Walt Lastewka

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to the hon. member's question concerning productivity. The available evidence shows that Canadians can improve their productivity performance relative to other major trading partners.

Improving our productivity performance matters because the more efficiently we can combine our resources to produce goods and services, the more easily Canadians can use some of those resources in other areas of endeavour they believe are important to improve their standard of living, including health, education and the environment. For this reason the government is committed to building a stronger, more innovative and more productive economy.

Budget 1999 underlined this commitment by continuing to build the fiscal base for long term growth. It also provides for substantive new investments undertaken in partnership with the private sector in the creation, dissemination and commercialization of knowledge. Just a few examples of these investments are: $200 million for the Canada Foundation for Innovation to build research infrastructure; $60 million over three years to establish smart community demonstration projects that will broaden access to the information highway; and $90 million over three years for the networks of centres of excellence to support partnerships among world class researchers in the private sector.

These and other investments will help improve foreign activity and ultimately our standard of living. They are vital at this time, but they are not the complete answer.

Together we must tackle the multifaceted elements of the productivity challenge, such as strong business investment, research and development performance, the commercialization of innovation and encouraging higher levels of training in areas appropriate for the demands of the new knowledge based economy, and improving our trade performance. We must work together on productivity in the House, in the committees and in our constituencies.

[Legalization Of Marijuana For Health And Medical Purposes, April 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the question of the member for Yorkton—Melville. It was an isolated case of issuing a firearms licence with the wrong photograph.

Here are the facts.

An individual in British Columbia applied in November 1998 under the previous legislation for a firearms acquisition certificate, an FAC. Since the licence was issued after December 1, the date the new law took effect, he received a new possession and acquisition licence.

The licence was processed under the procedures of the previous legislation which relied on local police personnel to handle the photograph and paperwork. This is a responsibility they no longer need to worry about under the new system, which I might add is saving police forces considerable sums of money which they may redirect to other important local policing priorities.

Many firearms owners waited until the last days of the old law to apply. We have so far handled over 23,000 of these cases under the old system. It is not clear where the mistake happened, whether it was at the local police station where it handled a flurry of last minute applications or whether it was when the photograph was scanned.

What is clear is that under the new law and its procedures this would not have happened. Under the new system firearms owners do not visit the police station, but rather fill out the form at home. It includes all relevant information, including a photo of themselves. I can assure the member that the Canadian Firearms Centre central processing site has taken precautions to ensure that this type of switch will not happen under the new system.

I must say that we are pleased with the way this new system is working. We are indeed very pleased with the emerging proof that it already has made a difference in public safety.

I can also tell the House that 159 new licence applications in the first four months of the program, between December 1, 1998 and April 1, 1999, were refused, mainly due to public safety concerns, and 129 licences were revoked.

There will be many examples of enhanced public safety in the months to come. I hope that the member understands.

[Legalization Of Marijuana For Health And Medical Purposes, April 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver East for her efforts and for her continued work in this area. It is very important that we continue to provide information to the minister and the department, especially the work done by the member for Vancouver East.

The Minister of Justice wants the member to know that her message has been heard and is being reviewed by herself and by the department. The minister has worked with various groups across the country to understand better and to be able to continue to work with the member opposite and all members of this House.

I thank the member for her work. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry I join her in her efforts and I will continue to work on her behalf.

[Legalization Of Marijuana For Health And Medical Purposes, April 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from Lévis for giving me this opportunity to speak. As he mentioned we visited the Port Weller dry docks, and I thank him for that.

The hon. member is well aware of the generous package. People need to understand that there is a very generous package in the shipbuilding industry, especially the accelerated capital cost allowance. That is a very quick writeoff.

I keep repeating that the following items are in place: duty on ship imports, domestic procurement for all government shipbuilding and ship repairs, Export Development Corporation financing, and a very favourable research and development tax credit.

Also the federal government participated in an industry led rationalization process that culminated in a more streamlined and viable industry. The federal government contributed $200 million between 1986 and 1993.

Let me talk about shipbuilding in Quebec. The federal government invested $1.6 billion in Davie Industries during the period from 1983 to 1996 in the form of contracts, contributions and loan guarantees. Moreover, commercial arrangements for EDC are currently moving forward to provide additional support to this company through a loan guarantee on the Spirit of Columbus .

As the member acknowledged we have an overcapacity of shipbuilding, in fact 40%. The OECD workshop on shipbuilding policies reported that there would be 40% world overcapacity by the year 2005.

Canada is poised to be a leader in a global knowledge based economy for the 21st century. While focus is based on these knowledge intensive sectors where we are strong, where the opportunity for growth and leadership is highest and where the opportunities for young Canadians are greatest, the government has not and will not abandon an important sector like shipbuilding. In fact the EDC—

[Legalization Of Marijuana For Health And Medical Purposes, April 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to answer the question of the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore. He has given me the opportunity to speak on the subject of shipbuilding. I am sorry he did not mention the shipbuilding in my area.

Let me first say that the industry minister and I met with the representatives of the shipbuilding industry on March 25. On that day we had a very frank discussion with the president of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada and presidents or vice-presidents of most of Canada's shipbuilding companies. I should also remind the member that I met with the shipbuilding industry and the unions previous to that in the fall of 1998.

During the meeting on March 25 we discussed the generous package of measures the federal government currently maintains to support shipbuilding. May I make perfectly clear some of these measures: a 33.3% accelerated capital cost allowance for Canadian shipbuilding, a 25% duty on most non-NAFTA ship imports, domestic procurement on a competitive basis for all government shipbuilding and ship repairs, a favourable research and tax credit system, and Export Development Corporation financing for commercially viable transactions. In 1998 we extended that from 8 years to 12 years in discussions with the shipbuilding industry.

We also explained that Industry Canada had the enabling technologies element of Technology Partnerships Canada. I must remind the member that shipbuilding programs lie with the departments of foreign affairs and international trade and that is why we coordinate them on a sector by sector basis. These representatives have met with EDC and have made these improvements.

In summary, substantial support has been provided to the shipbuilding industry in the past and we will continue to support—

[Competition Act, March 12th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-393, an act to amend the Competition Act.

The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton who introduced the bill has done Canadian consumers a great service in putting it forward. This legislation would amend the Competition Act to restrict the practice of negative option marketing in Canada.

We are all familiar with the irritation of opening telephone and cable bills or other statements and seeing that we have been charged for a service we did not ask for, we do not need and we do not want.

When we ask about what is going on we are given the impression that we are at fault. We are told we should have read the notice and should have sent in a form saying no.

That is how negative option marketing works. Negative option marketing is a sales strategy by which consumers are required to expressly refuse a product or service to avoid receiving and paying for it.

To put it another way, if there is no action to refuse the service the recipient has bought it. I am sure there are examples where negative option marketing works well and for the benefit and convenience of both the customer and the supplier.

There are book and record clubs where the customer understands and is happy to receive the monthly selection unless the reply card is sent. The key to successful negative option arrangements is making sure the consumer is well informed, has accurate information and is not taken by surprise.

This points to why so many Canadians find negative option marketing offensive. When they enter into an agreement with a service provider for a particular package of services they do not expect that the company would assume it can charge without their consent. They are surprised to learn that companies think it is okay to keep switching and adding services and raising the charges until the customer says stop.

Negative option marketing reverses the customer-seller relationship. It imposes on the customer the requirement to react to avoid the sale. It can take advantage of those of us who with busy lives may find ourselves less vigilant with our financial affairs.

An example can be made with day to day banking. Many of us like to convenience of paying our bill by automatic debit. We do not always take the time to go through the statements at the end of the month. Weeks later when we do notice the charges have crept up there is a good chance that we will let it go. After all, it is only a few dollars. It is not worth the hassle. That is how negative option marketing can take advantage of the average Canadian. Intentionally or not, it can also take advantage of vulnerable consumers.

The member's initiative allows the House to debate this issue. He should be applauded for this. As part of this debate I would like to suggest a few improvements to Bill C-393 that the member may wish to consider.

I first propose that the bill focus on sectors of clear and exclusive federal jurisdiction. This would mean making negative option marketing a reviewable matter with applications with specified regulated industries. The bill would then be broad enough to encompass the major players while minimizing the potential for a perception of overlap with provincial jurisdiction.

Next, in its current form Bill C-393 contemplates making negative action marketing a criminal offence. Members may recall that in September of last year the House approved Bill C-20, an act which also amended the Competition Act. One of the innovations of that was the creation of a civil court process to allow the Competition Bureau to deal more expeditiously with cases involving misleading advertising and deceptive marketing practices.

The government's position is that negative option marketing rather than being subject to criminal law and processes should be a matter reviewable by the civil courts.

Members may recall that in the 35th parliament the same hon. member sponsored Bill C-216, an act to amend the Broadcast Act. That bill was amended on third reading in the Senate to respond to concerns of its possible effects on the viability of French language broadcasting services. We will want to ensure that Bill C-393 is crafted so as to anticipate and resolve these types of concerns.

Another issue is notification. The bill contains provisions requiring companies to send their customers a notice at least once a month for three consecutive months before they can charge for a new service. In the current form it appears that these provisions would require a company to complete the triple notification process and prevent it from charging for the service for three months, even if the customer had agreed to it and signed up for the service right away. I think this is an issue we may wish to review.

The bill addresses several of the consumer issues raised in the context of a much broader review of the financial sector. As drafted, the bill has the potential for conflict with the existing provisions of the Bank Act that deal with services charges and notice requirements. We will undoubtedly address these issues further as debate continues on this bill.

Bill C-393 is a worthwhile initiative that merits debate in the House. It applies to certain federally regulated enterprises, notably those subject to the Broadcast Act, the Telecommunications Act and the Bank Act. It has the potential to touch each Canadian consumer who subscribes to cable TV, uses a telephone or has a bank account.

We look forward to collaborating with the hon. member on his private member's bill. We want to demonstrate our support to consumers and give a positive response to the many Canadians who find negative option marketing offensive and unreasonable.

With respect to the financial sector, the task force on the future of the Canadian financial services sector produced a report that made consumer issues a major preoccupation of its 124 recommendations released to the Minister of Finance in September of last year.

The House of Commons finance committee and the Senate banking committee have studied the report and also conducted public hearings. The two committees supported many of the consumer measures contained in the report and provided some additional recommendations. The government is currently reviewing the advice of these three bodies and will be setting out its response as soon as possible.

The bill addresses several of the consumer issues raised in the context of a much broader review of the financial sector. As drafted, the bill has the potential of conflict with existing provisions of the Bank Act dealing with service charges and notice requirements.

As the bill proceeds through the House and through committee at various stages we should consider how best to resolve the conflicts between the bill's provisions and the existing consumer protection provisions contained in the Bank Act as we debate this bill in the House to make sure we have responded to the hon. member for bringing this bill forward.

[Tax On Financial Transactions, February 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, let me say that the government has made a substantial commitment to aerospace and other high tech, high growth sectors especially in the Montreal area and across the country. An example of this commitment is Technology Partners of Canada whose budget was increased from $150 million two years ago to $250 million this year.

The Montreal area, where much of Canada's aerospace industry is located, and all of Canada stand to benefit greatly from TPC. There have already been investments in several world class aerospace projects. There have been other investments in the biotechnology, environmental technology and telecommunications sector.

The success of the federal government strategy for promoting partnership for innovation, economic growth and job creation is evident across Canada.

With respect to Pratt & Whitney Canada our commitment has been substantial. Today TPC has invested in two Pratt & Whitney Canada projects totalling $147 million. We are continuing to work closely with Pratt & Whitney Canada to explore all reasonable options that can be pursued to support the company's future development.

The minister recently met with Pratt & Whitney Canada executives to this end. We believe Pratt & Whitney Canada is committed to its Montreal operation and elsewhere in Canada. The Government of Canada is committed to continuing partnership with Pratt & Whitney.

With respect to employment, the impacts are not as immediate or as dramatic as one might be led to believe. Not until the end of 1999 would there be a significant reduction of jobs. This is a normal phenomenon for a cyclical industry like aerospace and largely the result of the completion of earlier research and development projects. As well the company has indicated this will mostly be implemented through early retirement and normal attrition.

Let me say that the aerospace industry is growing at a very favourable 14% rate annually. Although some jobs will be lost at Pratt & Whitney, other local aerospace firms such as Bombardier and Bell Helicopter are still expanding.

[Petitions, December 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the second group of petitions relates to the definition of marriage.

The petitioners feel it is the duty of parliament to ensure that marriage as it has always been known and understood in Canada be preserved and protected. They call on this House to enact legislation to define in statute that marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

[Petitions, December 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table two sets of petitions from constituents in St. Catharines and the Niagara area.

In the first set of petitions the petitioners say they are alarmed and deeply disturbed by the further victimization of the families of Kristin French and Leslie Mahaffy by reason of the use of the Bernardo video tapes. They petition the Parliament of Canada to amend section 486(1) of the Criminal Code by enacting a specific exemption to the open court rule by excluding evidence of child coerced pornography.

[Technology Partnerships Canada, December 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Technology Partnerships Canada annual report for 1997-98 entitled “Investing in Innovation”.