Rahim Jaffer

[Competition Act, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to address the final grouping of Motions Nos. 9, 10 and 11. When looking at Group No. 4 amendments I would like to address the motions independently.

As many members of the House are aware all complaints that fall under the Competition Act are investigated by the commissioner and where deemed appropriate are then placed before the tribunal. Motion Nos. 9 and 10 would allow a single private individual over the age of 18 years to bring a case to the commissioner for investigation. The current procedure, however, is to insist that at least six individuals submit a complaint. This is a mechanism intended to help ensure against frivolous and vexatious submissions to the commissioner.

If a consumer has a complaint that he or she believes involves a violation of the Competition Act, he or she must find five other individuals who share the opinion that a violation of the Competition Act has occurred. This is not an unreasonable demand to place on the Canadian consumer. In fact by insisting that six individuals be part of the application process to the commissioner, we can work to ensure that Canadian businesses are not subject to a barrage of frivolous complaints. For this reason I would recommend that Motions Nos. 9 and 10 of Group No. 4 be opposed.

Motion No. 11 is one that I strongly considered supporting. I think the intent of the motion was to give Canadians direct access to the tribunal, thereby removing a barrier to communicating the needs of consumers. This motion would allow a single individual to bring a matter directly before the tribunal, removing the direct involvement of the commissioner.

While I would normally support an initiative that would allow citizens direct access to this court, this motion unfortunately maintains the insistence that a single individual can bring a case to the tribunal instead of six individuals currently required.

Competition legislation around the world has achieved mixed results. It is needed to ensure competitive practices. However we must not create legislation that entangles honest entrepreneurs in a regulatory mess. Consumers never benefit from creating a regulatory environment. That drives up the cost of business and places those costs on the consumer.

For the same reasons that I oppose Motions Nos. 9 and 10, I must also oppose Motion No. 11.

[The Economy, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, while the Canadian dollar was taking a beating over the summer our Prime Minister was safely bunkered away in his summer fortress.

With his new $80,000, tax funded security system he was safe from the tough questions Canadians wanted answered. Soon our fearless Prime Minister will be able to enjoy the sanctity of country living even faster with the completion of a new road.

The Prime Minister can keep wasting tax dollars on his secret summer hideout in the country or he can put his golf clubs away and do something about the state of our Canadian dollar.

When can Canadians expect leadership from this government, or can we expect to see the dollar remain as low as the Prime Minister's golf score?

[Competition Act, September 21st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will take a few brief moments to rehash my thoughts on Motion No. 6 to amend Bill C-20 presented by the hon. member for Mercier.

This motion stands alone in Group No. 3 and, if supported, would expand the guidelines provided for telemarketers to include fraudulent claims regarding warranties and the overall performance and efficacy of a product.

My immediate concern is that this amendment would wrongly place the onus on the telemarketer to ensure that the manufacturer's product claims are accurate. While I strongly believe that telemarketers must act with due diligence in their relationship with manufacturers, the quality and efficacy of the product as supported by the manufacturer's claim should be the responsibility of the manufacturer. Furthermore, section 52 of the act, as amended by Bill C-20, is sufficiently broad so as to include false claims concerning warranties and the overall quality of products.

For these two reasons I would recommend that Motion No. 6 be opposed.

On a final note, it is not in the best interests of consumers to create legislation that will be unduly costly and cumbersome for business. My colleagues in the Reform Party have constantly argued that we need to try to create opportunities by putting less obstacles in the way of business. Being a small businessman, I know that the biggest obstacles which are usually faced are government red tape and bureaucracy. Let us look at ways to try to eliminate that and make it easier.

Motion No. 6 unfortunately goes down the road of putting obstacles in front of business. We need a balance between the protection of consumers and the freedom of business. As I mentioned earlier, I commend Industry Canada for this initiative. We are starting to see more of a direction toward eliminating bureaucracy and red tape for business. I wish that the government would follow that direction and that we would see more of this type of direction in legislation on other bills. We need to try to create more opportunities in our economy and we should all work together to try to do that.

As I mentioned, I believe it would be in the best interests of the House to oppose Motion No. 6.

[Competition Act, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I got a little ahead of myself this morning. I wanted to speak against all these motions saying that they were not good for this bill. Now I am able at least to address Motions Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8 once again to say how I believe that this is not going to help the competence of this bill in any way. They should be opposed.

Bill C-20 provides a much needed legal framework as we know for the telemarketing industry. Motions Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8 of Group No. 2 would expand this framework to include Internet communication.

It may seem tempting to share the Bloc member's belief that this legislation would better serve Canadians if its scope were broadened. In fact it appears to make perfect sense that deceptive marketing over the Internet is as fraudulent and as abhorrent as deceptive marketing over the telephone.

However the sections of Bill C-20 that deal with telemarketing were designed with the understanding that telephone communication involves the potential for psychological coercion. That is largely absent in Internet communication.

The manipulation, the deceit, the pressure, the intimidation that unfairly mar the telemarketing industry are not as acute in Internet trade where the customer can, with the simple click of the mouse, make the offensive party disappear. It is much more difficult to hang up on a live voice over the telephone and it is much easier to be persuaded by a deceitful salesperson over the phone than on the Internet.

Furthermore, the question of how to regulate electronic commerce is one that demands a thorough investigation. I would like to remind the House that in October of this year at a ministerial conference this issue will be addressed in its entirety, at which point the industry committee can examine the legal and regulatory questions with greater understanding.

For these reasons I would recommend to my colleagues that all of the Group No. 2 amendments be opposed.

As we know, telemarketing scams hurt the poor and the vulnerable. Senior citizens are less reliant on the Internet and this therefore is not a pressing issue. Rather than confusing this part of the bill to add the Internet regulation, I think it is important that we just deal specifically with the telemarketing industry.

I would like to commend Industry Canada on this initiative. It deserves our support. Trying to add motions to this part of Bill C-20 would just complicate the issue further.

[Competition Act, September 21st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I feel particularly honoured today to be making my first official statement in the House as the industry critic for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I hope I can serve the Canadian people with the same integrity and common sense as my colleague from Okanagan Centre.

I am also pleased to be addressing Bill C-20, a bill that I believe will work to modernize the Competition Act. Having studied the amendments to the bill put forward by the hon. member for Mercier, it is apparent that they are certainly not without merit.

However, at this stage of debate we must decide whether these amendments warrant the delay of legislation that will among other things offer much needed protection against telemarketing fraud that is most often directed at Canada's senior citizens.

With respect, it is my conclusion that these amendments do not warrant the support of the House. To begin with it is my opinion that all the Group No. 1 motions should be opposed. If supported these motions would remove the words knowingly and recklessly from clause 12 of the bill and would change the intent of the legislation.

I remind the House that part of the purpose and design of Bill C-20 is to provide a new civil law framework to deal with deliberate and flagrant telemarketing frauds. It will provide for a civil law regime that will complement existing Criminal Code protection against fraud.

The intention of the legislation is not to soften the legal approach to deceptive telemarketing, as is feared by the member for Mercier, but to allow the courts to draw the distinction between those transgressions of the Competition Act that are deliberate and those that are not. This will allow these transgressions to be dealt with more expeditiously, which will benefit immensely the Canadian consumer. For this reason I recommend to the members of the House that Motion No. 2 and the entire Group No. 1 motions be opposed.

Bill C-20 provides a much needed legal framework for the telemarketing industry. Motions Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8 of Group No. 2 would expand the framework to include Internet communications.

It may seem tempting to share the Bloc member's belief that the legislation would better serve Canadians if its scope were broadened. In fact it appears to make perfect sense that deceptive marketing over the Internet is as fraudulent and abhorrent as deceptive marketing over the telephone.

However the sections of Bill C-20 that deal with telemarketing were designed with the understanding that telephone communication involves a potential for psychological coercion that is largely absent in Internet communication. The manipulation, deceit, pressure and intimidation that unfairly mark the telemarketing industry are not as acute in Internet trade where the customer can with the simple click of a mouse make the offensive party disappear. It is much more difficult to hang up on a live voice over the phone. It is much easier to be persuaded by a deceitful salesperson over the phone than on the Internet.

Furthermore, the question of how to regulate electronic commerce is one that demands a thorough investigation. I remind the House that in October of this year at a ministerial conference this issue will be addressed in its entirety, at which point the industry committee can examine the legal and regulatory questions with greater understanding. For these reasons I recommend to my colleagues that all Group No. 2 amendments be opposed.

Motion No. 6 presented to us again by the hon. member for Mercier stands alone in Group No. 3 and, if supported, would expand the guidelines provided for telemarketers to include fraudulent claims regarding warranties and the overall performance and efficacy of a product.

My immediate concern is that the amendment would wrongly place the onus on the telemarketer to ensure that the manufacturer's product claims are accurate. While I strongly believe telemarketers must act with due diligence in their relationship with manufacturers, the quality and efficacy of the product as supported by the manufacturer's claim should be the responsibility of the manufacturer.

Section 52 of the act as amended by Bill C-20 is sufficiently broad so as to include false claims concerning warranties and the overall quality of products. For these two reasons I recommend that Motion No. 6 in Group No. 3 be opposed.

When looking at Group No. 4 amendments I would first like to address Motions Nos. 9 and 10 and then move to Motion No. 11 to conclude my speech. As many members of the House are aware, all complaints that fall under the Competition Act are investigated by the commissioner and where deemed appropriate are then placed before the tribunal.

Motions Nos. 9 and 10 would allow a private individual over the age of 18 to bring a case to the commissioner for investigation. The current procedure, however, is to insist that at least six individuals submit a complaint. This is a mechanism intended to help to ensure against frivolous and vexatious submissions to the commissioner.

If a consumer has a complaint that he or she believes involves a violation of the Competition Act, he or she must find five other individuals who share the opinion that a violation of the Competition Act has occurred. This is not an unreasonable demand to place on the Canadian consumer. By insisting that six individuals be a part of the application process to the commissioner we can work to ensure that Canadian businesses are not subject to a barrage of frivolous complaints. For this reason I recommend that Motions Nos. 9 and 10 in Group No. 4 be opposed.

Motion No. 11 is one that I strongly considered supporting. I think the intent of the motion was to give Canadians direct access to the tribunal, thereby removing a barrier to communicating the needs of consumers.

The motion would allow a single individual to bring a matter directly before the tribunal removing the direct involvement of the commissioner. While I would normally support an initiative that would allow citizens direct access to this court, this motion unfortunately maintains the insistence that a single individual can bring a case to the tribunal instead of the six individuals currently required. For the same reasons I opposed Motions Nos. 9 and 10 I must also oppose Motion No. 11.

I recommend to all members of the House that the 11 motions put forward by the hon. member for Mercier be opposed. Canadians have for too long gone without adequate protection against telemarketing fraud and this legislation should do much to provide that protection.

[Hepatitis C, May 15th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this working group is a step backward, not a step forward. It will not be working on ways and criteria for compensating all hepatitis C victims like Krever recommended. Its mandate is to determine whether or not there can be compensation. What a joke.

Why is the minister putting the so-called working group ahead of the royal commission report? Why will he not compensate all hepatitis C victims instead of coming up with more excuses?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, May 13th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of my constituents in Edmonton—Strathcona and on behalf of every Canadian taxpayer, I am pleased to rise to speak against Bill C-36 concerning the implementation of many of the recent announcements made by the government in the 1998 budget.

My colleagues have dealt thoroughly with this legislation in committee. I would like to address only the Group No. 1 amendments concerning the millennium fund.

As this House is aware, the passing of this act would bring into effect the much talked about Canada millennium scholarship foundation. This fund concerns me for a number of reasons, the first of which has nothing to do with the world of budgets and finance at all.

Education is an area of provincial jurisdiction. Any further meddling by the federal government only helps to enhance the frustration felt by our provincial partners about the Canadian federation.

This point is important because the millennium fund will be more than just another ineffective and wasteful Liberal policy. It will be a constant reminder to our friends in Quebec, Alberta and elsewhere that this government refuses to recognize constitutional division of powers.

I recall very well the Bloc supply day motion which opposed the millennium fund because it violates provincial jurisdiction. There were aspects of the motion that were admittedly objectionable to the Reform caucus, but I share the sentiment felt by my colleagues in the Bloc that the federal government has once again overextended its reach.

I would also suggest that the members of the Bloc, like the members of the Reform caucus, are no less concerned about the quality of education than the Prime Minister. They simply appreciate that the federal government should respect provincial jurisdiction. They also understand that the provincial governments are better able to administer programs than is a distant and out of touch federal government.

The premiers of this country are united in their support for a rebalancing of powers that better reflects the original constitution. Yet the federal government refuses to respect this consensus.

I would recommend that if the government is interested in solving the national unity problem, it should look at the new Canada act put together by the Reform caucus. This act embodies many of the concerns felt by our premiers and is a blueprint for positive change.

I mention this to illustrate a point. There are consequences of bad policies which are not readily apparent but that must be addressed fully. We cannot continue to ignore the delicate political reality in this country.

The millennium fund must be opposed because of the potential damage it will do to intergovernmental relations. The Prime Minister is not concerned about national unity or constitutional matters. He is concerned about his political legacy.

The millennium fund will provide the Prime Minister with a legacy, but not for being a champion for higher education. Our Prime Minister will instead join the long list of status quo federalist politicians who refuse to listen to our first ministers who are calling on this government to get out of areas of provincial jurisdiction.

My second concern with the millennium fund is one that has been addressed many times. It is a concern I alluded to only minutes ago. This fund, simply put, will not be effective in improving the financial situation for Canadian students.

Even after billions are spent, 90% of Canadian students will never see a penny of this money. They will face the same financial constraints they always have. If the federal government was concerned about education, it need only to reinvest money in provincial transfers for education. Maybe it could look at such things as an income contingent student loan plan which would ensure adequate funding for students. Or maybe the Prime Minister could work toward building a partnership between educators and industry.

My point is that the possibilities for helping Canadian students are endless. We must look for creative ways to drive down the cost of education and to ensure access to funds for students in need. However the millennium fund is clearly not the way to accomplish this.

While the Reform caucus is opposed to the fund, we have recommended some changes that will improve the current legislation.

First, the millennium scholarship fund should be subject to the Access to Information Act. This is fair. It is hard to argue why the fund should be shrouded in secrecy. If the government is confident the money will be properly spent, it should embrace the opportunity to make the fund open to scrutiny. Second, eligible institution should mean an institution that is a public or private post-secondary educational institution in Canada that is designated for Canada student loan purposes and grants degrees, certificates or diplomas.

I think this amendment satisfies the principle of equality and fairness and should be considered by all members of this House.

Third, it is our recommendation that the provinces and territories be allowed to opt out and enter into agreements with the foundation to use their portion of the fund to suit their post-secondary priorities with no strings attached.

I would be very surprised if Liberal members of this House opposed the amendment, as it is in keeping with Liberal policy on the procedure for implementing federal programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction where the provinces are reluctant to allow federal intervention. This is a part of Liberal policy on national standards, so I expect the government's support on that amendment.

Finally, we recommend that an appeal process be established to consider grant applications which were denied or rejected. Again, this is a reasonable amendment that entrenches a provision for fairness.

The millennium fund will not help Canadian students struggling to pay their way through university. It is a bad program that should be scrapped. However, if it must remain the recommended amendments made by my hon. colleague from Medicine Hat should be given careful consideration and support.

This is only one of the issues that have put a black mark on Bill C-36. For this reason I will join my colleagues in the Reform caucus in opposition to it.

[Bobby Curtola, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I was not born when Bobby Curtola was at the peak of his fame, but I am no less proud of him as a Canadian and a fellow Edmontonian.

Yesterday Bobby received the Order of Canada and I know that Canadians from all walks of life will join me in congratulating him not just for the award but for a lifetime of achievement.

Bobby was one of Canada's first international pop music stars, a pioneer in demonstrating that Canada is blessed with an abundance of talent.

Long before the Beatles drew throngs of screaming teens to their shows Bobby was out there on the road doing the same. Most important, Bobby Curtola proved that you can be both a superstar and a nice guy. That is what his fans will say today. Super stardom never went to Bobby's head. He was, is and will remain the sort of man we are proud to call a friend and a fellow Canadian.

Congratulations on behalf of all Canadians and Edmontonians to Bobby Curtola.

[Canada Labour Code, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-19, the bill we are talking about today, is about democracy. That is why I want to speak to Bill C-19, specifically to the motions in Group No. 2.

I have spoken in the House before about how strongly I believe in democracy and freedom, freedom of competition and all these things that we in Canada quite often take for granted. The Reform Party and many other parties in the House are trying to propose amendments to the bill to get back to the freedom, the democracy we so cherish.

As we know, the bill died in the Senate in the last parliament, Bill C-66. It has now been reintroduced in this parliament with minor changes. I do not think very serious changes have been made. That is why we see so many of the opposition parties proposing amendments. It is very important that we take the bill seriously and try to accomplish something.

In this place we often forget that as political parties we have the job of working together to create legislation that is good for the country, and especially in this case good for labour. I am excited to see that many members in many parties are taking the chance to make the legislation better. I hope the Liberals will work with us in doing so.

As I mentioned, I will speak a bit to Motion No. 7. Reform has always been fighting for more democracy, especially in various organizations and particularly in labour organizations.

This is democracy in motion. I think all of us in the House try to work toward it by representing our ridings and the views of our constituents. I know Reform finds this very important. It is something we try to push toward, especially at report stage of Bill C-19.

Specifically on the whole issue of the representational vote when groups of people in labour want union certification, Reform believes, and I think many people agree, that as long as 35% of people in an organization want union certification they should be allowed to have it.

It is in the interest of democracy and in the interest of having labour work effectively. That is one of the things we are pushing for in Motion No. 7. The whole premise behind this motion is that we want the wishes of the majority through a democratic process to be upheld. Quite often we forget that in the daily events of the House.

There are innocent people out there who are trying to work for the common good. They are trying to support their families and their livelihoods. We should be able to put legislation through the House and work toward putting legislation through the House that is in the interest of those people.

The bill also talks about many other things when it comes to labour and arbitration. The core of anything that happens when it comes to labour has to be based around democracy and what is good for the people.

We need to focus on protecting the views, especially in this case, of the majority of people who want to see changes happen in a positive way through labour. We need to allow the democratic process to work. As I mentioned, overall that is something that leads hand in hand to creating more competitive markets.

Unfortunately, as we know, members opposite seem to want to put many obstacles into the process of trying to create an effective markets, trying to create more competitive markets and trying to give Canadian workers the competitive edge they need to compete in a global society. I am upset to see that. I would hope they would put the interests of workers first.

This leads into the whole view of competition, freedom and access to global markets. Many of the changes that have been made in Bill C-19 would affect the way grain is transported and the way we can access foreign markets.

If we take a step back and see the way the world is evolving, we see the way competition has continued to grow and how we have achieved a sense of a global market. We need to give all the advantages to Canadian labour and to Canadian business to be able to compete in foreign markets.

We need to take a step back and see how we can help the process of getting democracy in motion and getting labour legislation to reflect it. We need to do all we can to support it. Overall we will see a much more democratic, much more healthy part of our economy evolve from that. As well labour will reflect that.

Another major point is something we cannot forget. As much as we like to often hear members on the far left talking about restricting globalization, restricting competition among foreign countries, I cannot comprehend that. For me and from my background I feel it is fundamental that we have freedom of competition. That must be reflected in our labour laws.

When we talk about allowing groups in Bill C-19 to have formal certification to unionize, it has to be allowed with that democratic percentage, that vote of 35%. Also we have to move toward a further goal of allowing Canadian labour to compete in foreign markets. We need to give Canadians, Canadian businesses and Canadian labour the competitive advantage. We need to allow them to compete in global markets and we need to support them when they want to achieve those goals.

The House is supposed to uphold these types of visions. It is supposed to uphold the strong convictions of making Canada more democratic, making it a better place to live and giving the advantage to Canadians to provide for themselves. Unfortunately we do not see that applied often in much of the legislation that is produced in the House.

I urge all hon. members to take a step back and evaluate what we are doing here today. I urge them to ask themselves how we can make this place better, how we can help make legislation better to represent Canadians and labour. Even if it means putting party lines aside, it is a goal we must have as federal legislators to do what is right for the country. That is what we must work toward.

[The Late Marcel Dionne, May 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great respect that I rise in the House today to pay tribute to one of my peers.

A native of the Eastern Townships, Marcel Dionne represented the federal riding of Chicoutimi from 1979 to 1984. During his term of office, Marcel Dionne helped bring about a number of important achievements for his constituents such as the redevelopment of the port of Chicoutimi and the survival of CFB Bagotville.

He was also active in his community. He was the president of the Chicoutimi Saguenéens of Quebec's major junior hockey league and president of the Fédération des producteurs de pommes de terre du Québec. He had also successfully battled cancer and was working as an assistant commissioner on the Canadian Grain Commission.

On behalf of the Reform Party, I extend my deepest condolences to members of the Dionne family.