House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 51% of the vote.
Aerospace Research Centre February 5th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the question is really a bit premature, since no decision on the creation of this institute has yet been taken. It depends on the availability of funds for the National Research Centre of Canada.
If we do set up this institute, I have already indicated my approval in principle of establishing it in the Mirabel region. The decision on its location will be made after the decision on its creation.
Copyright Commission February 5th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, we followed a procedure to establish the best candidate for the position on the copyright commission's tribunal.
We have not yet made a decision. I always get letters when there is an appointment. Everything is being taken into consideration. I really do not know if there was such a letter, but there will certainly be a number of other people recommended too.
Competition Act February 5th, 1999
moved:
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House disagrees with the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Competition Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, because this House is of the opinion that the intent and policy of the words in question is in the public interest and reflects the opinion of the great majority of Canadians, and this House proposes, in lieu of the amendments made by the Senate, that the amendments be amended to read as follows:
66.1 (1) Any person who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed or intends to commit an offence under the Act, may notify the Commissioner of the particulars of the matter and may request that his or her identity be kept confidential with respect to the notification.
(2) The Commissioner shall keep confidential the identity of a person who has notified the Commissioner under subsection (1) and to whom an assurance of confidentiality has been provided by any person who performs duties or functions in the administration or enforcement of this Act.
66.2 (1) No employer shall dismiss, suspend, demote, discipline, harass or otherwise disadvantage an employee, or deny an employee a benefit of employment, by reason that
(a) the employee, acting in good faith and on the basis of reasonable belief, has disclosed to the Commissioner that the employer or any other person has committed or intends to commit an offence under this Act;
(b) the employee, acting in good faith and on the basis of reasonable belief, has refused or stated an intention or refused to do anything that is an offence under this Act;
(c) the employee, acting in good faith and on the basis of reasonable belief, has done or stated an intention of doing anything that is required to be done in order that an offence not be committed under this Act; or
(d) the employer believes that the employee will do anything referred to in paragraph (a) or (c) or will refuse to do anything referred to in paragraph (b).
(2) Nothing in this section impairs any right of an employee either at law or under an employment contract or collective agreement.
(3) In this section, “employee” includes an independent contractor and “employer” has the corresponding meaning.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak this morning on Bill C-20, an act to amend the Competition Act. As you know, we passed third reading of this bill in the House on September 23, 1998.
The aim of this bill is to improve and consolidate the Competition Act. Some of the key amendments were intended to equip the competition bureau to combat the degrading crime of misleading telemarketing.
The bill also included provisions for whistle blowing intended to protect employees providing the competition bureau with information on activities of their employer limiting competition.
Those whistleblowing provisions were removed from the bill by the Senate as a result of arguments made by Progressive Conservative members of the Senate who focused on some concerns raised by the Canadian Bar Association.
Today this House has the opportunity to reconsider the whistleblowing provisions and an opportunity to do something positive for Canadian consumers and legitimate businesses.
I would point out that protection for whistleblowers has been the subject of a number of legislative proposals over the past several years and has been introduced in private members' bills.
The director of investigations and research at the competition bureau acted on this continued interest in whistleblowing by asking Mr. Justice Dubin to study the matter and identify the provisions that would be relevant should legislation on whistle blowing have to be introduced.
This study and its appendix on the provisions on whistleblowing were released on November 18, 1997 and posted on the Web site of the Competition Office for the public to consult.
On the initiative of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, the whistleblowing provisions were introduced into Bill C-20 on May 26, 1998 when it was under consideration by the industry committee.
The hon. member proposed these provisions to encourage individuals who have knowledge of price-fixing arrangements to act in the public interest and to report them.
As the hon. member indicated then, the amendments resulted from a great deal of consultation with many people in the community and throughout the country.
The Canadian Bar Association raised some concerns about the whistleblowing provisions with the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, one of which was that there had not been sufficient consultation.
We have made use of this time for additional consultation with the bar and other groups that have expressed interest in this provision.
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre, an organization comprising over 800 private members and corporations representing over 1.5 million Canadians, provided strong support for the provisions on whistleblowing.
The Canadian Direct Marketing Association also considered the provisions very important. The Canadian Bar Association as well considered there was enough protection for whistleblowers in Canadian legislation.
However, the government believes it is important to enact these additional protections as an express encouragement by parliament to people to report criminal activity limiting competition.
As for the substantive objections of the bar, the principal concern is that there could be criminal liability for requesting an employee to do something that is not actually illegal at the time of the request.
The Competition Act sets out certain criminal offences, but also deals with so-called reviewable matters in which conduct such as an abuse of a dominant position only becomes illegal after it is prohibited by the Competition Tribunal.
To meet this concern I have proposed an amendment to the whistleblowing provisions which will limit their application to conduct that is a criminal offence under the act and will not refer to conduct that is merely contrary to the act.
The CBA also argued that the potential for criminal sanctions could lead to inefficiencies in businesses where an employer might hesitate to discipline unproductive staff, even though legitimate reasons exist for doing so. However, the burden always remains with the crown to prove all elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. If legitimate reasons exist for disciplining or firing an employee, then those reasons will no doubt raise the reasonable doubt that would preclude a criminal conviction.
The conclusion is that employees acting in good faith when they report competition limiting behaviour have our protection against vengeful employers. The provisions on whistleblowing, by balancing the rights of the employees and the employer, do not place an undue burden of proof on the employer.
What I have proposed in response to some of the concerns about the possibility of excessively heavy sanctions, is to withdraw the sanctions set out in the first provision.
An employer will now be liable to the same sanctions as the Criminal Code provides for the infraction of a federal statute.
I believe that it is important to send the right signal to Canadians that we need to work together to combat crime.
I am very disappointed that this issue held up Bill C-20 in the other place last December. I believe the modifications proposed to the whistleblowing provisions do represent improvements to the bill and do address the principal concerns of the Canadian Bar Association and of the Senate.
Now it is time for us to act quickly again. We need to provide appropriate protection for whistleblowers to enable the Competition Bureau to obtain the information needed to properly investigate criminal activity. We need to bring Bill C-20 into force to provide effective measures against deceptive telemarketers.
With every day that passes, there are new victims of scams. Every day that passage of Bill C-20 is delayed, the confidence of Canadians is put at greater risk. This is the moment to consider consumers, businesses and the organizations responsible for implementing the legislation across Canada, who have advocated expeditious passage of Bill C-20.
It is time to show all of these consumers across Canada that the House is listening to them. I urge that the bill receive expeditious passage.
Yvon Duhaime February 3rd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many bank transactions in Canada the hon. member would like to investigate. In this case these loans from the Business Development Bank of Canada were not grants.
I do not know how much clearer I can put that. Perhaps the member does not like the answer. But it is repayable on the basis of an interest rate that is commercially based and there is no reason for any further investigation.
The debts are there. They are repayable to the Business Development Bank of Canada.
Yvon Duhaime February 3rd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out once again that the loans received by this business were given on the basis of a commercial arrangement. The interest rates are somewhat higher than commercial rates through the BDBC.
Private sector lenders were engaged in the same financing package, including the caisse populaire and an agent of the Quebec labour union.
What we have is a broad package. The funds were transferred in the normal course. A cheque was made payable to the notary as well as to the recipient and the supplier. These are ordinary business transactions.
Business Development Bank February 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the hon. member is referring to but with respect to the loans from the Business Development Bank of Canada, I would like to direct the hon. member to a number of points.
This loan was dealt with in the normal process. It was at a level beyond the lending jurisdiction of the local branch and was therefore dealt with by a vice-president in charge of credit at the bank. It was never reviewed by for example the board of directors of the bank as it was not that large of a loan. It was at commercial rates which, in the case of the Business Development Bank of Canada, are higher than the average commercial rate. Furthermore, it was part of a financing package which included private sector lenders.
Bell Canada February 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, it is always possible that the CRTC's decision will be appealed. If it is, I will have to make a recommendation to cabinet.
For now, I am not required to say anything before the CRTC has considered arguments and reached conclusions.
Bell Canada February 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, under the Telecommunications Act, the CRTC is the body responsible for ensuring the quality of the telecommunications services provided to Canadians, including the services of telephone operators, in both official languages.
It is not necessary for me to intervene. The CRTC may intervene if necessary.
Copyright Board February 1st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of examining appointments to the board, and as soon as we are prepared to name the other candidates, the hon. member can be assured that we will comply with all legislation.
Taxation December 8th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I saw my local paper on Saturday morning and there it was “High taxes benefit Canadian economy”. I thought, what a stupid idea. Imagine my dismay to discover that it was being attributed to me.
No, I do not favour high taxes. I know that lower taxes will benefit the Canadian economy. That is why I am proud of the hundreds of millions of dollars of tax reductions we brought in in the last budget. That is why I am convinced as we continue to gain control over the deficit, as we improve the health of our finances in Canada, that we are going to see more tax reductions to benefit all Canadians.