Mac Harb

[Petitions, September 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition that deals with the national highway system. It is sponsored by the Canadian Automobile Association.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, September 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the report of the parliamentary delegation that travelled to Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, and to Kaohsiung and Taipei, Taiwan, from March 29 to April 8, 1997.

[Competition Act, April 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle for his very interesting and intelligent question.

I look forward to working with him as soon as we return, either on Monday or next year, and working with our colleagues to continue our work and to make sure consumers on both sides of the river have an opportunity to express clearly and effectively their views on this legislation, as concerns gas prices and relations between businesspeople. We know that this has something to do with what they buy in their own areas.

This legislation deals with these issues related to competition and gas prices. One of the amendments raises penalties to a maximum of $200,000 for each company. Offending companies will be covered by this bill.

[Competition Act, April 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation came about as a result of the throne speech in which the government promised to look into the Competition Act in order to

ensure its fairness and transparency in order to ensure that it met the needs of the 1990s.

The main objective of the act will be to ensure that the marketplace is fair, that both the rights of the retailers as well as the rights of consumers are protected within the framework of the law. In some cases transactions may take place where a company or potential investors may have to consult the Competition Act. A certain segment of the bill will address and deal with those issues in order to smooth them out.

The amendment deals with misleading advertisements as well as deceptive marketing practices. The bill also deals with telemarketing to ensure that when people use telemarketing for the purpose of promoting their product that they tell people specifically what they are selling, the price and the implications.

Other matters the bill deals with are pricing and specials. If a company is trying to put a product on the market and it has a sale, it has to truly reflect what the actual intended selling price is before and after the special comes on line.

It deals with an element that is very dear to my heart and the hearts of my constituents, the element of fair competition. While it does not specifically mention the issues by name, it deals with pricing, price fixing, advertising of pricing, manipulation of the market through misleading advertising and so on. In particular, I am very much interested in the section that touches on gasoline pricing practices in Canada. I believe this act takes another step in the right direction in trying to ensure fairness for consumers.

A lot more needs to be done. I am extremely delighted to see the minister taking the lead on this issue and trying to get this bill through the House so it can go to a committee. At committee, all of us collectively as well as consumers and interested parties can speak to committee members concerning some of the shortcomings as well as some of the good things the government and the minister have done on this issue.

The leadership this minister has shown has ensured that the amendments to the act increase the penalties. There will be up to a $200,000 penalty per offence. This is great when we compare it with what we had before. In some cases the penalties were $2,000 or $5,000 or $10,000. The fact that these measures are now in the bill and that the court can even increase the penalty so it fits the offence is excellent news.

Why do I like this act? I like the amendment concerning misleading advertising and deceptive marketing practices. I have a letter which was received from a company in the United States by one of my constituents. It is from Andrews, Barton & Blaine, a company in San Clemente, California: "Re: Award control number 134248098". It begins:

As Sweepstakes Administrators for DAM, Inc., it is our responsibility to locate and notify scheduled award recipients and to arrange for delivery of award cheques to them.

Here is the cheque. The cheque is made to the order of the name of my constituent in the amount of $7,500 and is dated April 3, 1997. The cheque is not signed. The letter goes on to say:

Therefore, it gives me great pleasure to advise you that our most recent list of scheduled cash recipients has your name on it.

So there is no misunderstanding, let me repeat this urgent news. A cash award is definitely yours.

There is a definite statement that an award is going to be given to my constituent.

All you have to do is claim it, and correctly answer the required skill question.

If my constituent answered the question, she could win $7,500. The cheque has already been written and delivered. My constituent is required to answer what is 110 times 20 plus 8 minus 5 according to the quiz sent out in the mail by the company.

It goes on further:

No purchase is necessary, and there is no obligation on your part. However, to assure that each recipient gets the correct cash award, we have established strict security procedures, which require you to register your Award Control Number, 134 248 098, with this office by mail or phone before the deadline.

In order to ensure my constituent and probably thousands of Canadians that each one of them receives $7,500, the company has established a hot line. In order to dish out the money it has opened its offices seven days a week, 24 hours a day. It is telling constituents and citizens it has targeted that they could use their touch tone to call from anywhere.

It goes on to state:

Do not mail the enclosed cheque back to us. This will only delay processing your claim. When you contact us, we will issue a signed cheque in the correct amount of your award and rush it to you. Keep your security code that appears in this letter confidential until your award cheque arrives.

The letter goes on and on talking about the award and increases the award from $7,500 to $14,413. If my constituent were to answer an additional question, the letter continues:

Put very simply-what all this means to you is that you are fully eligible to receive-$14,413 in cash.

The number given is a 1-900 number. In tiny letters at the bottom of the letter it says the call would cost $4.99 per minute or that the average call is for eight minutes. It does not say whether this is the minimum length of time they have to answer the quiz but I presume it is.

This is an utterly misleading communication. The company had no intention whatsoever of awarding that amount of money. It was

purely and simply to rob my constituent of $40 if she called the eight minutes required by the company.

The legislation deals with that aspect. It clearly states that the marketer would have to disclose basic information to the consumer in a timely manner and prohibit certain other deceptive practices.

If the amendments to the act were to pass, Canadians and constituents who have dealt with situations like this one would have the answer. The government would be able to deal with the issue.

How often do constituents in my riding as well as others receive letters from companies describing wonderful holidays they could take or the wonderful time they could have on the sandy beaches of the Caribbean, in Europe or elsewhere around the globe?

These companies ask them to send a cheque in a certain amount, in some cases up to $200. When the constituents send the cheques they discover that a further $1,500 or $1,600 is required. Even when that happens, individuals get to their destination only to find their holiday has turned into a horrible nightmare. The bill will deal with those concerns.

I want to share with the House information one of my constituents sent to me in a letter complaining about an organization. The letter reads:

Dear Mr. Harb:

Are you aware of what-are asking senior citizens to do?

The nerve of them to ask us to fight-government, so that they can feather their nests.

Is there anything you or the Prime Minister can do to stop them?

This enclosure will explain what they are doing.

This organization sent out a petition on pensions, telling seniors in my constituency that the overhaul done by the Government of Canada to their pensions will substantially cut their pensions and end universality. It also told them that the only way to stop this action was by sending a contribution in the amount of $35, $50, $75, $100 or $250. If they could not afford to send money, they can simply sign the petition and pay a processing charge of $3.50 to help with the cost of handling the petition.

When constituents want to introduce a petition in the House of Commons there are no processing costs involved. All they have to do is sign the petition and it will be sent here. We as members of Parliament on behalf of constituents, whether on the government or opposition side, have the responsibility to table all petitions that can be certified by the House of Commons. I do not know whether there were any petitions tabled in the House signed by senior citizens concerning the pension plan.

I wrote a letter to the constituent on the matter. I promised to raise the matter at the appropriate time. This is the time to tell her that issues such as this one will be dealt with by the amendment to the Competition Act as proposed by my colleague, the Minister of Industry.

The bill will create a criminal and a civil regime in the competition system to allow enforcers to deal with much more serious offences. This section will streamline the Competition Act. It will make it more flexible and allow the government to deal with serious offences and to assign the resources accordingly.

The amendments to the Competition Act which are before the House of Commons are extremely important. Members from all sides of the House have spoken in support of the amendments today.

Congratulations must go to all those who worked on this bill, in its drafting, in writing to the department, in consultations, and to those who gave their views to the department, the ministers and to my colleagues on both sides of the House who have spoken on this issue in the past. Again I want to congratulate the minister on this excellent initiative.

I look forward to seeing this bill go to committee because I would like to propose some amendments in particular as it deals with the whole issue of gasoline price fixing across Canada. And on that I also want to go on record and commend the Competition Bureau on the excellent work it has done. Every time a complaint has been raised and somebody asked it to look into a matter pertaining to gasoline pricing across the country the bureau has looked into it. The bureau has tried its best to address those concerns.

I understand there are some things about which nothing can be done unless the act itself is amended and strengthened so it can deal with those specific issues. I am alluding to the relation between suppliers and retailers which is the subject of ongoing debate both inside and outside this House.

The bill before us is a fantastic step in the right direction. The amendments are long overdue. I want to join with my colleagues in saying how thrilled and delighted I am that finally this act is before the House of Commons and we have a chance to deal with it.

[Competition Act, April 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to the amending legislation to the Competition Act.

[Petitions, April 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that has been signed by over 2,000 residents who are calling on the House of Commons to ask the government not to proceed with the site for radioactive disposal at Chalk River.

Most of these residents are in or around Renfrew county. They are asking that this petition be presented on their behalf.

[Canadian Bill Of Rights, April 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this bill will amend the bill of rights to ensure it includes the right of an individual to proper housing at a reasonable cost and free from unreasonable barriers.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Canadian Bill Of Rights, April 25th, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-444, an act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights (right to housing).

[Criminal Code, April 25th, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-443, an act to amend the Criminal Code (definition of child).

Mr. Speaker, this will be part of a series of bills that I have introduced. The purpose of it is to make this legislation in conformity with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This will ensure that a family is responsible for a child until the age of 18.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Wages Liability Act, April 22nd, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-436, an act to amend the Wages Liability Act (definition of adult).

Madam Speaker, this is a bill to amend the Wages Liability Act. I am trying to harmonize this act with the definition of a child and to ensure that child means anyone under the age of 18.

This is part of a series of legislation I have proposed today. There is a lot more to come over the next few days. The intent is to bring to the forefront the whole notion of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the issues that were dealt with at that time.

We have started to see movement by the provincial governments. In particular the province of Alberta set up a task force to deal with the involvement of children in prostitution. The committee unanimously recommended to the federal government that it amend the relevant Criminal Code sections to reflect all provisions and all prostitution related offences perpetrated against youths as those involving persons under the age of 18.

The same task force said that at the provincial level Alberta should change all of its legislation in order to define a child as anyone under the age of 18. We are starting to see movement at the provincial level to harmonize legislation in terms of children.

There is one more important thing to put on the table. My colleague from the NDP tried to harass me earlier about why I am introducing so much legislation that deals with children. In the province of Ontario the NDP was in power for a number of years and had plenty of time to address the provincial legislation that dealt with the notion of children. It had plenty of time to harmonize its legislation to be in conformity with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. There are in excess of 75 pieces of provincial legislation that deal with the issue of children. In many cases the legislation is extremely contradictory.

I am proposing this legislation at the federal level with the hope that it will be considered. We have no authority over what the provincial governments do with their legislation. We have a moral authority and a moral obligation collectively as taxpayers and as elected officials across the land to collectively harmonize all of our legislation provincially and federally.

A committee was struck by the UN and in passing, I thank Senator Landon Pearson and her capable staff member, Yolande, who supplied me with a copy of a UN committee report. It praises Canada for what it has done in terms of its commitment to children. The committee took note of the effort made by Canada in participating in international projects relating to children in co-operation with UNICEF and other governmental and non-governmental organizations.

The same committee indicated its concern about the lack of conformity and the lack of uniformity when it comes to federal, provincial and territorial legislation in Canada. The committee has given Canada the deadline of 1999 to harmonize all federal, provincial and territorial legislation for consistency and conformity with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Unless we have that consistency we cannot take collective action, set priorities or take our proper responsibility. We cannot devise a national action plan to deal with the notion of children unless we agree on what constitutes a child. Parents must know when they legally stop being responsible for their children. When do children have rights? When does society as a whole have to take action? All those elements were addressed by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I want to conclude by saying that I agree with Mrs. Clinton when she said that it takes a village to raise a child.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)