 57 cents to 58 cents all weekend long. Monday morning the price goes back down again. It does this in unison at practically every service station all the way down Bank.

If the price changed every three or four months when there were fluctuations in oil prices around the world, I think consumers could buy the argument that because the price of oil was going up or going down by the barrel then the prices at different pumps at different service stations could be the same. The perception is that the prices are fixed but at least they could feel comfortable that it makes some sense to them as a consumer.

However, we do not like to drive down the road and see the price changes on a weekend. As consumers, we know there is more business, more travel, more tourism and more people coming and going because they have Friday, Saturday and Sunday off. Gas companies are going to allow prices to go up in order to make a bigger profit.

That is sort of the long and short of why people have some major concerns about the way prices at the pumps are arrived at. They wonder whether something needs to be looked at in depth by parliamentarians or provincial governments in their jurisdiction

which will make us feel more comfortable as consumers that we are getting a good price and a fair price.

Obviously my colleague's inspiration is gasoline pricing. People need the opportunity to have it explained to them as I have. As the ex-chairman of the natural resources committee who instituted the investigation a couple of years back, I had the opportunity to ask Mr. Addy in committee why these fluctuations occurred and whether there was an explanation for them. I also brought the industry in to explain it to us as well.

Even when I sat as the chair of that committee I never got an explanation that I could buy, that I could feel comfortable with, that I could go and tell my constituents: "Here is the reason". They were all over the map.

I will give another example. We buy our gas in northern Ontario from Winnipeg. It is shipped by Paul's Hauling. Paul's Hauling ships gas from Winnipeg right across my riding. It takes about two and a half hours to get to different points in the riding.

The gas prices in Kenora, which is about two hours from Winnipeg, let us say for the sake of argument are 63 cents or 64 cents today. I have not called so it may even be higher. It might even be 66 cents. Fifteen miles outside of town close to Winnipeg gas prices are five cents less. For people who are listening in major centres, this is in the middle of nowhere. It is small tourist place called Clearwater Bay. All the folks in Winnipeg come to spend their holidays in their cottages at this particular place. We have a little wee liquor store, a convenience store and two little gas pumps which have gas prices at five cents less. Drive to Kenora and the price goes up five cents. Drive to Dryden, an hour to an hour and a half away, and it goes down two cents from the price in Kenora. Dryden and Kenora are almost identical in size. I have asked the competition bureau and the people who run these companies to explain this. Members would like a fair explanation of how those prices could vary like that.

You cannot say "it has to be the transportation cost " as my colleague has said. We are not buying that answer because I am told it is about a half cent difference, in the neighbourhood of 300 or 400 miles on a litre of gas, based on the cost of transportation if you are hauling a huge semi. They said that is not the real reason. There are differences in the local competition. Local competition means that different gas stations have prices that they build in, therefore, the prices will naturally be different in a different community.

We spent time blowing holes in that argument and they switched gears on us again. They said the reason why the gas prices are high is because there is no competition. Now we do not have any competition, transportation is not the problem and the different gas stations have different mechanisms of coming up with what their expenses are. Therefore the cost would be different but everybody's price is the same in the same community. At this point we still do not have a legitimate explanation of why those prices are the way they are.

Madam Speaker, you can understand why we have difficulty when politicians from either the provincial or federal level tell us everything is okay.

My colleague from Nickel Belt has taken the bull by the horns and has said that if what the corporations say is true and if what governments say is true, then let us put in a mechanism to make it very easy for people to give us information if they believe there is something wrong with the industry. If the industry is clean and its explanations are solid, it should not have any problem with whistle blowing legislation.

We have whistle blowing legislation in other jurisdictions, for example, in different acts, labour codes and labour protection acts. We have mechanisms where employers will be fined for breaking the law and helping employees. All these arguments are legitimate arguments that should be looked at.

For the sake of my colleagues thinking it is a wrong term, this is a very simple bill. It is not complicated at all. All it asks is that the Competition Act have built into it a way for the competition bureau to make sure that there will be anonymous information given by employees or contractors without them feeling they are putting their livelihoods at risk.

Some of the members I have listened to this evening suggested there may be individuals who will put in frivolous complaints just for the sake of getting back at their employers or a competitor. I doubt that very many people will realistically get into that kind of scenario where they are going to phone the competition bureau and suggest that there is an illegal act, if it does not have some legitimacy, for one simple reason. Can you imagine the hassle that would incur once they start putting forward these potentially illegal acts into the system? What could they incur if it was found to be nothing more than a frivolous act?

We have waited as consumers-I put myself in the position of a consumer-for 30 years in northern Ontario, to have someone explain the best way to deal with this perception that things are not right. At this point we still have not had a government willing to look at this in a comprehensive way.

If we continue to ignore the wishes of Canadian people and consumers, then what you will get is a process that is driven in a much more radical fashion. For example, in Quebec just lately, a process was brought into play where that government is going to pass legislation that which will be much more severe than what my colleague is suggesting. It is less competitive in the sense of having free market forces deal with how prices will be set.

They are now getting into and going down the road of setting limits and monitoring the price of gas in such a way that it may hamstring fair competition.

What a lot of people who believe in capitalism in this country would suggest is it is not good overall for the economy or for the consumer in the long run.

That is what they get when they continue to ignore consumers and good solid pieces of legislation and ideas like those of my colleague from Nickel Belt.

Another issue is that this is a very cheap way to deal with difficult problems. In times of financial difficulty, in times when there is financial restraint and we are looking for ways to improve the efficiency of the system, we ask members to come up with innovative solutions.

My colleague has done that. He has come up with a solution that we all could live with financially and which may just help us with the problem we are trying to solve.

I have said this in my constituency and I will say it here on the floor of the House. If governments are not willing to be reasonable and act in the best interests of their constituents, they will be surprised with radical ideas like those we see coming from the third party which are a simplistic way of solving problems.

It will eventually catch fire and be worse for a lot of individual Canadians because people get very frustrated when they know there is a problem, they are waiting for a solution and they are not getting one.

In the last few seconds I have, this is a very good private member's bill, a very good start. In the next two hours that we have at this reading, there will be other members talking about examples in their regions saying how difficult it is to show that there is nothing wrong with the way the pricing of gas is arrived at. We need to look at mechanisms to be sure that it is fair.

The government would be smart to enact this as part of an overall package of reforms to the Competition Act to make sure that Canadians are protected not just now but of course in the future.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Madam Speaker, I suggest that with mere seconds until 6.30 p.m. you declare it 6.30 p.m. and we adjourn the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Is there unanimous consent to call it 6.30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

The time provided for consideration of private members' business is now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 6.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.28 p.m.)