Mr. Speaker, you are correct. It is a tough but very complex issue. I assure members that when we get down to it we will be telling more about what the bill really means.
It is clear those who opposed the bill—the Business Council on National Issues, the Chamber of Commerce, the CAA and others—were doing so because of the vested interest which exists in protecting the status quo.
We have come to that conclusion as 50 members on this side and many members on the other side went through the gas report on the shortcomings of the Competition Act. On page 156 of a very telling book by Peter C. Newman it was put very succinctly. The Competition Act, as it is currently written, was written by the very people it was meant to police. Canada is one of the few nations that has found itself in a position of self-interest with a document which is there to protect consumers and businesses alike from not doing that.
I can only say that against the weight of the telecommunications side of Industry Canada and against the weight of the Competition Bureau which surprisingly enough went out of its way to contact hundreds of businesses to study the implications of the bill.
It became very clear to me that short of an act of contempt of parliament, which I felt was not important enough to raise but was nevertheless the case, we are dealing with a David versus a Goliath. Against the chambers of commerce, against the large interests of the country that want to maintain the status quo, are the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and thousands of retailers that may be struggling to stay afloat simply because they are being pitted against the very suppliers that are trying to put them out of business.
I am not talking through my hat. I am sure the hon. member for Markham will be interested in knowing that there has been study after study by provincial governments. The latest one by the Ontario government, ironically through the provincial member for Markham-Stouffville, shows that something is awry with the state of competition when there are 462 complaints and only three convictions and when the competition bureau has virtually been allowed to be correctly characterized as the bureau for monopoly enhancement.
In an era of globalization and mergerization, rather than dealing with the questions of productivity, with the questions of standards of living and with the questions of brain drain, we are consistently allowing our country to be sold by offshore interests whose interests are to maximize profits at the expense of competition at home.
There have been many criticisms levelled at the bill and the fact that it does not cover all the issues attendant within the Competition Act. One criticism levelled at the bill was the fact that it somehow had a very strong criminal sanction.
A bill that only narrowly attacks a certain part of the act cannot possibly deal with the entire question of sanctions. However, on the questions of sanctions it is very interesting that the competition bureau and many other organizations like the chambers of commerce have an interest in trying to bring down the penalty. It is obvious that civil sanctions are not the case at all. In fact they carry no general application and they carry no injunctive application.
The problem is that it virtually requires for someone to be knocked out of business and to be proven bankrupt before the competition bureau will assess and recommend to the tribunal that the particular activity against the person so ordered should cease and desist. This is contrasted to the legislation in the United States which has an intent to protect consumers. Protection of consumers comes in a number of ways but mostly through civil remedies.
I understand the committee after trashing the bill, after basically erasing it from existence, wants now to study the Competition Act. I am pleased that is the case. I am however concerned about the fact that it could very well be a whitewash. I say that because once again with the competition bureau we have police investigating, a judge, a jury and an executioner. If the bill is any indication of the direction of the competition bureau and those who support the status quo, it seems to me the outcome will be flawed.
During committee meetings a book by a man well known for his knowledge of competition law was bandied about. I encourage members to read it. It is the 1999 annotated notes. It very clearly states that it is not accurate to characterize reviewable trade practices as practices which are prohibited with civil sanctions. He suggests that the Clayton Act should be more appropriate.
On the other side of the equation it seems to me that there are those who have been gravely concerned about the application of the bill. The member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge and many others studied the question of gasoline and looked a bit at the issue of groceries, but somehow it should not apply beyond that. That argument, which was posited by the Minister of Industry in his objections of October 19, is simply wrong in its direction.
There is no section of the Competition Act which applies uniformly to one industry. That would be laughed out of every court in the country as discriminatory. Therefore, we need, as the Americans did 100 years ago in 1890, the equivalent of a Sherman Act which was applied to the Rockefeller dynasty that was controlling oil at the time. It applies to every commercial line in the country.
Other objections that have come about were sort of picked out of thin air. There were issues such as how this might discriminate against farmers or might somehow hurt a supplier or a wholesaler.
The bill deals with the vertically integrated supplier, somebody who is in the business of supplying his or her competitor and competing in the same area. Let us put away the nonsense and all the aberrations which have been heaped on the bill for what it is not. The bill is not about regulating price.
It is very interesting to note that anybody in the business would have to ask why a vertically integrated supplier would charge its best wholesale customer more for a product than it is willing to charge the general public. Every person involved in the business knows that it costs less to sell a product at wholesale than at retail. The only reason that a vertically integrated supplier competitor wants to discipline the retail competitors and in some cases eliminate them entirely from the marketplace is simply because they are not prepared to compete with them.
This issue is not something that is confined strictly to one area of our economy. I implore parliamentarians to look at the examples of how small businesses are being undercut by their suppliers.
Legislation exists in other countries. The Americans and British have effective legislation to combat this particular problem. It is not acceptable for our competition police, the Competition Bureau, to act as lapdogs in the face of these watchdogs.
More important I believe in Canada, a Canada which is without its abilities to fight for the small person. I believe my country includes businesses that will compete on a level playing field. I believe that my country is a nation which above all is prepared at every turn to ensure that we do not have more than 10 players dominate the entire spectrum of the economy.
That is exactly what this bill is for. I urge the House to put aside its differences and support it.