Lost his last election, in 2000, with 33% of the vote.
Gasoline Prices March 21st, 2000
Mr. Speaker, in response to the crisis in gasoline prices the Liberal government has done what Liberals always do. It appointed a committee to study the industry, and it is the 12th in the last 15 years. Does that make sense? The committee will cost Canadians $750,000 and it will not report until next year.
Why does the finance minister not cut out the doggie doodle and reduce the federal tax on gasoline that he himself raised in 1995?
Questions Passed As Orders For Returns March 2nd, 2000
With respect to the Québec ministerial tour taken by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, the Minister of National Revenue, the President of the Treasury Board, the Secretary of State (Science, Research and Development) and the Secretary of State (Amateur Sport) from September 22 to 24, 1999, could the government advise the House of the costs of this trip including: transportation to, from and during the ministerial tour, accomodations, communications, meals, entertainment and alcoholic beverages for each of the ministers, their support staff and departmental staff?
Return tabled.
Trucking Industry February 25th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has done everything it can to drive up operating costs for the trucking industry. The Liberals increased the excise tax on diesel fuel. They eliminated federal competitive assistance programs and have now allowed the condition of our national highways to deteriorate.
The deputy premier of New Brunswick took the initiative to meet with truckers and offer them help. Will the transport minister give them the same courtesy and meet with them to work out a plan to reduce their costs?
Trucking Industry February 25th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Transport has become a profit centre at the expense of the trucking industry and the people employed in it. The government eliminated the Atlantic regional freight transportation assistance program and the maritime freight rate both of which allowed Atlantic truckers to equalize costs and compete with other parts of the country.
Will the government meet with representatives of the trucking industry and put together a plan with them to reduce costs for the industry?
Canada Post Corporation Act February 23rd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-229, which was put forward by my hon. friend, the member for Kitchener Centre.
Let me first offer my congratulations to her for taking up the torch on this important issue and for trying to find a solution to this problem so that consumers can be protected.
In the few minutes I have I would like to quickly review the problem with mail scam cards and why legislation is needed to ban them.
Second, I would like to talk about how this bill would help address this problem and how I think this bill could be strengthened to provide even more consumer protection against mail fraud.
Finally, I will talk about a private member's bill which I will be introducing shortly that is meant to supplement and strengthen this bill.
I should mention that a lot of information I received on this file came from an organization called Phonebusters. It was started in 1993 by the Ontario Provincial Police, the RCMP, Canada Post, Industry Canada and a number of other partners. Phonebusters is a national deceptive telemarketing call centre that collects complaints from throughout Canada on telemarketing deception and fraud and passes the information onto local police.
Since it began collecting data on mail fraud in 1995, it has had 2,031 complaints about scratch and win game cards sent through the mail. The game cards, or scam cards as I like to call them, invite the recipient to scratch off a box to see if he or she has won a prize which the card claims can be anything from a colour print up to $5,000 in cash.
The deceptive thing about these cards is that every one is a winner. There are no losing cards but in order to collect a prize a person must call a 1-900 number. Of course, those who call the number get a phone bill in the range of $20 to $30 and in one instance for $158. The consumer either receives no prize at all or an item of very small value. A value of $3 is typical.
Especially troubling to me is that 60% of the victims of the mail scams are senior citizens. From 1996 to 1999 seniors lost $20 million from the scam cards. That was out of a total of $29 million lost by all Canadians.
Existing legislation offers only limited protection at best. Under the misleading advertising provisions of the Competition Act persons who perpetrate this kind of fraud are seldom prosecuted and rarely if ever jailed. Even then the sentences are light and average two to six months.
For example in a prosecution involving Cave Promotions Ltd. last October, the company received a fine and prohibition order but none of the people who ran the company were punished, fined or sent to jail. There was nothing to prevent the perpetrators from closing down the company, finding a new partner and opening for business the very next day.
By comparison, the United States has an unlawful mail matter law that prevents scam cards from being delivered by the U.S. postal service. Telemarketing fraud is treated as a serious crime.
Bill C-229 is an important step in helping to protect Canadian consumers from becoming victims of these types of mail fraud. The bill introduces changes to the Canada Post Corporation Act to prohibit the post office from delivering a game card or similar item that is not in an envelope where the recipient is invited to participate in a game of chance but must first pay a sum of money or incur telephone charges in order to collect a prize.
This is an appropriate measure to take in order to reduce mail fraud. Canada Post has a monopoly on mail delivery and as a crown corporation occupies a unique position of trust in the minds of Canadian consumers. Bill C-229 is an honourable piece of legislation and my friend the member for Kitchener Centre deserves our praise for advancing this cause.
As I prepared for the debate on this bill, and as I consulted with Canada Post, I learned that Canada Post accounts for only 20% of the ad mail which is frequently called junk mail. If Bill C-229 passes we will prevent scam cards from being delivered in the mail, but that potentially still leaves 80% of the problem unresolved. One could argue that if we shut down the post office as a delivery system for the perpetrators of these scams, they will simply switch to other private delivery firms and we will not have slowed down these mail scams one bit.
What we have before us is good legislation that is well intentioned but nevertheless it has a sizeable loophole. Upon discovering this loophole I undertook to meet with the member for Kitchener Centre to discuss different options on how to close this loophole so that all Canadian consumers would be protected from scratch and win game card mail scams.
My goal was essentially to build on her efforts and to extend the prohibition of the delivery of these game cards to include all organizations, not just Canada Post. We looked at the possibility of amending Bill C-229 but learned that in order to make this an all inclusive bill would require passing amendments to either the criminal code or the Competition Act which would be outside the scope of this bill.
After further consultation, I decided that the best way to accomplish this would be to draft another private member's bill that would use changes to the Competition Act to establish legislative protection for consumers against all forms of mail scam cards regardless of who delivers them. That bill has now been drafted and it is my intention to introduce it in the House very shortly.
I briefed my caucus colleagues this morning on the bill. I am happy to say that they are in full support of my efforts.
I have also consulted with the member for Kitchener Centre on this bill and she is supportive and wants us to continue to work together to achieve our common goals in putting an end to this type of mail fraud.
My bill uses a similar approach to that of Bill C-229 which is before us today. As I stated, my bill would amend the Competition Act so that no person can deliver or have someone deliver on their behalf a game of chance that conveys the impression that the recipient has won a prize, but the awarding of that prize is contingent upon the prior payment of money or the incurring of telephone charges.
My bill would make any company liable for an offence of this sort committed by one of its employees. It would also hold liable the officers and directors of any company found guilty of such an offence.
Any person who commits an offence under this legislation would be liable for a fine of up to $200,000 or imprisonment of up to one year on summary conviction. For conviction on indictment, imprisonment could be up to five years and a fine to be set by the courts.
Faced with these consequences, I am confident that the measures outlined in my bill together with the bill before us today will help put an end to the type of mail fraud we have seen with the scratch and win game cards.
In closing, I want to thank again my friend from Kitchener Centre for the work she has done to advance this issue. I also want to thank her for working with me and for providing information and advice on both her legislation and mine.
I look forward to working with members from all parties to put an end to these fraudulent practices.
Supply February 17th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was one of the first to stand up during the question and answer period but I was not given a chance to ask a question. If I could have the unanimous consent of the House, I would like to ask the member a question.
Supply February 17th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, it is not that I want to criticize, but Reform members have spoken all day. They say that they do not agree with a majority higher than 50% plus one. The member who spoke a while ago said that there is no clarity about this question. They said that they were not satisfied with the amount of work that has gone on in committee. There is nothing in this bill that they are satisfied with.
Why is the Reform Party supporting a bill that it does not like? It is as simple as that. It is not a matter of principle; it is a matter of values.
Supply February 17th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, my question for the member from the Reform Party will be brief.
As I just heard, the member is not happy with the way the committee work is going on the clarity bill. He also stated that he is not happy with any majority higher than 50% plus one. I guess he believes in a majority of 50% plus one. If that means that the hon. member has problems with half of the bill, why is he supporting the bill?
Supply February 17th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite a question. Let us say, for the sake of it, that Quebec holds another referendum with a clear question, and with a clear majority Quebec wins. Then we would have to go through secession.
Who would negotiate for Canada? Before the members stands, I want to remind her of something. The Prime Minister, at least 10 of his cabinet ministers and all of the MPs who come from Quebec, under the Geneva Convention, the United Nations and international law are not bound by law to negotiate for Canada.
Who would negotiate for Canada then?
Supply February 17th, 2000
Because he knows what he is talking about.