Mr. Speaker, in fact, it is still the riding of Lévis, except that, in one of the last bills we passed before adjourning for the summer, “Chutes-de-la-Chaudière” was added in recognition of the fact that it makes up half the federal riding of Lévis. In fact, Chutes-de-la-Chaudière is a separate provincial riding and there is even a regional county municipality by that name. That is why this change was made. We will get used to it. This is not so bad considering that some of my fellow MPs represent ridings with four names. Chaudière Falls are the most beautiful in the world after Niagara Falls.
The various proposals made in connection with the motions in Group 2 relate essentially to the word “Internet”. We feel the government was mistaken in not including the word “Internet” in this bill. After all, the Internet and telemarketing may be considered closely related since more and more people are connected to the Internet at home, and companies readily use the Internet to promote and, if possible, sell their products.
What we are talking about here, of course, is fraudulent telemarketing. We cannot and should not prevent companies from conducting operations that are conducted properly, honestly and efficiently, but it seems to us that not mentioning the Internet in today's context is a serious mistake. That is why we stress the word “Internet” in each motion in this group.
There is also a notion which we did not have time to really examine earlier, but which is essentially the basis of the speech made by the parliamentary secretary. I am referring to the word “knowingly”.
How can we prove that someone does something knowingly? The legal provisions that deal with this issue are often challenged in court.
I am not trying to be funny, but are we going to rely on a lie detector to determine whether someone did something knowingly? A company employs a number of people. The manager may do something knowingly, but is it also the case for the employees? This is very much a grey area. I think a better definition is in order.
In our opinion, section 52 of the Competition Act was more precise and included the word “knowingly”. I think that the government and the other parties have good intentions. Everyone is in favour of combatting fraudulent telemarketing. No one can oppose virtue. However, if an act or a provision can be legally challenged because it is very difficult to prove someone's intentions, we could end up with a strange and paradoxical situation in that we may not be able to do what we sought to do because the legislation cannot be enforced.
In the five years that I have been here, a number of members have dealt with the question of what constitutes good legislation. We all know that an act must be fair and equitable, but we must also determine whether it is enforceable.
If the best legislation in the world cannot be enforced, it will be useless. All of us in the House of Commons and all those involved in the legislative process want to make a useful contribution. We want our work to produce results. We do not want to take futile measures.
This is what we are concerned about. This is why the Bloc Quebecois feels that the word “knowingly” should be removed, since that notion is impossible to prove. We are not trying to oppose this legislation, but to improve it and make it even more effective, more enforceable. We must try to make it easier to enforce.
As for the Internet, I think it goes without saying. As we approach the new millennium, I do not think there is any need to demonstrate that this means will be used increasingly. Many companies will do business through the Internet. This is already possible, but it will be done on a larger scale. The purpose of the amendments in the motions in group 2 is to add the word “Internet”.