Antoine Dubé

[Montreal Congress Centre, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, every time we ask the secretary of state about the expansion of the Montreal congress centre, he says that the infrastructure program has ended and that a decision on this project should have been made before it had ended.

Are we to understand that from now on every time federal participation is required in an economic development project in Quebec the secretary of state will tell us that the infrastructure program ended in 1996 and that it is too late to hope for any help?

[Montreal Convention Centre, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, during nine months of discussions with the federal government regarding the planned expansion of the Montreal Convention Centre, never once did the secretary of state for regional development mention the infrastructure program as a means of funding.

Why does the secretary of state for regional development suddenly trot this out, unless he feels he cannot deliver the goods and convince the Minister of Industry?

[Competition Act, September 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as the Bloc Quebecois representative on the Standing Committee on Industry, I am pleased to take part in the debate on third reading of Bill C-20.

The position I present today has been drawn up in conjunction with the hon. member for Mercier, who also sits on that committee. As many are aware, she has analyzed the matter in great depth and looked at every aspect of this bill, which as a number of hon. members have admitted, is a highly complex one and not very accessible to the average citizen.

Let us recall that the purpose of Bill C-20 is to amend the Competition Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, yet all those who have spoken on it have focussed on deceptive telemarketing. Why? Because Bill C-20 contains a number of technical proposals which would not particularly fascinate the general public, with the exception of the ones on fraudulent telemarketing, because telemarketing is a sign of our times and a timely topic.

We are becoming aware of the increasing frequency of fraud in this area, not only in Canada, but pretty well everywhere else in the world. Now that there is cut-rate long-distance calling, telemarketing can be done across borders.

For the Liberal government, this bill offers an opportunity to pull a fast one, to cover up one more incidence of interference in provincial jurisdictions, those of Quebec in particular. We have our own Civil Code and the Government of Quebec has already put into place a number of legislative and regulatory means, the Office de la protection du consommateur in particular, to protect the consumer from this type of abuse.

Voting against this bill puts us at risk of being seen as opponents of any regulation of fraudulent telemarketing, something that already affects thousands of people who are not well-off, the elderly in particular.

Voting for Bill C-20 means that we are making radical changes to the Competition Act, and in our opinion the consumer will suffer as a result.

I believe a number of MPs have fallen into this trap, with the possible exception of the NDP members. For that I congratulate them. They looked at the interests of consumers in establishing their position. I thank them for supporting most of the amendments we have proposed.

To avoid having to make an impossible choice, the Bloc Quebecois proposed amendments such that any progress in the control and criminalization of deceptive telemarketing would not be to the detriment of other aspects of competition.

As usual, the Liberal government has declined to support them, probably so that its representatives would not look like they were remiss. I again pay tribute to the support of NDP members.

I will quickly review the various motions. Yes, we are in favour of a legislative framework for telemarketing activities so that the reputation of this kind of commercial activity does not suffer because of a few dishonest individuals.

To that end, we think that Bill C-20 should revert to section 52 of the present Competition Act. Although at first glance the amendments contained in Bill C-20 appear minor, closer examination reveals that they represent a major change in the scope of the Competition Act.

The criminal provisions in section 52 would now apply only to representations that were false or misleading in a material respect—in this regard, I would point out that there has been no legal definition of what is meant by a material respect—, but which will now have to be proven to have been made knowingly or recklessly.

Is such a provision evidence of any real desire to have this legislation protect a swindled consumer? It means that the requirements for establishing guilt are no longer the same. How are we going to tell the elderly that, even if they continue to be badly served by this law, there is ultimately nothing we will be able to do, because it will often be impossible to prove that the false and misleading representations were made knowingly and recklessly? Will a lie detector be used to determine whether individuals' intentions were bad or whether they were perfectly aware of the consequences?

In a telemarketing operation, for instance, the bosses may know, but do the employees? These are sometimes large outfits. At this level, the case law on similar provisions in other legislation shows that it is very difficult to prove.

When it is impossible to prove the intent to mislead, the person who intended to mislead may not be cleared, but they are not charged and there is no follow-up. This is a serious and significant problem. Legislation has to be good. We know it has to be fair and equitable, but it must also be enforceable.

We think this law will be hard to enforce, since it involves intent. It is paradoxical. The focus on intent is a bit of a snow job, since in practice it is just about impossible to prove somebody's bad intentions.

Bill C-20 permits judicial authorization for unapproved interceptions of private communications in the course of an investigation in cases of conspiracy, bid-rigging and deceptive telemarketing. This opens the door a little more to electronic bugging. The issue here again is intent. When it is thought that an individual is guilty, more sophisticated bugging is carried out.

There is some contradiction in the fact that the bill permits the competition bureau to have this powerful investigative tool while it decriminalizes many of the offences under the act, in order, it appears, to lighten the system. They want to decriminalize these offences so they can impose fines, which are not specified in the bill but will no doubt be spelled out in the regulations.

I note that the new commissioner—since the director of the competition bureau will now be called a commissioner—can, on his own, determine whether an individual must appear in court and set a 48 hour time frame. Within this period, businesses can reach an agreement with him. This is another aspect we cannot accept: the considerable powers given the new commissioner.

We also wanted to include the Internet in the provisions of the law to avoid its becoming quickly outdated. We were told that the Internet is less interactive and therefore people contacted can easily cut short communications.

There is, however, one thing I do not understand. Does false and misleading information that causes an individual to buy a product become excusable because it is transmitted on the Internet? Unfortunately, by rejecting the inclusion of the Internet in the scope of Bill C-20, the Liberals are preventing this bill from being enforceable or effective.

I must, however, state that I did note some degree of receptivity on the part of the parliamentary secretary at the report stage with respect to our amendments. I hope he was sincere about the possibility of bringing in corrections with future legislation, and I believe he was.

When one thinks that the standing committee spent half its time last year focussing on the Year 2000 bug, it is difficult to grasp that no thought has been given to the Internet, which is going to be more and more a part of everyone's daily life.

The hon. member for Portneuf, a specialist in computers and all telecommunications matters, has just been telling me that, according to his information, 30% of Quebec families, and probably of Canadian families as well, are already connected to the Internet. This is already a reality.

Some people may think the Internet is a complicated affair that requires costly computers and gadgets, but my colleague also told me that a person can use a little box that costs about $400 to hook up to a phone line, and then access the Internet through the television set. That is the way of the future. I know that the millennium bug is close at hand, but I think that all the problems associated with the Internet should have been addressed.

We wanted to balance the power Bill C-20 gives to the director of the competition bureau. In the bill as it stands, only the future commissioner may ask the tribunal whether someone engaged or is engaging in reviewable conduct. That is a lot of power for one person. In the past, people could file complaints and the final decision was left to the tribunal.

Now, more power is being given to the director of the competition bureau, who will now have the title of commissioner, and he, and he alone, will decide whether or not it will go to the tribunal. We think that this is leaving a great deal of power in the hands of one non-elected individual. We are not questioning his competence—that is not the issue—but we feel this leaves a lot of power in the hands of one person.

I now know why the Liberal government wanted to take this route. It wanted, of course, to protect its own interests, which is fine, but it also wanted to acquire greater powers, as I explained, over Quebec in particular, which, as people know, has a civil code, unlike the other provinces in Canada, and an agency to protect consumers with respect to such things as telemarketing.

Like members of the New Democratic Party, we think that the reason the government and Liberal members are introducing this bill has very little to do with their concerns about consumers. We think that competition should be at the heart of this bill, and we do not think that it is. That is why members of the Bloc Quebecois will be voting against the bill. It needs a lot of improvement.

We are also unhappy that all the amendments we proposed were rejected. The Liberal member who just spoke, and his colleague as well, was pleased that, after trying for months, apparently, he managed to convince the Liberal majority to pass his amendment about whistleblowers. We supported it too, but we see, and this is sometimes a bit discouraging, that the government is very reticent, even intolerant. It almost never passes amendments from the opposition parties, not just from the Bloc Quebecois, purely so that it can give the impression that it has anticipated everything, that it has analyzed all aspects of a bill and its consequences. But we do not think this to be the case, quite the contrary.

It is odd. The Liberals in opposition swore they would throw out the free trade agreement, because it was worthless. We know what happened. The free trade agreement was kept. The same thing happened with the elimination of the GST. In the words of the Prime Minister—Quebeckers will not have any trouble understanding—he talked of scrapping the GST. However, nothing happened.

I recall as well that the Liberals said they would not be going after the disadvantaged. They blamed the Conservatives for doing just that. I recall a letter from the Prime Minister, when he was the leader of the opposition, which expressed his horror at the treatment by the former Conservative minister, Mr. Valcourt, of the unemployed with cuts to unemployment insurance. However, we saw what they did later on. They made more cuts; they went even further. They paid the price, in the Maritimes, for example, as we know.

Today, however, the Liberal Party has left these concerns far behind. It too used a miracle marketing approach to permit certain businesses to profit at consumers' expense. However, the Liberal government can prove that it honoured its promises knowingly and without concern for their consequences.

This is why the members of the Bloc Quebecois will oppose this bill, whose objective was laudable, nonetheless.

The bill's lack of clarity will make it hard to enforce and, ultimately, prevent it from truly protecting the interests of consumers.

[Montreal Convention Centre, September 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, action in the matter of the Montreal Convention Centre has become urgent.

All of the business world is calling for the federal government to do its share in the expansion project. With every passing day, Montreal is at risk of losing conference business, and meanwhile the Secretary of State says he is looking at an alternative.

Since the Minister of Industry said there are no more funds available, can the secretary of state responsible for regional development tell us what alternative he is looking at, and what deadline he has set for making a decision?

[Montreal Congress Centre, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the business community, the FTQ, the National Bank and all the economic stakeholders of Montreal are asking the federal government to help fund the expansion of the Montreal congress centre.

And yet, we learned this morning that the Minister of Industry has said he does not have one cent to put into this project, despite the statement made by the secretary of state for regional development.

How does the minister reconcile his statement that he has no money for the Montreal congress centre with the remarks made yesterday by the secretary of state for regional development in Quebec, who said he was working hard to come up with a solution?

[Montreal Convention Centre, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec, the City of Montreal and business leaders agree: the Montreal Convention Centre needs to be expanded and renovated. The project has been at a standstill for nearly a year now, because a response from the federal government is still not forthcoming.

Can the secretary of state responsible for regional development in Quebec tell us what is keeping him from responding to the consensus in Quebec?

[Competition Act, September 21st, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-20, in Clause 22, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 23 the following:

“74.091 (1) A person, other than a corporation, who is resident in Canada and at least 18 years of age, or a group of persons, none of whom is a corporation, who are resident in Canada and at least 18 years of age may address a request to the Commissioner that the Commissioner make application for an order under this Part.

(2) The request must be in a form approved by the Minister and must include a solemn declaration containing

(a) the name and address of the person making the request;

(b) a statement that the person making the request is a resident of Canada and at least 18 years of age and is not a corporation;

(c) a statement of the nature of the reviewable conduct and the name of each person alleged to be involved;

(d) a summary of the evidence supporting the allegations in the request;

(e) the names and addresses of each person who might be able to give evidence about the reviewable conduct, together with a summary of the evidence that each such person might give, to the extent that this information is available to the person making the request; and

(f) a description of any document or other material that the person making the request believes should be considered in the application for an order and, if possible, a copy of the document.

(3) The Commissioner shall acknowledge receipt of the request and shall make application for an order under this Part.

(4) The Commissioner shall not make application for an order if the request is frivolous or vexatious.

(5) If the Commissioner decides not to apply for an order, the Commissioner shall, within 60 days after the request is received, give notice of that decision, including the reasons for it, to

(a) the person who made the request; and

(b) each person alleged in the request to be engaging in or to have engaged in reviewable conduct for whom an address is given in the request.”

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-20, in Clause 22, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 23 the following:

“74.091 (1) Any person, other than a corporation, who is resident in Canada and at least 18 years of age, or a group of persons, none of whom is a corporation, who are resident in Canada and at least 18 years of age may address a request to the Commissioner that the Commissioner make application for an order under this Part against a person who is engaging in or has engaged in reviewable conduct.

(2) As soon as possible after receiving a request under subsection (1), the Commissioner shall make application for the order, unless the request is frivolous or vexatious.”

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-20, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing lines 11 and 12 on page 23 with the following:

“74.1 (1) Where, on application by the Commissioner, by a person, other than a corporation, who is resident in Canada and at least 18 years of age or by a group of persons, none of whom is a corporation, who are resident in Canada and at least 18 years of age, a court determines that a”

Madam Speaker, we brought in these motions because, as a result of Bill C-20, in future no one but the new commissioner will be able to ask the court whether someone's conduct is or has been reviewable. This leaves a great deal of power in the hands of a single person, a power that is far from commonplace, since it is the ability to convene a court in order to determine whether there has been deceptive telemarketing or advertising.

In the past, there were rules that allowed people who felt they had been unfairly treated to call upon that court.

Too much power is entrusted to this commissioner, will report only to the minister, we would remind members, and not to the House of Commons, as the auditor general does. This person is going to report only to the Minister of Industry.

The Reform members are saying that this is a complex bill and that the proposals we have just made would complicate things still further. They admit that this bill is a complex one,

When something is complex, it needs to be clarified. Some sense must be made of it. Sufficient detail must be given to allow the public to understand what it is all about, otherwise how can they organize any defence?

We would like any individual who feels he has been harmed by misleading advertising or telemarketing to be able to appeal to a court. We do not wish this to be left up to the judgment of one person who does not even report to the House of Commons, but instead depends on the power of a single minister.

All this has been added. I think it is worthwhile quoting them:

74.091 (1) A person, other than a corporation—

—who is resident in Canada and at least 18 years of age, or a group of persons, none of whom is a corporation, who are resident in Canada and at least 18 years of age may address a request to the Commissioner that the Commissioner make application for an order under this Part.

(2) The request must be in a form approved by the Minister and must include a solemn declaration containing

(a) the name and address of the person making the request;

(b) a statement that the person making the request is a resident of Canada and at least 18 years of age and is not a corporation;

(c) a statement of the nature of the reviewable conduct and the name of each person alleged to be involved;

(d) a summary of the evidence supporting the allegations in the request;

(e) the names and addresses of each person who might be able to give evidence about the reviewable conduct, together with a summary of the evidence that each such person might give, to the extent that this information is available to the person making the request; and

(f) a description of any document or other material that the person making the request believes should be considered in the application for an order and, if possible, a copy of the document.

(3) The Commissioner shall acknowledge receipt of the request and shall make application for an order under this Part.

(4) The Commissioner shall not make application for an order if the request is frivolous or vexatious.

If the chairman or the commissioner is of the opinion that it is frivolous, this could be dropped.

(5) If the Commissioner decides not to apply for an order, the Commissioner shall, within 60 days after the request is received, give notice of that decision, including the reasons for it, to

(a) the person who made the request; and

(b) each person alleged in the request to be engaging in or to have engaged in reviewable conduct for whom an address is given in the request.

This is a clear and precise statement that ordinary citizens can understand. This is the kind of legislation expected from any government, including the federal government.

[Competition Act, September 21st, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-20, in Clause 13, be amended by adding after line 4 on page 11 the following:

“(a.1) make a representation to the public in the form of a statement, warranty or guarantee of the performance, efficacy or length of life of a product that is not based on an adequate and proper test thereof, the proof of which lies on the person making the representation;

(a.2) make a representation to the public in a form that purports to be

(i) a warranty or guarantee of a product, or

(ii) a promise to replace, maintain or repair an article of any part thereof or to repeat or continue a service until it has achieved a specified result if the form of purported warranty or guarantee or promise is materially misleading or if there is no reasonable prospect that it will be carried out; or

(a.3) make a materially misleading representation to the public concerning the price at which a product or like products have been, are or will be ordinarily sold, and for the purposes of this paragraph a representation as to price is deemed to refer to the price at which the product has been sold by sellers generally in the relevant market unless it is clearly specified to be the price at which the product has been sold by the person by whom or on whose behalf the representation is made.”

Madam Speaker, with this motion we are introducing some clarifications. Clause 13 provides:

(a) make a representation that is false or misleading in a material respect;

However, the important points are not indicated.

It continues:

(b) conduct or purport to conduct a contest, lottery or game of chance, skill or mixed chance and skill, where—

(i) the delivery of a prize or other benefit to a participant in the contest, lottery or game is, or is represented to be, conditional on the prior payment of any amount by the participant, or

(ii) adequate and fair disclosure is not made of the number and approximate value of the prizes, of the area or areas to which they relate and of any fact within the person's knowledge, that affects materially the chances of winning;

(c) offer a product at no cost, or at a price less than the fair market value of the product, in consideration of the supply or use of another product, unless fair, reasonable and timely disclosure is made of the fair market value of the first product and of any restrictions, terms or conditions applicable to its supply to the purchaser; or

(d) offer a product for sale at a price grossly in excess of its fair market value, where delivery of the product is, or is represented to be, conditional on prior payment by the purchaser.

We consider these important points. This clarifies much of the bill which remains imprecise. I point out the particular context of this bill, which will give greater powers to the director of the competition bureau, to be known in future as the commissioner. This individual will be able to make decisions alone, whereas in the past there were other commissioners.

If these points are not spelled out, this person will have a difficult task. More importantly, I think that the victims of deceptive telemarketing should know when such action is considered fraudulent so they may lodge a complaint.

Our aim in making these proposals is to improve the legislation.

[Competition Act, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, it is still the riding of Lévis, except that, in one of the last bills we passed before adjourning for the summer, “Chutes-de-la-Chaudière” was added in recognition of the fact that it makes up half the federal riding of Lévis. In fact, Chutes-de-la-Chaudière is a separate provincial riding and there is even a regional county municipality by that name. That is why this change was made. We will get used to it. This is not so bad considering that some of my fellow MPs represent ridings with four names. Chaudière Falls are the most beautiful in the world after Niagara Falls.

The various proposals made in connection with the motions in Group 2 relate essentially to the word “Internet”. We feel the government was mistaken in not including the word “Internet” in this bill. After all, the Internet and telemarketing may be considered closely related since more and more people are connected to the Internet at home, and companies readily use the Internet to promote and, if possible, sell their products.

What we are talking about here, of course, is fraudulent telemarketing. We cannot and should not prevent companies from conducting operations that are conducted properly, honestly and efficiently, but it seems to us that not mentioning the Internet in today's context is a serious mistake. That is why we stress the word “Internet” in each motion in this group.

There is also a notion which we did not have time to really examine earlier, but which is essentially the basis of the speech made by the parliamentary secretary. I am referring to the word “knowingly”.

How can we prove that someone does something knowingly? The legal provisions that deal with this issue are often challenged in court.

I am not trying to be funny, but are we going to rely on a lie detector to determine whether someone did something knowingly? A company employs a number of people. The manager may do something knowingly, but is it also the case for the employees? This is very much a grey area. I think a better definition is in order.

In our opinion, section 52 of the Competition Act was more precise and included the word “knowingly”. I think that the government and the other parties have good intentions. Everyone is in favour of combatting fraudulent telemarketing. No one can oppose virtue. However, if an act or a provision can be legally challenged because it is very difficult to prove someone's intentions, we could end up with a strange and paradoxical situation in that we may not be able to do what we sought to do because the legislation cannot be enforced.

In the five years that I have been here, a number of members have dealt with the question of what constitutes good legislation. We all know that an act must be fair and equitable, but we must also determine whether it is enforceable.

If the best legislation in the world cannot be enforced, it will be useless. All of us in the House of Commons and all those involved in the legislative process want to make a useful contribution. We want our work to produce results. We do not want to take futile measures.

This is what we are concerned about. This is why the Bloc Quebecois feels that the word “knowingly” should be removed, since that notion is impossible to prove. We are not trying to oppose this legislation, but to improve it and make it even more effective, more enforceable. We must try to make it easier to enforce.

As for the Internet, I think it goes without saying. As we approach the new millennium, I do not think there is any need to demonstrate that this means will be used increasingly. Many companies will do business through the Internet. This is already possible, but it will be done on a larger scale. The purpose of the amendments in the motions in group 2 is to add the word “Internet”.

[Competition Act, September 21st, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-20, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 10 with the following:

“means the practice of using the internet or interactive tele-”

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-20, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 10 with the following:

“internet or telephone communication, of the identity of”

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-20, in Clause 13, be amended

(a) by replacing line 40 on page 11 with the following:

“must be made during the course of an internet or a telephone”

(b) by replacing, in the English version, line 3 on page 12 with the following:

“was not requested during the internet or telephone com-”

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-20, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing lines 41 and 42 on page 11 and lines 1 to 4 on page 12 with the following:

“communication.”