Lost his last election, in 2008, with 29% of the vote.
Québec-Téléphone September 30th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, Canada is committed to its Canadian ownership rules for owners of telecommunciations and transmission facilities.
The Bloc knows there is no support for QuebecTel's request among Quebec based companies, whether it be Bell, Videotron or COGECO. I am sure the Bloc would understand that if there is no support for the project the Government of Canada also should not support the project.
Canada Small Business Financing Act September 28th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to my colleague from Surrey Central. But I am really not sure what is happening.
My understanding was that the Bloc was looking at expanding the bill in some areas that were not included but should be. Another party said that there are some improvements required in amendments. I welcome the NDP's concern with small business now.
My understanding from the Reform Party is that it does not want the bill at all. I might be wrong on that. I think it needs to clarify it because my understanding from another colleague from the Reform Party is that it would like to just do away with it. It wants to support small business but not through the Canada small business financing act.
I would like the member to clarify his position. I did hear that there are items like audits and so forth which by the way, I would like to inform my colleague, are included in the bill. So it will be very interesting when this bill goes to committee.
I would like the member for Surrey Central to enlarge on his suggestions for improvements.
Canada Small Business Financing Act September 28th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my colleague, but he must understand that in each government program there is always continuous improvement going on to make sure that we are in with the times.
Last spring when Bill C-21 was brought forward it was requested by all parties that extra time be taken in the House to review the Small Business Loans Act. This has been done. During the various committee debates witnesses will be brought forward to review the Small Business Financial Act and to understand the benefits of it. There are benefits right across the country. The Small Business Loans Act has proven in the past that it assists businesses in areas of a little higher risk to make sure they get financing. There has obviously been much improvement over time to this act. Again, we have done an extensive review from the time Bill C-21 was approved until now.
The industry committee, including my colleague opposite, will have a chance to review all the statistics. The report of the Small Business Loans Act was tabled today in the House to allow all of us to take a look at the report and to move forward on the new bill in the House of Commons.
Small Business Loans Act September 28th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table before this House the annual report of the Small Business Loans Act for the year 1997-98.
Canada Small Business Financing Act September 28th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, just a few weeks ago, at the end of August, we all witnessed how volatile and unpredictable economic forces can be.
Stock markets and national currencies were whiplashed overnight during a sudden explosive global crisis of confidence. Fortunately it was short-lived panic, but at times like this every sector of the economy feels vulnerable. Particularly vulnerable to cyclical economic shifts are small and medium size businesses.
Many do not have the financial resources to wait out economic swings. Even in periods of stability, largely because of the difficulty of getting adequate credit at reasonable rates, it is a formidable challenge to manage a small business profitably.
However, manage and succeed they do. The vision, the energy, the perseverance and the plain hard work of Canadian entrepreneurs have made small business an absolutely indispensable component of our national economy.
These businesses continue to be the fastest growing segment of the economy. They also continue to be the biggest generator of jobs by far in every region of the country. It is obvious that this community will continue to benefit many Canadians if we take the measures necessary to facilitate its health, expansion and profitability.
An important contribution that we make at this time for this sector is to provide it with stability. The House can go a long way to help establish a climate of stability for small business by giving its approval to Bill C-53, the Canada Small Business Financial Act. This stability is provided through the bill which will continue to provide the small business community with access to financing.
Maintaining the program on a cost-recovery track will enhance the certainty of continuing taxpayer support for this important risk-sharing program.
We are eliminating the aggregate lending ceiling which has created uncertainty about the program in recent years and replacing it with a more realistic mechanism to continue the program.
This will enhance lenders' and borrowers' confidence that the program will be there in the future to facilitate financing. Stability will be enhanced by eliminating the sunset clause and replacing it with a regular review during which lending will continue.
Finally, by maintaining most of the parameters of the current legislation, stability is further ensured. Everyone who deals with the program knows where they stand.
The bill also contains a major benefit for Parliament. This is the provision for a recurring five year parliamentary review of the Canada Small Business Financing Act program.
It also provides for the development of a comprehensive accountability framework which will give Parliament improved and more accurate data and performance measurements against which to evaluate the program's financial standing, its efficiency and its success in meeting cost recovery.
The program evaluation framework and the performance measures that are being developed will also address the concerns raised by the auditor general and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. When he appeared before the committee, the auditor general stated that the program was generally well run, with a minimum of costs.
The program, as hon. members know, has since been subjected to a comprehensive review, analysis and assessment. This review took account of the observations and recommendations of the auditor general. This will eliminate the periodic concern that the program will not be available and will permit Parliament the time it needs to carry out a careful review of its operation. This has not always been possible in the past because of the deadline on lending authority created by the sunset clause.
When the minister launched a review last November he set three goals for any program that would emerge as a result. He wished to ensure that the program would remain relevant to the needs of small business, be financially self-sustaining and have an adequate accountability framework.
The comprehensive review conducted by the department included examining issues with borrowers, potential borrowers, lenders and major industry associations.
This review included a series of studies in the following broad areas: economic impact studies, compliance and default studies, stakeholder consultations, cost benefit analysis, and future evaluation and capital leasing studies.
In launching the comprehensive review the Minister of Industry set the goal of developing an appropriate accountability framework for the program as one of the three conditions for continuing the program. The framework is intended to provide parliamentarians with answers to questions that have frequently been asked about the program, questions such as the relevance of increasing access to financing for small business; the need for continuing federal government involvement; its impact on the creation, maintenance and displacement of jobs; the performance of borrowers; whether the program as designed meets its objectives; whether it overlaps with other programs; whether small businesses have other financing needs not met by the program; and whether program costs can be predicted accurately and recovered.
In addition to this, the framework will also report on progress toward achieving cost recovery and the reliability of forecasting for the program.
The pertinent information that parliamentarians will need to accurately measure the performance of the program will be provided through better methods of collecting data. Administrative changes and new regulatory provisions will ensure that information is collected. For example, the new legislation requires lenders and borrowers to provide certain information needed for program evaluation. An accumulating database will monitor performance and aid in assessing the targeting of the program. More categorized information on program use and on impacts such as job effects will be included in the annual reports.
There is a provision in the bill for recurrent five year reviews of the program. These will be conducted with the evaluation framework and empirically sound performance measurements. They will provide the House with the information it needs to make decisions about the program.
The accountability framework for the program that I have just described is the kind of tool that this House needs to make well-informed judgments and appropriate decisions on complex issues that have a direct bearing on the livelihood of millions of men and women, the small entrepreneurs in this country and the millions more that they employ.
I know that members of the House are well aware of the crucial significance of small business. I also know that each one of them would want to have available the best evaluation tools and the most reliable information possible when making decisions that can affect the health and prosperity of the small and medium size business sector.
It is for this reason that I am glad this bill has been tabled so early in this session so the industry committee can have a thorough review before passing it on to the other House.
Competition Act September 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I thank the members who spoke this afternoon and the members of the industry committee who toiled for many hours on the bill. Although we come from different parties I believe the debate was fruitful and the bill we have before us today is very valuable especially for seniors who get caught in many scams and by misleading advertising.
I thank all parties for their contributions on the industry committee with regard to the bill. It was very important to the Minister of Industry, and I thank them for their debate at first, second and third readings and when it was in committee.
Competition Act September 21st, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to talk about the fourth grouping on the various motions brought forward this morning and this afternoon.
I cannot support Motion No. 9 or its short form version, Motion No. 10. It would in effect require the director or the commissioner, as proposed in the new Bill C-20, to take a reviewable matter to the competition tribunal in situations where there was a complaint by just one person, without any opportunity to investigate the basis of the complaint or consider its merits. This raises concerns of fairness and could lead to abuse of process and a potential for waste of time, money and needless damage to reputation.
I hasten to note that the director gives serious consideration to all complaints which are made to him and takes action as he deems appropriate in various circumstances. In addition, the Competition Act currently provides for what is known as the six resident complaint which requires the director to open an inquiry.
The six resident complaint process is adequate to do the job of compelling the director to inquire into an alleged breach of the act. It also provides some assurance that there is some seriousness to the complaint about a practice that is distorting what should be a level playing field in the market and that the director's time and resources are not being wasted.
As I mentioned this motion would open up the door to potential abuse of process, raises concern about fairness and could result in time, energy and resources being squandered on groundless complaints.
With respect to Motion No. 11, which is part of the fourth grouping, a private party access to the courts is an important issue that was considered by the bureau. The consultative panel reported that the matter is extremely complex and requires more detailed analysis and meaningful public consultation. The director has already clearly stated that he would consult on this issue in the context of the next round of possible amendments to the Competition Act.
I would like to rebut some of the items the member from Lévis mentioned earlier. The director of the Competition Act, soon to be called the commissioner, reports to parliament although policy and policy changes comes through the Minister of Industry. The amount of discretion the minister has with the director is very little, being able to ask him to review a specific complaint or have another review of it.
I agree with the director and consultative panel that further analysis and consultation is required on Motion No. 11. I thank the member from Lévis for his comments but I cannot support Motions Nos. 9, 10 and 11.
Competition Act September 21st, 1998
Madam Speaker, I have difficulty supporting this motion.
As I indicated earlier when referring to the motions affecting a general criminal provision in subsection 52(1) against misleading representation, the wording of the proposed subclause 13(a) would in most cases be broad enough to capture the matters specifically detailed in the suggested paragraphs, namely: performance claims, warranties and ordinary price claims.
I also note that the wording suggested by paragraph (a.3) of this motion does not take account of the proposed new tests dealing with ordinary price claims in section 74.01, which were thoroughly canvassed, accepted and debated by the committee.
Competition Act September 21st, 1998
Mr. Speaker, Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 7 would effectively add the Internet communications, even where they were not interactive, to the ambit of the provisions covering deceptive telemarketing. The Internet issue was raised and dealt with by the committee, which accepted Bill C-20 wording. The telemarketing provisions are designed to focus on the use of abusive, high-pressure tactics during interactive telephone communications where the victims are vulnerable and have little time to reflect on the proposal.
The member for Broadview—Greenwood has expressed many times in the House the concern about the high-pressure tactics that are used on senior citizens, and we heard that again this morning. These particular problems do not apply to the Internet and for that reason, it is not appropriate to include the Internet in section 52.1.
Representations made over the Internet and by means of electronic commerce are subject to the same laws as other representations and would be covered under the Criminal Code and section 52 and the proposed section 74.01 of the Competition Act.
In fact, the Competition Bureau has already had some success in relation to pursuing Internet situations under section 52. We believe that the Internet issues are most effectively dealt with by the co-operative enforcement initiatives at the international level. These are being actively pursued.
It is too soon to tell what competition problems may arise in relation to the Internet. This situation will be kept under review for further amendments as and when necessary. This discussion was held at the industry committee.
Motion No. 8 would remove the possibility for legitimate telemarketers to streamline their business by providing all the necessary information concerning their product to the customer by some other means, for example by direct mail or in a catalogue prior to the telephone call. Customers may also appreciate or even prefer the savings on their time if the required information is provided in some written form ahead of time.
I have difficulty supporting this motion. The existing disclosure requirements in Bill C-20 are tailored to elicit a reasonable level of disclosure while balancing the burden to be placed on legitimate telemarketers. I must emphasize that we do have legitimate telemarketers.
This proposal does not benefit consumers significantly if at all, but could significantly increase the burden on business. It is for that reason we speak against the motion.
Competition Act September 21st, 1998
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on these motions today. I normally do not speak on the preamble to the motions, but it is with regret that I must.
When this bill was brought forward, the intention was to have it completed before the summer recess. However, it was the member's party that delayed it and would not allow the bill to be passed in the spring session. The first minute we were back in the House which was at 12 o'clock today, Bill C-20 was back in the House so that we could proceed with the passing of this act to amend the Competition Act. I want to make it perfectly clear that it is this government's intention to get this bill through as soon as possible, hopefully with the assistance of the other parties.
I cannot support these motions. They would effectively remove the proposed new required element of a knowing or reckless intention. They would leave the existing subsection 52(1) of the Competition Act dealing with misleading advertising and deceptive marketing practices unchanged.
This discussion during committee took many hours to make sure that we would have items in place in the act to protect from misleading advertising and deceptive marketing. The question of deleting the knowingly and reckless requirement was raised many times in committee. It appears to be linked to a concern that we are softening the law with respect to the deceptive marketing practice provision in the act. That is not the case.
As witnesses for the competition bureau explained during the committee hearing, this is simply not the case. The committee dealt with and accepted the mens rea requirement along with the whole balanced criminal and civil regime provided for in Bill C-20, the amendments relating to deceptive marketing practices.
To understand the reason for the change in the criminal provision and the creation of a new civil regime to deal with misleading advertising and deceptive marketing practice, it is useful to put the current regime in context. While the prohibitions against misleading or deceptive advertising have generally been effective in dealing with many aspects of this problem, the current provisions are solely criminal offences.
There are a number of reasons a wider range of enforcement mechanisms would allow more appropriate and effective responses to the variety of such conduct in the marketplace. For example, the stigma of the criminal process may encourage an adversarial response and preclude the informal and speedy resolution of many cases.
Since the 1970s several studies have suggested that criminal sanctions with a focus on punishment are an incomplete response to misleading advertising.
The consultative panel that provided advice to the director in the development of Bill C-20 also supported a dual track educational approach to deal with the problem of misleading advertising and deceptive marketing practices. In particular it supported the approach contained in this bill.
The purpose of the misleading advertising and deceptive marketing provision is to ensure that consumers in the marketplace are getting the correct information they need to make their purchasing decisions.
We believe that in most cases the civil regime will provide the most effective and efficient means to achieve that end. The availability of more efficient, flexible and effective tools such as the administrative monetary penalty cease and desist orders and publication orders should provide a more rapid and cost effective response than the criminal law. It is better protection to the consumers and will encourage greater compliance by business.
The residual criminal provision in clause 12 is being retained to deal with the most serious instances of intentional misconduct. Given the gravity of the offence it is appropriate and necessary to change it from a strict liability offence to a full mens rea criminal offence.
In conclusion, we believe that the provisions contained in Bill C-20 create a balanced and effective way to ensure that there is fair competition in the marketplace and that Canadian consumers are getting accurate information to make their purchasing decisions.