moved that Bill C-20, an act to amend the Competition Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly glad to have this opportunity to introduce Bill C-20, which will modernize the Competition Act, and make one of our most important economic framework laws more suitable for the information age we live in.

This updating is particularly needed in light of a major problem addressed by these amendments, that of deceptive telemarketing. Telephone scam artists have become a contempory electronic plague. Law enforcement officials conservatively estimate total losses to Canadian victims and lost sales to legitimate business to be in the order of $4 billion per year.

These predators use the anonymity of the telephone and their skills of deception to sound plausible. They persuade their victims to trust what seem like reputable businesses or charities. Sometimes high pressure and abusive sales tactics are used to convince consumers to give up their money or give out their credit card numbers.

And the term consumer includes businesses as well as individuals. Whenever a business purchases goods or services from another firm, it too becomes a consumer. Small and medium sized businesses are frequent targets of telemarketing scams.

All sorts of ingenious tactics and schemes are used. A potential victim might be told that he or she has won a valuable prize or gift, but must pay a fee, or “taxes”, before delivery. Then, the prize turns out to be worthless, or non-existent.

Sometimes a plausible mailing or advertisement pitches an attractive job opportunity. All the victim has to do is call a 900 or 976 number for further details and be kept on hold or listening to a long recorded message while expensive phone charges mount up.

Scam might be piled upon scam. Often con artists call people who have already been victimized once and pose as professionals who can recover their losses, for a fat fee of course, which is never seen again.

Dishonest telemarketers might prey upon businesses and charge inflated bills for minimal, unnecessary or non-existent supplies and services.

Although deceptive telemarketers target all groups in society, they tend to focus on those who are most vulnerable, such as seniors.

The Competition Bureau has prepared a public awareness video which shows one scam artist boasting of cheating mothers and daughters, fathers and sons. This individual is shown outlining an international telephone routing scheme that he used to provide fictitious testimonials for his bogus investment plan. He also described plans to target a family's entire savings, including their paycheque, their pensions and even their children's educational funds.

These despicable cheats are bringing an entire legitimate industry into disrepute.

In addition, given the nature and capabilities of communications media these days, telemarketing scams cross multiple jurisdictions and make cooperative enforcement particularly difficult.

One credit card scam, for example, was run through a corporation in British Columbia, by telemarketers in Ontario who targeted victims in the U.S.. This is why, at the recent meeting of the United States Attorney General and the Solicitor General of Canada, the topic of telemarketing fraud was an important part of their discussions.

Telemarketing fraud also came up at the April 1997 meeting between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States. As a result our two countries established the Canada-U.S. binational working group on telemarketing fraud which delivered its report to the Prime Minister and to the President last November. That report made several recommendations, including that the “governments of both countries and their respective agencies clearly identify telemarketing fraud as a serious crime”.

At present the Competition Act prohibits the use of materially false or misleading representations to promote the supply or use of a product or the promotion of any business interest. The act also contains provisions relating to promotional contests. However it does not specifically forbid certain practices associated with deceptive telemarketing. The current law is also not specific enough to nail con artists who do not actually make any representations over the telephone. These inadequacies needed to be addressed.

The amendments to the Competition Act will create a specific new criminal offence for deceptive telemarketing. It will apply to the use of interactive telephone communications for the purpose of promoting the supply of a product or a business interest.

Persons engaged in telemarketing will be required to disclose certain types of information during their phone calls. The law will also prohibit a number of deceptive practices, such as requiring consumers to pay money as a condition to receive a prize, or to require advance payments for products sold at grossly inflated prices.

Special provisions will expand the responsibility of corporations, their officers and directors, for ensuring compliance with the law. It will become easier for the courts to issue interim injunctions to halt suspicious activities. Penalties will be stiffened. Indicted offenders will face prison for up to five years, and/or a fine at the discretion of the court.

For summary convictions the maximum penalty will be a fine of $200,000 or a year in jail or both.

In certain cases law enforcement officials will be able to intercept private communications without consent after obtaining judicial authorization. This new provision will be used to gather evidence of deceptive telemarketing and will apply to the serious crimes of conspiracy and bid rigging.

While this provision is not expected to be widely used, in some cases it may be the only way to gather evidence effectively. The director would be required to follow the normal procedures of the criminal code to obtain authorization.

These measures against telemarketing fraud are part of a total package of amendments to the Competition Act. To put these changes in context, we should recall that the Competition Act contains both civil and criminal provisions. Criminal offences under the act include price fixing, bid rigging, predatory pricing, retail price maintenance, misleading advertising and other deceptive marketing practices. For these, the crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an offence has been committed, and the new telemarketing provisions will fall into this criminal category.

But the Competition Act also contains civil provisions, whose benchmark is the civil law's less demanding requirement for proof on a balance of probabilities. In civil matters, the Director of Investigation and Research has the option of applying to the Competition Tribunal of Canada for remedial orders to deal with the anti-competitive conduct in question.

Misleading advertising and deceptive marketing practices are criminal offences because they can have serious economic consequences; consequences that can merit a criminal sanction. They hurt both consumers and competitors who are engaged in honest promotional efforts.

However, studies since the mid-1970s show that criminal sanctions alone are an incomplete response to misleading advertising. Criminal prosecution has a number of drawbacks. It is not an effective way to stop misleading advertising quickly, and the criminal law process is expensive and intensely consumptive of time and resources.

The changes before us will create a combination criminal-civil regime to address misleading advertising and deceptive marketing practices. They will foster quick and efficient compliance through a series of measures that allow a great deal of flexibility. This flexibility will enable the competitive bureau to tailor its approach and use the tools that are most effective for each different situation. Criminal sanctions will remain in place but only for the most serious cases of misleading advertising.

Most existing misleading advertising and deceptive marketing offences will fall under the less cumbersome provisions of the civil law as reviewable matters. Remedial orders could be granted by a judicial member of the competition tribunal, by the Federal Court of Canada or by a provincial superior court.

Remedies available to the court would include cease and desist orders, interim cease and desist orders, administrative monetary penalties, information notices and consent orders.

Taken together, and combined with the Competition Bureau's existing and strong education program, these measures will permit the Competition Bureau to take a pro-active and preventive approach to anti-competitive practices which go against fairness in the Canadian marketplace. They will expedite decision making and ensure that it is done consistently.

Most of these types of cases would be brought before the Competition Tribunal, rather than the criminal courts.

These amendments would also change the title of the Head of the Competition Bureau from Director of Investigation and Research to Commissioner of Competition.

This new title of commissioner will better reflect the responsibilities of the position, putting it on a par with those, for example, of the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Its other most important changes concern prenotification of mergers, regular price claims and prohibition orders. For mergers an effective prenotification process is essential to allow the competition bureau to determine in advance whether a transaction would have a negative effect on competition. The proposed amendments will make the prenotification process more efficient and clarify the law concerning certain types of acquisition.

Information requirements would be revised and outlined in the regulations instead of in the act. There would be greater flexibility to waive the requirement for prenotification or for some of the information required under certain circumstances. Longer waiting periods will provide sufficient time to review proposed transactions thoroughly. Conditions for obtaining interim orders will be relaxed so that the commissioner will be able to delay the closing of a merger that raises competition issues until an inquiry can be completed.

The regular price claims provisions of the act will be amended for greater clarity and to better reflect what consumers and retailers understand by them. The legitimacy of regular price claims would be determined by an objective standard, a test based either on sales volume or the pricing of an article over time.

Consumers will benefit from this clarification of the rules and merchants will have more freedom of choice in selecting pricing strategies and will be encouraged to innovate in ways beneficial to consumers and retailers alike.

The other major area of impact of these amendments concerns prohibition orders. Courts will be given more tools to address criminal conduct. They will be able to issue orders to require those accused to take certain steps, or engage in certain conduct to prevent the commission, continuation or repetition of an offence.

The amendments will establish a more cost-effective, enforceable instrument for alternative case resolution, in matters where there is no need for criminal penalties, and where the parties can agree on the terms of an order.

Let me emphasize as strongly as I can that these amendments do not mean more leniency for those who engage in serious anti-competitive behaviour. When a reasonable solution cannot be reached for civil matters, be it consent orders or other means, the commissioner has stated that he will not hesitate to take the matters to the tribunal.

He has further stated that in cases where there are egregious and serious violations of criminal proceedings or provisions, he will not hesitate to refer cases to the attorney general and recommend prosecution with the full rigour of the law.

The amendments before us today will give the bureau an expanded range of tools to ensure full conformity with the law. Its continuum of measures begins with education and goes up the scale to guidelines, advisory opinions, information contacts, voluntary codes, settlements, consent orders, charges and fines all the way to imprisonment.

These amendments are based upon partnership and consensus among stakeholders—often, stakeholders whose positions might vary widely. The last major revisions to the Competition Act were made in 1986, an age ago, given the pace of modern business. The changes we are making are long overdue.

They will modernize the Competition Act in ways that have been recognized as needed by consumers and by their representatives, by the business and legal communities, and by academia and law enforcement agencies.

They will help protect Canadian consumers from telemarketing fraud. They will help the competition bureau foster the fair, efficient and competitive functioning of the Canadian marketplace for the benefit of all of society.

In light of these changes I hope they will find swift passage in parliament.

Competition ActGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Reform

Werner Schmidt Reform Kelowna, BC

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I join in this debate. I must admit the minister has made a very strong case for the legislation. In general I agree it is a good piece of legislation. It is high time. It has been on the table since 1996. I wonder why it took this long to get on to the agenda. It seems that a whole lot of other legislation took precedence.

If anybody doubts the importance of the legislation they should have watched the Goldhawk exposé last night on CTV. It was very clear in the case of a lady who had been approached by fraudulent telemarketers who bilked her for $38,000. It was no small amount for a retired lady to pay to deceptive telemarketers. That is the flagship part of the legislation. It is high time it was introduced in the House.

The specific provisions in the legislation are interesting. I support them completely. First, telemarketers must identify who they are representing. Second, they must disclose the price of the services or product they are proposing. Third, they must tell why they are calling. Those three provisions are presently omitted. A telemarketer can get along making all kinds of claims without ever saying who he represents, what the price might be or what the reason is for the call.

The minister made a point about saying how large the telemarketing business is. He referred to the joint meeting between the two heads of state, the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada. In 1997 the estimate of that business was somewhere around $500 billion, with the fraudulent part of it accounting for about 10% or about $50 billion. Canada is roughly 10% of the United States, which makes it $5 billion in Canada.

The minister suggested that the cost to Canadian taxpayers is somewhere around $4 billion. I am not prepared to debate whether it is $4 billion or $5 billion; $1 is too much.

It is refreshing to see this kind of legislation before us at this time. While I support all of its good provisions, there is a significant omission to which I will refer later.

I will focus on the reason for changing the present Competition Act. The Competition Act dealt with a time when things were not as fast as they are today. A lot of things are happening today. Change is happening more quickly. Information technology has advanced dramatically. The network alluded to by the minister a moment ago would not have been feasible several years back. There is a changing world out there. Electronic commerce makes possible and makes necessary this kind of legislation.

Let us review briefly what the Competition Act actually does, not only these amendments but the act itself.

I would like to do this particularly because many of my constituents, perhaps many constituents across Canada, would like to know exactly how the Competition Act works.

First of all, a tribunal is set up. The tribunal is headed by the director, now the commissioner of competition. He deals with the aspects of the act that are not being observed by the participants or players.

The act contains both criminal and non-criminal provisions. The criminal provisions include conspiracy, bid rigging, discriminatory and predatory pricing, price maintenance, misleading advertising and deceptive marketing practices.

The issue of telemarketing falls under Bill C-20 provisions and other areas that fall under the act are reviewable matters such as mergers, abuse of dominant position, refusal to deal, consignment selling and tied selling, market restriction and pricing.

I draw attention to tied selling. Tied selling is becoming a very significant part of our economy today, particularly as it relates to financial and other institutions.

Tied selling, while not the focus of this bill, not the focus of the amendments here, will become a major issue as far as consumers and business people are concerned.

When the bureau becomes aware that there is a possible infraction or some sort of competition offence, the facts are examined, first of all, for whether there is a concern under the act. If the director believes there is reasonable grounds or if he believes that it could be committed very easily, inquiries can commence.

The minister may also initiate concern, and six Canadians may get together and complain to the director and the matter will be investigated.

Although the director can use formal investigative tools to gather information, in cases where the director believes a criminal offence has occurred, matters may and are referred to the attorney general.

The minister has just assured us that that is indeed what the intent of this legislation is and that it is one of his servants who will cause this to happen. I commend him for that. I think that is good.

Bill C-20, which we essentially support as the Reform Party, enhances the current Competition Act. It makes it stronger. We are pleased to see, for example, the issues of misleading advertising and deceptive marketing being enhanced and the issue of deceptive telemarketing being addressed in particular.

Let us go into deceptive marketing. Bill C-20 provides for a much more effective means of punishment and is an improvement in our opinion. If consumers find themselves the victims of deceptive marketing, for instance false advertising, the bill sets out new provisions that will make the system more effective both in terms of administration and cost. That is commendable.

Under the current act where infractions are committed, criminal prosecution is obligatory. That is a cumbersome, expensive and a long, drawn out process. The new bill creates a dual regime of civil and criminal offences.

In serious cases involving repeat offenders or fraud, for example, a criminal regime will be maintained. In less serious cases where an individual or corporation is unaware of the law, the amendments will allow for the infractions to be addressed through civil court by means of fines, cease and desist orders and information notices.

I can speak from personal observation of cases that I have worked on which have been worked through the previous session of Parliament that it is essential that we have these kinds of provisions in the act.

To the credit of the competition tribunal, one case that I am very familiar with was resolved in favour of the client and the persons who appealed to the competition bureau, so the competition bureau does work. This makes it work more effectively and we support that.

What about deceptive telemarketing? I have already indicated the three things a telemarketer must do if he is going to approach an individual for money.

We can all attest to the telemarketing industry, somewhat ruefully perhaps. I wonder who in this House has not had dinner or some other part of their day interrupted by a telemarketer wishing to sell a product or a service. It might even happen twice during supper.

In my case I am thankful that we have an answering machine. When supper time comes the answering machine takes over. Let the telemarketer talk to the machine if they want. There is no way they are going to interrupt my supper hour.

Whether we appreciate the work of telemarketers, it is a legitimate business. It is the fraudulent use of telemarketing we are objecting to. The serious concern is in that area.

There are rules of logic which we should all follow in the buying and selling of products over the phone. For instance, it is wise to be suspicious of anyone who might offer money or a grand prize over the phone for a small fee. “You can have a prize if you give me money”. We should all be suspicious if someone says something like that.

We should also be suspicious if someone asks us for our credit card number. Some people have advised us to never give anyone our credit card number over the telephone.

I recall, rather interestingly, wishing to make a hotel reservation not too long ago. I wanted the assurance that the room would be available for me without my having to give them a credit card number. I said “I do not want to give it to you”. They said “then your room will not be there for you”. Who will win? It is a very interesting question which we need to look at.

More and more we are using the telephone to conduct our activities. We have e-mail. We have electronic commerce. The whole question of the decryption of messages becomes a very significant issue. The old rules simply do not apply any more. In many cases there are no rules.

Is it any wonder that many consumers are confused? Do I or do I not provide my credit card number? Do I or do I not talk to this individual?

The only solution is to ensure that laws exist to address unscrupulous practices. That is what this bill attempts to do.

In order for both the industry and the consumer to benefit the consumer needs assurance that the marketplace is being monitored to ensure fair and legal practices. Where telemarketing is concerned a sound competition policy not only means a confident consumer, it requires an educated consumer. If it was ever necessary for consumers to educate themselves about what is going on out there it is today. By setting out what is required to conduct fair telemarketing practices Canadians will know they can demand from any person who is conducting a financial transaction over the telephone who it is that is calling, on whose behalf that person is calling, how much it will cost and why they are calling.

I wish to move into a broader context and address the entire area of competition. I mentioned earlier that it is important to keep discussion on competition open in order to ensure its effectiveness and efficiency. However, the issue of competition has taken on a broader context over the last few years. Global competition now plays a direct role in determining the economic policies of Canada.

Competition has become the mantra of the 21st century. Governments around the globe promote its merits and its value in generating wealth and contributing to innovation. Competition dictates policy in everything from free trade in softwood lumber to the information highway and whether we have direct to home television.

If we look closely we will see that competition is the reason given by governments to explain many things, including why they must spend money on business subsidies and infrastructure programs, for example. It seems the notion of competition has dominated every policy paper, federal budget, government initiative, piece of legislation, committee report, study and the countless conferences which we have seen since this government came to power. The emphasis is always on the need to become competitive.

Sometimes, it has to be said, this is the umbrella under which are hidden euphemisms for political patronage and vote buying.

This bill has been pushed aside. Since 1996 other bills have taken precedence and amendments to the Competition Act have had to wait, and yet competition is the thing which drives our economy.

It must be very confusing to the average consumer if this is the case. They ask questions. Can competition be good if the result is downsizing and the loss of jobs? Can competition be good if it means lower wages? Is competition good when the success of the new Wal-Mart means the closure of the local business down the street?

Is all competition good? Is uncontrolled competition good? Obviously not. That is why we need an act of this type. The average consumer should not apologize for being confused, or for asking questions, or for feeling some anxiety. For too long voters have been left out of the economic process. The answer that it is good for competition hardly suffices in their attempts to understand which government policies are sound.

The truth is that fair competition is a good thing but notice there is a very significant adjective there, fair. Competition in and of itself as an end in itself is not sufficient. Fair competition is integral, however, to sound economic policy.

The Reform Party is a strong supporter of the competitive marketplace. However, we are very aware that competition alone is not enough to ensure economic stability, nor will it alone create the kind of marketplace that builds strong industries and businesses and protects the consumer.

Reformers do not accept that in order to have competition it must come at the expense of the taxpayer. Reformers believe in competitive strategies that have substance. We believe that there are ways in which we can increase competition by allowing the taxpayer to function freely in the marketplace without compromising the interests of the consumer or create costs to the taxpayer.

In fact, our definition of a competitive Canada would not only save the taxpayer money but provide economic stability. For the sake of good and fair competition, we would take the politics out of economic decision making in Canada. We would not use competition as an excuse for the unreasonable waste of taxpayer money spent on business subsidies. We would eliminate grants and subsidies to businesses. Businesses would be able to survive, as businesses should be able to survive, on their own merits. Taxpayers should not support inefficient and ineffective businesses.

For the sake of good and fair competition, we would support the removal of all measures that insulate industries, businesses, financial institutions, professionals and trade unions from domestic and foreign competition. That would mean dropping Canada's internal trade barriers once and for all.

I think the minister is only too well aware of how intrusive the internal trade barriers are to trade within Canada. In order to realize fair and good competition, Reform would orient federal government activities toward the nurturing of physical and human infrastructure. We would give greater priority to the development of skills, particularly those that would provide future job flexibility within a co-operative training government. We would base physical and infrastructure spending on economic criteria rather than on the basis of artificial temporary job creation.

In order to realize a fair and competitive marketplace, we would invest in basic scientific research and ensure grassroot investment in research and development in order to keep Canada on the leading edge of innovation.

If Canada is to be truly competitive, we will see a better Canada where the entrepreneur is valued, the small business person is free to grow, where our children are educated and provided with the skills they need to succeed, where families are relieved from an unfair tax burden, where Canadians are free from worrying about their futures, each one empowered to reach out and grasp every opportunity that comes their way. Competition must mean something to the average citizen, not just the bureaucrats and the policy makers.

Canadians must see real evidence of competition in their everyday lives and feel the effects that a truly competitive society provides. That means things like direct to home satellite. It means fairer and freer internal trade. It means prudent regulation of our financial institutions. It means reasonable interest rates on our credit cards which means fair prices at the grocery store and the gas station.

I would like to now refer to another major section which I believe is an omission in Bill C-20. It should have dealt with this but it did not. It has to do with mergers.

There is a reference to mergers and there is a more sensible approach to them. However, it fails to deal with a major issue that has come to the attention to virtually every Canadian within the last six months, the proposal to merge two major banks. It is conspicuously silent about this merger.

Let us examine the details of the provisions of the Competition Act.

Section 92 of The Competition Act as it currently stands reads as follows:

Where, on application by the Director, the Tribunal finds that a merger or proposed merger prevents or lessens, or is likely to prevent or lessen, competition substantially

(a) in a trade, industry or profession,

(b) among the sources from which a trade, industry or profession obtains a product,

It then goes on to specify these. That sounds very good and that is the provision of section 92 and that is great. That must be okay.

Let us look at section 100. It is clause 24 in the proposed bill. The proposed bill says that an application to the commission certifying that an inquiry is being made under paragraph 10(1)(b) and in the commissioner's opinion more time is required to complete the inquiry of a merger, the tribunal finds that the absence of an interim order a party of the proposed measure or any other person is likely to take an action that would substantially impair the ability of the tribunal to remedy the effect of the proposed merger on competition under section 92 because that action would be difficult to reverse.

The provisions are rather clear and rather far reaching except that in section 94 of the Competition Act we read that the tribunal shall not make an order under section 92 in respect of a merger substantially completed before the coming into force of this section, or an amalgamation or proposed amalgamation under section 255 of the Bank Act or an acquisition or proposed acquisition of the assets under section 273 of the Bank Act.

Section 255 of the Bank Act is rather clear. Section 255 of the Bank Act specifically states that that section which deals with competition and with mergers states that in lieu of the relevant sections in the Combines Investigation Act, the Trust Companies Act, the Loan Companies Act, the Canada Business Corporation Act and conspicuously absent, the Competition Act.

The Minister of Finance, when the Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal announced that they were proposing to merge, said that this will be investigated by the Competition Bureau. He may do that and I would commend him if he did. He wants the tribunal to investigate this but the competition tribunal has absolutely no authority.

There is nothing in the existing Competition Act that would allow them and direct them to investigate this. They may if the Minister of Industry agrees with his colleague the Minister of Finance, to go ahead, get resources, personnel and time to investigate. The Competition Act exempts Section 255 of the Bank Act from them considering this particular merger.

That I think is a very serious omission. Why do I think it is such a serious omission? Because a merger of a major bank will affect virtually directly or indirectly every Canadian if not now, certainly in the future.

I think there is a major issue here that should have been addressed but was not. It is not too late to bring an amendment. I hope the minister and the Minister of Finance will see fit to introduce an amendment that will bring about this kind of jurisdiction to the Competition Act. It is in the interest of Canadians that this be done.

While there is much that has been done in this particular act there is a lot of direction that we would commend.

In summary, I would like to review a couple of those. First, this act creates a new criminal offence for deceptive telemarketing, the maximum penalty being five years in jail or a fine in the discretion of the court, or both.

Second, it allows for the judicially authorized interception without consent of private communications, that means wiretapping. Neither party needs to consent to the wiretapping. The RCMP may do so to combat the most serious cases of deceptive telemarketing, as well as price fixing and bid rigging. That is a good provision.

Third, to require those engaged in telemarketing to disclose certain information, which I have already covered, and prohibit practices such as required payment prior to delivery for products offered for sale at prices grossly in excessive of their fair market value.

Fourth, the enactment of a special provision to expand the responsibility of corporations and their officers and directors to ensure compliance with the law.

These are good provisions and we would support them. The bill should pass speedily through the House. I suggest to my colleagues that there is an omission in this bill that should have been included. With that, I commend this bill to the House and would like to encourage its passage and its support with appropriate amendments.

Competition ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Bloc

Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House and speak, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, to Bill C-20. If all the bill contained were provisions relating to fraudulent telemarketing, there is no doubt that we would be pleased to give it our strong support.

But this bill, which deals with fraudulent telemarketing, has many other provisions. In some ways, it resembles an omnibus bill, or an important overhaul of the Competition Act. We have very serious reservations about a number of the amendments and would be unable to support the bill at this time.

I would like to begin by stressing the importance of a law to promote competition. In both the United States and Canada, at the time of the industrial revolution, there were large social movements calling on governments to prevent trusts and large corporations from getting together and doing what they wanted.

Support for real competition was the beginning of social conscience and of public social conscience. This support came not only from consumers, but also from small businesses, which often suffered from agreements made over their heads and often against their interests.

I would remind the House that the Canadian Competition Act is two years older than its American counterpart. I would also remind it that the first prison sentence under the Competition Act in Canada was handed down on September 9, 1996 following a driving school price war between 1987 and 1991 in the Sherbrooke region.

Mr. Justice Paul-Marcel Bellavance of the Superior Court was quoted in Le Journal de Montréal the following day. This is what he had to say “In order to underline the objective seriousness of this kind of crime, which is not always taken seriously by the businessmen of this country, the court adopts the recommendation made by the crown—the crown meaning the federal attorney—that a prison sentence be handed down, even though I agree with the probation officer that what we have here is not an individual who lives off the proceeds of crime, and that the risk of recidivism is minimal, although he has a legal record that must be taken into account”.

Let me continue by quoting excerpts from the judge's ruling. He said “The difficulty in discovering the crimes of which the accused was found guilty justifies harsher penalties than mere fines. Indeed, fines are often paid by the corporate body, which lowers the degree of respect required to ensure the proper application and effectiveness of the Competition Act”.

The judge added “In fact, the supreme court recommended imposing penalties that will force Canadian business people to understand that unduly lessening competition and using threats to unreasonably raise or lower prices are prohibited. The interest of Canadian society requires an exemplary and appropriate penalty”.

A little further, he said “The financial, physical and psychological distress of the competitors who were subject to the threats of the accused, and the fact that half of the driving schools that were then in operation had to shut down following the accused's actions—with their competence not being an issue—are also aggravating circumstances”.

Earlier, the minister reminded us that consumers are businesses that need products made by other companies, as well as ordinary citizens.

It is important to remember the purpose of the Competition Act, as amended in 1985. Why do I go back to it? Because we can already see some possible contradictions that explain why I have many questions for the minister, for the Bureau of Competition regarding the changes they want to make to the Competition Act.

The current act reads as follows “The purpose of this Act is to maintain and encourage competition in Canada—” So far so good. But it goes on “—in order to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy”.

Already, this may lead to questions of interpretation. The purpose of the act also includes the following “—in order to expand opportunities for Canadian participation in world markets while at the same time recognizing the role of foreign competition in Canada, in order to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises have an equitable opportunity to participate in the Canadian economy—” That is not all: “—as well as with a view to ensuring competitive prices and product variety”.

It is understandable that these four key objectives may on occasion appear to be contradictory.

The efficiency of the Canadian economy plays a considerable role in the evaluation of mergers on competition, and the act itself—this may sound like gobbledygook but these are the prohibitions or conditions for application—states “The Tribunal shall not make an order under section 92 if it finds that the merger or proposed merger in respect of which the application is made”—even in the case of the two major banks that want to merge, just listen to this “—has brought about or is likely to bring about gains in efficiency that will be greater than, and will offset, the effects of any prevention or lessening of competition that will result or is likely to result from the merger or proposed merger and that the gains in efficiency would not likely be attained if the order were made”.

Basically, what this means is that there are two kinds of competition.

There is, for instance, the competition between two banks in Canada, and the effects it may have on small business loans, for instance, and on Canada's competitive position with respect to foreign businesses. It is therefore understandable that there are at least grounds for interpretation here.

The purpose of this review is to indicate just how important the Competition Act is, and how it also needs to reassure consumers, the public, small and medium size businesses, about the efficiency of the competition bureau and the mechanisms in place. It is important to keep in mind that the federal government is not the only one with a competition bureau.

It is important to keep in mind that the provinces have also looked out for their consumers. Quebec passed a consumer protection act a number of years ago in response to public demand. Several of the provisions in the federal legislation are also found in Quebec's law.

How can these two provisions co-exist? Because, as the House knows, Quebec, as a province of Canada, has authority for civil law. Canada has authority for criminal law. It is also responsible for interprovincial provisions. So I have to say that yes, here again, Quebec's legislation contains many of the provisions found in the federal legislation but that, so far, the way in which the federal law has been implemented has not resulted in overlap, or very little, which will not be the case or, at least, we will be in a very good position to ask questions with respect to the legislation as the government is proposing to amend it.

I repeat: the provisions regarding deceptive telemarketing should be passed. If these were the only provisions, we would be happy to see them passed, because of what we have seen, as quickly as possible. But, while this bill creates a new criminal offence in the case of deceptive telemarketing, something we support, this bill also decriminalizes the present competition act and numerous offences under the existing legislation. Decriminalization would give the commissioner, who is now the bureau's director, very extensive authority, including the authority to make out-of-court rulings and to agree on orders, on what companies must do to comply with the legislation.

We have a great many questions. There is a lack of logic. We are talking about a system in which companies could be subject to criminal charges, depending on the bill's provisions.

We find ourselves with a system where, in the future, the commissioner will be able to make deals concerning the enforcement of orders. We cannot look at that and applaud. There is a lack of logic in there, which will definitely not reassure the public, especially in these times we are going through.

Perhaps this is not what the government intended, but the enactments before us are certainly likely to have the impact I just described.

The wording of the amendments is all very politically correct. But when we look at their implications, it is quite another story indeed. The bill is said to be intended to improve the merger notification process and to reduce the regulatory burden of businesses.

I can understand that. Under the existing legislation, business people who agree to a merger without notifying the competition board face imprisonment. This provision has been eliminated. In the future, there will be a $50,000 fine. Even the notes from the research branch mention that.

It is fair to say that the regulatory burden will be reduced. But a few explanations are required here. Why was a system designed to show businesses that it is important to comply with the Competition Act replaced overnight by one that is said to be more expeditious? What assurance do we have that it will be as effective in convinving businesses to comply?

Not all businesses deliberately break the law, but we all know that there are some that take great glory in it or commonly do it.

The documents proposing speedy passage of this bill further state the following: “Ensure quicker and more efficient action against misleading advertising and deceptive marketing practices”. What they fail to say is that, with regard to misleading advertising, while there is still a provision under which charges could be laid under the Criminal Code, conditions that did not exist previously and which have significant implications are being added in the new legislation.

I will quote a passage from the legislation “No person shall, for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, the supply or use of a product or for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, any business interest, by any means whatever”—and they add three words “—knowingly or recklessly, make a representation to the public that is false or misleading in a material respect”. It is quite something to add these words.

Currently, all documents from the Bureau of Competition provide that those responsible for misleading advertising, when it is misleading, even unintentionally, are liable to penalties, including jail sentences and huge fines.

So, the Bureau of Competition and the government are recommending that we amend the Competition Act, on the grounds that issues will be solved more quickly and efficiently. However, the bill almost totally changes the spirit of the act.

From now on, businesses will no longer be taken to court for a number of offences that used to be criminal offences. The commissioner will go before the Competition Tribunal—or another tribunal of his choice—but for what purpose? To have the court determine that a person is engaging in or has engaged in reviewable conduct. Members will agree that this is much nicer than to be accused and found guilty of a criminal offence.

From now on, a person might be found guilty of having engaged in reviewable conduct. In such a case, the court may order that person to do or not do something specific.

At worst—and this is something new which I am sure academics will look at very carefully—instead of being fined or even sent to jail, the person will be ordered, under clause 74.1(1)(c), “to pay an administrative monetary penalty”.

Why go that route? Let me try to explain. In Quebec, the same provisions are included in the Consumer Protection Act. The province can impose penalties in civil actions, something which the federal government cannot do through the Bureau of Competition and the tribunal. Therefore, it is trying to find another way to do something it cannot do directly.

Mr. Speaker, you are signalling me that I will have to continue after oral question period, which will, I am sure, be calm.

Competition ActGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

The Speaker

I thank the hon. member. Indeed, you will have about 20 minutes left.

We will now proceed to Statements by Members.

Winter Paralympic GamesStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate all the Canadian athletes who took part in the 1998 Paralympic Games in Nagano last week. After 10 days of action-packed competition, the games wrapped up this past Saturday.

Robin Lagacé, who lives in my riding of Scarborough Centre, competed as a member of the Canadian Men's Ice Sledge Hockey team. Going into the games Canada was ranked third out of seven competing countries. After a surprising win over the tournament favourite, Sweden, Canada went on to the gold medal game against Norway.

Today I am proud to say that the Canadian Men's Ice Sledge Hockey team will be bringing home the silver medal from Nagano.

The Canadian team's goalkeeper, Pierre Pichette, had the honour of being named top goalkeeper of the tournament.

I say congratulations to the team on its success in Nagano. The team truly captured the spirit of the Olympic games and proved once again that Canada indeed has a wealth of world class athletes. We as Canadians are very proud of them. Good job, Team Canada.

Rainmakers Basketball TeamStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Reform

Mike Scott Reform Skeena, BC

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, March 7 all the hard work of Prince Rupert's Secondary School basketball team paid off.

I would like to congratulate the Rainmakers for their 81 to 61 win over J.L. Crowe from Trail, B.C. to claim the AA basketball provincial championship.

Described as quite likely the best basketball team Prince Rupert has produced in a very long time, this is the Rainmakers' first provincial championship in 34 years.

Justin Adams scored 33 points and picked up 15 rebounds in the final game and was named the most valuable player. Colin Yates scored 18 points despite spraining his ankle in the second quarter.

According to Rainmaker coach Mel Bishop, every member of his squad stepped up for their game. He says it takes more than a few players to win the AA senior boys provincial championship against teams from bigger schools.

Congratulations Rainmakers for this great achievement. You worked hard, you got along and you won. You have made the city of Prince Rupert proud.

Precision SkatingStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Elinor Caplan Liberal Thornhill, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate black ice double gold medalists at the precision skating national championship on March 8.

Precision skating, one of the newest and fastest growing disciplines of figure skating, consists of a team of skaters performing various footwork formations in unison.

Last week the senior team successfully defended its title on the way to the second consecutive Canadian championship. The junior team, in its first year in competition, also took first place honours.

In April the 27 member senior team is off to Bordeaux, France, to defend its title at the World Challenge Cup.

Now entering its sixth season, Black Ice continues to work toward its goal of representing Canada at the 2002 olympic games where precision skating will be included for the first time.

I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating Black Ice and wishing the senior team the very best of luck as it heads to France for the World Challenge Cup next month.

Canadian HistoryStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Bloc

Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, recently the Canadian government marked the anniversary of the inauguration in 1848 of responsible government in Canada. In its letter of invitation to the ceremony, the government committed a major historical error. It implied that the rebellions of Upper and Lower Canada took place in 1848, whereas they occurred 10 years before.

In a Citizenship and Immigration brochure intended to give information about the history of Canada, the government has committed another historical faux pas. Instead of telling young people that Canada was created by the British North America Act, it tells them the Act of Union was our founding document. Let us recall that this Act of Union abolished the use of French in our institutions.

While the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is busy boasting of his desire to rectify historical facts and tell Quebeckers and Canadians the truth about our history, his own government seems incapable of presenting the most significant events in Canadian history properly.

NutritionStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Beth Phinney Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, March is nutrition month and this year's theme is “Make nutrition come alive—it's all about you”.

This campaign, spearheaded by the dietitians of Canada, is aimed at helping consumers make healthy food choices that fit into their personal lifestyle.

In the Hamilton area including my riding a luncheon was held and the proceeds of this event went to the Hamilton community foundation school nourishment fund.

These nourishment programs are planned initiatives which make food available to school children in a safe, non-stigmatizing environment. These programs support healthy eating practices and help children maximize their learning potential.

Nutritionists have organized local events across Canada. They encourage all Canadians to participate, making nutrition come alive for themselves.

Rail TransportStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Guy St-Julien Liberal Abitibi, QC

Mr. Speaker, the employees of northern Quebec's short line railways and trucking companies are wondering about the good faith of the Government of Quebec. It has made the study of the impact of the tractor trailer load limit increase, from 59,000 to 62,500 kilograms, available solely for consultation, and only in the offices of the CRD, or regional development council, and the Quebec ministry of transport in the regions of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, Haut-Saint-Maurice and Abitibi.

This decision deprives people living at a distance from these offices of access to this document, which is of great importance to them. Quebec's minister of transport, Mr. Brassard, and the mayor, Mr. Munger, of the CRD are afraid to discuss highway safety and the environment with the public, or to provide mayors and elected members for these regions with copies of their study, which was kept confidential for a very long time.

It is time to get up and do something about this.

Search And RescueStatements By Members

March 16th, 1998 / 2 p.m.

Reform

Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, members of the Canadian forces yet again proved themselves as heroes.

During this past weekend two men found themselves adrift in a small, sinking boat off the coast of the Bahamas and had probably given up hope for survival.

Our sailors searched for hours for the two men, and minutes before their boat became swamped with water our submarine, the HMCS Okanagan , came to the rescue.

Two Bahamians, Edmond Johnson and Alvin Wilson, are alive today thanks to the valiant and dedicated efforts of our sailors. These men have a great deal to be thankful for and so do we as Canadians. Our Canadian forces have done us proud.

HempStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

John Finlay Liberal Oxford, ON

Mr. Speaker, on Friday afternoon, March 13, the federal Minister of Health came to Tillsonburg, a town in my riding, to announce officially regulations for the growing of industrial hemp in time for the 1998 growing season. This will be the first time in over 60 years that industrial hemp can be grown legally in Canada.

Every part of the hemp plant can be used commercially: the seeds for oil and food; the foliage for medicine; and the stems for fabric, paper, fuel, paints, construction materials and auto parts.

Hemp does not need pesticides in order to grow well and should assist us in saving our forests because a relatively small acreage can produce vast amounts of paper on a sustainable basis.

I thank the Minister of Health and members of the Liberal rural caucus from both houses of parliament for working hard to make this announcement a reality. I look forward to keeping the House apprised of the development of this incredible crop.

Semaine Nationale De La FrancophonieStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Liberal

Raymond Bonin Liberal Nickel Belt, ON

Mr. Speaker, today the Government of Canada is inaugurating the Semaine nationale de la francophonie.

We affirm Canada's linguistic duality and note that there are over one million francophones living in provinces other than Quebec.

The Semaine nationale de la francophonie is also an occasion to reaffirm that the Canadian government has primary responsibility for promoting the official languages in its points of service throughout Canada.

Canada plays a major role in the French-speaking world, taking part in the decisions of institutions as important as the Francophone Summit, including the one to be held in Moncton in 1999.

Canada will continue to assume its leadership role with respect to la francophonie internationally. It is well aware of the challenges awaiting us in the new millennium with respect to the principle of freedom to express oneself in both official languages in Canada.

LighthousesStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Reform

John Duncan Reform Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, the department of fisheries is threatening to destaff Pachena light station, the lightkeeper who guided the minister to safety.

The minister is promoting this destaffing initiative by his bureaucracy simply by saying nothing. He is more concerned about salvaging his yachting pride than dealing with this issue. Eighty per cent of British Columbians want keepers on the lights.

The minister and a crew sailed a racing yacht from Hawaii to Victoria. Near land they ran into heavy rain and 45 knot winds. He radioed the lightkeepers who guided him to safe haven at Bamfield, 75 miles away from their destination.

The minister shrugs this off with a combination of yachting vanity and political expediency as a no risk non-event when in a storm he ended up in a completely different harbour from where he was headed.

People on the west coast know this is nonsense.

The Late Bill ReidStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Liberal

Stan Dromisky Liberal Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were saddened to learn of the death of Haida artist and sculptor Bill Reid on Friday. Canada has lost not only one of its greatest artists but an inspirational cultural leader among the First Nations people.

For roughly 40 years Mr. Reid created numerous works incorporating traditional Haida Gwaii carvings and designs. He is credited with the revival of Haida art in British Columbia, which coincided with a renewed pride among First Nations people in the province.

Bill Reid brought the rich, proud history and culture of the Haida people to the rest of Canada and to the world. For this we are very grateful.

Mr. Reid's art work is internationally prominent. At the Canadian embassy in Washington, D.C., his Canadian canoe sculpture “Spirit of the Haida Gwaii” is a source of pride to First Nations people, British Columbians and all other Canadians.

Let us remember Bill Reid. I urge Canadians to see his work and take pride in what he has given to all of us.

The EnvironmentStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

NDP

Rick Laliberte NDP Churchill River, SK

Mr. Speaker, today Canadians join over 200 groups in North America, Europe and Asia in a worldwide declaration against government plutonium policy.

The Liberal government is opening Canada's borders to accept this waste without an environmental assessment, without a transport or emergency policy, without parliamentary debate, and without public consultations with the communities through which this highly toxic substance and weapons grade plutonium will pass.

Canada does not have an adequate nuclear waste plan and the Liberals want to burden our children with more waste. Can Canadians trust the government and the AECB to protect the health and safety of our workers, our communities and our environment?

Today the world is aware of the dangers and is calling for action to protect our lands for future generations. Will the Prime Minister listen?