Mr. Speaker, this morning, in spite of the fact that we voted against Bill C-20 to amend the Competition Act at second and third reading because, in our opinion, it weakened rather than toughened the provisions of the act, we will be voting in favour of this amendment, which we believe deserves the support of each and every one in the House.
The Senate, an unelected body, delayed passage of the bill approved by parliament, notwithstanding our opposition, by putting forward to the House of Commons an amendment to remove from Bill C-20 the protection the Competition Act continues to afford employees or any other person who discloses to the competition commissioner unfair practices considered illegal. Its arguments are based mainly on concerns expressed by the bar association, but it has shown that this was an absolutely essential provision.
The Competition Act is already, we feel, weakened by the bill. If employees know or have reasonable grounds to believe that a company is engaging in deceptive marketing practices and are unable to inform in confidence the body responsible for enforcing the Competition Act, they would then be in the position of allowing these deceptive marketing practices to continue. They would even be forced to take part in them because they could not blow the whistle.
If an employee gets in touch with the commissioner of competition and his employer finds out and can lay him off without recourse, who will notify the commissioner of competition? Nobody; no employee will be able to do so.
In a letter which I myself did not read, but which was cited when this issue was being studied by the Senate, the Bar said as follows:
Employers should not be obliged to continue to employ employees or entrepreneurs in whom they have lost confidence. The fact that an employee complains to the commissioner can only worsen the work climate.
An employer acting in good faith should be able to let an employee go with prior notice or compensation in lieu thereof. This legitimate action by the employer will no longer be possible because paragraph 66(2) makes it a criminal offence.
It seems to me that this letter from the bar association proves beyond a doubt that employees need protection, because it is certain that if an employee contacts the commissioner in good faith to disclose his employer's practices, the employer will lose confidence in him. If, as the bar association says, it is legitimate for the employee to be dismissed because of this loss of confidence, hon. members will agree with me that no employee one will contact the commissioner. The commissioner will therefore not have access to certain information, as it would very likely not come from another source.
I would point out here that a large number of workers in Canada are not unionized. Being unionized would give them a degree of protection. Not being unionized is a serious problem in such cases.
I would also like to point out that, since the bill allows the use of electronic surveillance, it seems to me that consistency requires the name of the person who has contacted the commissioner in good faith to report anti-competitive practices to be kept secret, due to the highly invasive nature of wiretapping.
The purpose of all this is to indicate that we are going to be voting in favour of this amendment. I would, however, be remiss if I did not point out once again that, unfortunately, this bill generally weakens the scope of the Competition Act. I use the word “generally” because there is one provision in particular that enhances the powers of the commissioner, the one relating to fraudulent telemarketing. As for telemarketing fraud, it is important to provide some protection to its many victims, including elderly people like me.
We agree that it was important and even urgent to take this measure. There are too many contradictions in this bill, a decriminalization that is not obvious and that is replaced with a discretionary power in the hands of the commissioner, who may not have the necessary budget to be everywhere he should be.
So, we regret this weakening, and this is why we voted against the bill, even though we support this morning's amendment.
The Bloc Quebecois was not the only one to be really concerned about these amendments to the Competition Act. Let me quote an emeritus professor from the University of Toronto, whose expertise in that field is well recognized. He says:
In fact, I find a real inconsistency in Bill C-20, since it transforms misleading advertising offences into offences that require wrongful intent.
The bill now provides that intent must be present for an individual to be accused of misleading advertising. This was not the case before, and is still not the case so long as the bill is not passed.
It does, however, for the first time, establish telemarketing offences subject to the old system of strict liability offences. That makes no sense. On the one hand, we are told we must fight deceptive telemarketing practices by making offenders criminally liable. But in other areas, such as misleading advertising, considered to be similar, they back off and require proof of criminal intent.
Professor Ziegle goes on to say:
It is as if the drafters had received two sets of contradictory instructions. This fact alone requires explanation and justification.
To my knowledge, none was provided, and I see no reason why we have a set of standards on criminal proceedings in the Competition Act and another in other laws such as the Food and Drugs Act, the Currency Act, our safety standards legislation, and so on.
That said, this bill must be passed quickly. We have had our say, and we will see whether the future will prove us right. We can correct the bill again, but it is important that it be adopted, for the provisions on misleading marketing, among others, and this is why we support it.