moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-23 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 28 the following new clause:
“11.31 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 77:
77.1 (1) A person who alleges that they are directly affected in their business or are precluded from carrying on business due to their inability to obtain adequate supplies of a product anywhere in a market may, with leave of the Tribunal, make an application under section 75.
(2) A person who alleges that they are directly affected in their business by exclusive dealing, tied selling or market restriction may, with leave of the Tribunal, make an application under section 77.
(3) No application may be made under section 75 or 77 by a person referred to in subsection (1) or (2) more than two years after the practice has ceased.
(4) Any person making an application under section 75 or 77 shall serve the person in respect of whom the order is sought and the Commissioner with a copy of the application for leave.
(5) The Tribunal shall give notice to the Commissioner of its decision on an application for leave pursuant to this section.
(6) Within thirty days of the granting of leave to a person to make an application under section 75 or 77, the Commissioner may become a party to the application but, after thirty days, may do so only at the request of or with leave of the Tribunal.
(7) Where an application is made to a court for an order under section 75 or 77 and the parties agree on the terms of the order and such terms are in accordance with the terms of this Act, whether or not any of the terms could have been imposed by the court under this Part, the order agreed to may be filed with the court for immediate registration.
(8) On being filed under subsection (7), an order shall be registered and, when registered, shall have the same force and effect, and all proceedings may be taken, as if the order had been made by the court.”
Madam Speaker, I suppose you are rather surprised to see me rise to speak to Bill C-23, an act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act, at report and second reading stage.
As you know, I am much more comfortable dealing with issues regarding health, culture, citizens' relationships and pedagogy. But the House being a forum for pedagogy, you will see that I am very comfortable talking to Bill C-23.
Every day, as private citizens, we are faced with competition. With globalization and the opening of markets, competition is often fierce, and it is not rare to see the little guys being swallowed up by the big guys, at the expense of consumers. Competition is a rather neutral concept. It all depends on how we use it. We all know that this neutrality is all the more delicate as the interests involved are greedy.
I often go for advice to my friends the dictionaries, Robert and Larousse —you know, the one that scatters to the winds . They are a wealth of information that never cease to enrich me. Here is the definition of competition that can be found in the Larousse dictionary.
Competition: Competing interests between several persons creating a competition and, in part, between merchants or firms trying to attract clients with the best price, quality, etc.
It goes on to say:
Free competition: An economic system without any intervention from the state to limit industry and trade freedom, and under which producers coalitions are viewed as a crime.
That is it for definitions. In the end, competition is a bit like what Aesop said about the tongue as being the best and the worst of things. A twisted tongue is as troublesome as unfair competition.
As a matter of fact, Bill C-23 is aimed at improving, albeit slightly, the competition framework. In this area as many others, rules are needed as people should have access to quality products and services at acceptable prices instead of being the victims of practices favouring the corporate bottom line.
If I may, I would like to take a minute to read the summary of Bill C-23, which goes like this:
This enactment amends the Competition Act and Competition Tribunal Act. The amendments include the following:
amendments to facilitate cooperation with foreign competition authorities for the enforcement of civil competition and fair trade practices laws;
amendments prohibiting deceptive prize notices;
amendments streamlining the Competition Tribunal process by providing for cost awards, summary dispositions and references;
amendments broadening the scope under which the Tribunal may issue temporary orders; and
some housekeeping items.
The Bloc Quebecois supports the objectives of Bill C-23 because they are in the interest of the public, since the parameters set in the bill should respond to the legitimate needs of small and medium size businesses and protect the rights of consumers to enjoy the benefits stemming from healthy competition.
Recent events have given us a telling example of what can happen when competition turns into a trade war. Indeed, the softwood lumber issue that comes up regularly, where the Americans impose excessive surcharges on Canadian softwood lumber exports to the United-States, clearly shows the negative and unfair consequences of decisions made in the context of fierce competition.
Another example, just as flagrant as the previous one, is the poor state or even the non-existence of air service to remote communities due to the fact that Air Canada has a quasi-monopoly on air service in this country.
The only way to calm those with an insatiable appetite for profit is to legislate both domestically and within international trade organizations and to be ever vigilant in all spheres of human activity.
Everyone recognizes that Bill C-23 is a step in the right direction, but we could go even further. Indeed, many aspects should be considered by the legislator, including price fixing practices and the merger review process, as well as proceedings before the competition tribunal.
In that spirit, I will read an excerpt from testimony given before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology on October 17 by a representative from the Association québécoise des indépendants du pétrole. He raised a real concern with regard to the fact that, and I quote:
—access to the Competition Tribunal [would be closed] except in situations of “usual trade terms”. We put it to you that suppliers of petroleum products would only have to illustrate that they cannot supply products because of abnormal trade conditions to stall access to the Tribunal.
We propose instead that the new provisions for access to the Tribunal provide for markets where trade terms are not usual. For example, should there be a relative shortage, supply should be provided to all undertakings on a prorated basis, in keeping with the way that the market usually operates. If, for instance, the amount of product available makes it possible to respond to only 80% of normal needs, the majors and the independents should each be able to obtain 80% of their regular supply. In this way, both types of undertakings would be subject to the same conditions and none would be forced into bankruptcy because of a lack of stock. Given the uncertain international situation at the moment, such a situation might easily arise.
Therefore, it was my great pleasure to introduce in the House, seconded by my colleague, the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes, an amendment to respond to the concerns of small independent retailers. Since the Speaker did not treat us by reading the amendment in her lovely voice, I should like to take a moment now to read it for the House:
That Bill C-23 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 28 the following new clause:
“11.31 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 77:
77.1 (1) A person who alleges that they are directly affected in their business or are precluded from carrying on business due to their inability to obtain adequate supplies of a product anywhere in a market may, with leave of the Tribunal, make an application under section 75.
(2) A person who alleges that they are directly affected in their business by exclusive dealing, tied selling or market restriction may, with leave of the Tribunal, make an application under section 77.
(3) No application may be made under section 75 or 77 by a person referred to in subsection (1) or (2) more than two years after the practice has ceased.
(4) Any person making an application under section 75 or 77 shall serve the person in respect of whom the order is sought and the Commissioner with a copy of the application for leave.
(5) The Tribunal shall give notice to the Commissioner of its decision on an application for leave pursuant to this section.
(6) Within thirty days of the granting of leave to a person to make an application under section 75 or 77, the Commissioner may become a party to the application but, after thirty days, may do so only at the request of or with leave of the Tribunal.
There are two sections left that I will read quickly:
(7) Where an application is made to a court for an order under section 75 or 77 and the parties agree on the terms of the order and such terms are in accordance with the terms of this Act, whether or not any of the terms could have been imposed by the court under this Part, the order agreed to may be filed with the court for immediate registration.
(8) On being filed under subsection (7), an order shall be registered and, when registered, shall have the same force and effect, and all proceedings may be taken, as if the order had been made by the court.”
This is an amendment in which we recognize the great work done by our colleague from the riding of Ajax—