Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering amendments to one of Canada's most important pieces of framework economic legislation, the Competition Act.
The Competition Act provides basic principles for the conduct of business in Canada. It is, therefore, vital to the functioning of our economy and in some way, directly or indirectly, touches the life of virtually every Canadian every day.
One of the major purposes of the act is to promote competition and efficiency in the Canadian marketplace. This, in turn, leads directly to innovation, a wide variety of consumer choices that are quality goods and services, competitive prices and greater international competitiveness.
The Competition Act was last revised in a significant way in 1986. Clearly, Canada's Competition Act must be kept up to date and remain suitable to economic reality in the 21st century. That is why we are considering the amendments that are before us today.
They are a carefully crafted series of measures that reflect the views of a very wide spectrum of stakeholders who expressed their opinions over the course of extensive consultations. The bill includes provisions that would create a strict liability criminal offence to deal with deceptive telemarketing.
It would allow the law enforcement officials in certain circumstances, and after the authorization by a judge, to intercept private communications without consent to fight deceptive telemarketing, as well as conspiracy and bid rigging.
It would provide for the quicker and more effective resolution of instances of misleading advertising and deceptive marketing practices and revise the law regarding regular price claims by retailers. It would improve the prenotification process for major transactions and the mergers review process.
In addition, it would revise and increase the flexibility of the prohibition order provision to make it a more effective tool for promoting compliance with the law.
Telemarketing predators put this entire industry at risk when they cheat Canadians out of sums of money that law enforcement officials estimate to be a minimum of $76 million in 1996.
These amendments will create a new criminal offence of deceptive telemarketing which will carry criminal penalties for those who break the law.
The new law will also require that telemarketers provide consumers with information on the purpose of the call, the product being promoted and any material, conditions or strings attached to such products. Amendments to the Competition Act will also address misleading advertising and deceptive marketing practices.
We are all aware that advertising is one of the most important and universal tools for business success. Fairness and truthfulness in advertising by all players is essential for a healthy, vigorous marketplace.
The approach of the current Competition Act is too cumbersome and inflexible. Moreover, experience has shown that criminal sanctions, the only remedy available in relation to these offences under the act now, do not always respond well to the problem. What is needed is a range of responses that can be applied to fit the nature and severity of the deceptive practices involved.
Better tools could stop misleading advertising quickly before there is an adverse reaction in the marketplace. More flexible tools would also have greater scope to foster business compliance and voluntary resolution of problems.
The bill retains criminal provisions for flagrant cases of deceptive marketing practices. It also introduces a range of civil remedies that can be applied promptly so the alleged misleading advertising does not continue while lengthy criminal prosecution winds its way through the courts.
The courts and the competition tribunal will be able to issue orders requiring parties to stop misleading advertising. Advertisers who fail to exercise due care may be required to publish information notices to alert the affected public of the nature of the deception.
These amendments will also facilitate voluntary measures to correct the deception that has occurred and provisions will allow such a resolution to become registered and enforceable as a court or competition tribunal order. The area of regular price claims is another where the present act needs updating.
The retail industry has changed dramatically in recent years. Comparative price advertising is more than ever a critical means by which retail competes. Moreover, consumer purchasing patterns are closely linked to sales advertising. Both consumers and retailers have commented that the current law does not reflect the current marketplace reality.
Provisions in the new bill will clarify a critical area of advertising law for business and provide clearer guidance for consumers about the meaning of price comparisons. Two straightforward tests will provide simple criteria for defining a genuine regular price. One test will be based on sales volume and the other pricing over time.
As a result of these and other changes to the Competition Act the changes before us take into account business realities, shifting consumer behaviour and attitudes and the marketplace developments that affect law enforcement.
I am confident that these are worthy of the support of all members of the House. The discussions that will be coming up in committee will be very interesting as we all have additional information that we can add to and improve on the legislation now before the House.