Dan McTeague

[Supply, April 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for today's motion. I think that the motion itself speaks very eloquently to an opportunity to bring all sides of the House together, to avoid the contentious issue of having the effect of dropping section 153, consent and age of trust, down to 16 years of age, which I am sure was not the intent of those who drafted the motion. It is nevertheless a very glaring problem with the motion.

As the hon. member knows, as do you, Mr. Speaker, this issue is not new to me. In fact, we had an opportunity to raise the profile of this issue rather significantly last week, with a number of experts as well as our debate on Bill C-15A. I will not bore the House with the details, but I do have a question for the hon. member.

In terms of the motion being debated here today and given issues and options letters we have sent to various attorneys general across Canada, does the member indeed believe that there may have been an error in law committed by Justice Shaw, upon reflection of the supreme court decision of last January, which might provide grounds for an appeal? If I am not mistaken, we still have two or three days to try to encourage the attorney general in the province of British Columbia to enact that as a means of demonstrating that at least on the court side the fundamental flaws in the Shaw decision with respect to Sharpe are being recognized.

[Supply, April 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask a question of the hon. member. I know he has spent a considerable amount of time as a lawyer and is in the practice of ensuring that young people are protected by the law to the maximum amount. However I ran from my office to ask him a couple of questions about his interpretation of the Shaw decision with respect to Sharpe, in particular about his belief that the Shaw decision did not run afoul of the direction of the Supreme Court of Canada and that there was in fact no error in law.

Could he square for the House of Commons the comments made by Shaw, which I believe went beyond the interpretation of the Supreme Court of Canada, that materials in question detailing abduction, rape and sexual torture of young boys as adult males “may well be designed to titillate or excite the reader if the reader is so inclined and arguably glorify the acts described therein”.

Would the hon. member not conclude, as I did, that such material ran afoul of the SCC explanation that the prohibition against material which viewed objectively sends the message that sex with children can and should be pursued ought to be prohibited?

Shaw also pointed this out in his decision with respect to artistic merit in throwing out the community standards. The use of metaphors, allegories, themes, incredibly the victim's fortitude in enduring sexual abuse by pedophiles, was found by Justice Shaw to be a theme, a plot sufficient to establish the requisite artistic merit for justice. Based on this, would the hon. member not agree that, because of what happened with respect to Sharpe's writing to possess the requisite artistic merit to constitute a defence of the charge, that once again this would appear to be yet another example of an error as Justice Shaw ignored the objective standard imported by the supreme court into the artistic merit defence?

There are two clear questions that I think raise the eyebrows of many of us who have spent a bit of time looking at the Shaw decision and his apparent taking of liberties of the direction of the Supreme Court of Canada. Would the member not then feel that his earlier comments in reference to the motion of the Alliance Party were somewhat premature and perhaps did not show a sufficient amount of due regard to the actual decision of Justice Shaw?

[Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, April 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today to a bill referred to the House of Commons by the Senate, Bill C-15A.

At the risk of being extemporaneous, I may have to basically confine my comments to my rudimentary knowledge of the bill, but it is important for us to understand that the context of the bill is a very laudable attempt by the House of Commons to modernize its thinking on the fundamentals of child pornography as it is transmitted and disseminated through the Internet.

It is also equally a bill that has come as a result of a compromise, as has been mentioned earlier by previous members. It is a question of dealing with matters more specifically in a way that would divide this omnibus bill into two areas so that parliament could deal with this very weighty and laudable issue.

I had no idea that the bill was coming up. During the intervention of the member for Provencher, he mentioned a document which I circulated. It is basically an agreement among the 37 members of parliament who attended a meeting which I scheduled in light of the decision, the second round of Sharpe, by Justice Shaw of the B.C. supreme court some three weeks ago. The decision of course, in light of the supreme court decision of the previous year, upheld the validity of the more questionable sections dealing with possession of written material.

This clearly sounded alarm bells for all members of parliament. I want to assure members that the issue of child pornography, and by implication the issue of child pornography for all Canadians, is one that we in our totality do not accept. There is no doubt in the minds of 85% to 90% of Canadians that no amount of the benefit of the doubt should be given to anything other than the protection of children.

It is for this reason that the decision taken by the supreme court, and more recently by Justice Shaw, triggered the need for parliament to act in a way that it was not prepared to do some two and a half years ago. The genesis on this is very clear. Yes, indeed, the hon. member for Provencher mentioned that his side of the House had proposed a motion dealing with the notwithstanding clause. I think there are a panoply of options available to this parliament to address what is for most Canadians a very serious wrong, and I say so respectfully to the supreme court and to the justices with respect to the recent decision.

One of them of course is the notwithstanding issue and the ability of the House to consider in instances where it believes, as it should in this case, that the fundamental right of the protection of children must be paramount.

There is obviously a question that deals with whether or not the Supreme Court of Canada made a correct decision. I will go to section 163 of the SCC decision in January 2001 in which the issue is the defence of artistic merit, which incidentally is contained in the bill but is not amended in the bill proposed through the Senate. It says that where a court finds artistic merit, that it will adjudge that to be a sufficient defence against the prosecutorial powers and the weight of the criminal code as it deals with child pornography.

In essence, the qualification was of such a low threshold that justices in the majority said that artistic merit, however small, would be a sufficient defence to allow somebody who was in possession of written material to provide an excuse or not to be prosecuted. This of course was part and parcel of the decision made just some weeks ago in British Columbia by the same supreme court that earlier referred the issue and referred the child pornography section 163, inter alia, to the Supreme Court of Canada by striking them down.

This has clearly left a vacuum. One can talk of a moral vacuum. One can also speak of a legal vacuum. The reality however is that there is more than just the question of artistic merit. There is also the question of advocacy and counselling, which is really the basis on which the decision was made to allow, in this case, Mr. Sharpe to get off free or receive a get out of jail free card as it relates to written material.

Bill C-15A is an excellent attempt at modernizing parliament's view of child pornography as it is disseminated around the world, but I see two problems.

First, law enforcement agencies across the world and in Canada have readily identified the need for Internet service providers not just to bear some responsibility, but more important, to ensure that the images which they are storing and providing on behalf of clients are also kept for a period of time. The 37 members of parliament who attended the round table function two nights ago know exactly how it is done. There is a technical and serious problem if we do not hold ISP Internet service providers accountable for the undertakings of their accounts. If there is a dissemination of this harmful, deleterious information, then it may be lost forever. That would be the destruction of evidence even if the police and peace officers were able to obtain by warrant or other means the necessary information to provide a conviction.

Bill C-15A also speaks to the shortcomings of resources that can be handled at the House of Commons. This is not a provincial matter, but rather a federal matter that can be dealt with right now in a very timely fashion.

The second concern, which I hope will also be subject to more debate by members of parliament, is the consideration of the much wider impact of artistic merit, which I suspect will create an inordinate amount of controversy over the next few weeks. Parliament has the unique opportunity to begin tackling that. This could be done perhaps with the wisdom of our justice department, the Minister of Justice and his very capable parliamentary secretary who is just a few ridings over from me and a very able member of parliament for the Port Hope and Cobourg area. I am speaking about the member for Northumberland.

I want to talk more broadly about the issue of child pornography because it has been raised in this case.

The hon. member for Provencher talked about my region of Toronto. Many of us were astounded, shocked and probably are still recovering from the idea that there may be as many as 400 pedophiles using the Internet to disseminate material that is directed against children. Our law enforcement agencies are unable to detect these individuals. There is a problem of enforcement. The problem of enforcement is further complicated by the needs, as I was told recently, since January 1.

I pointed out to many colleagues in a letter sent to them some weeks ago that some 750,000 images of over 10,000 different children, some as young as three days old, have been portrayed in pictures seized by police. That is a very small number the police and enforcement agencies have been able to impact. We have a very serious problem that knows no bounds, but for which there must be the blunt instrument and determination of parliament to understand and apply appropriate language.

Most members of parliament should expect to receive within the next 24 hours a copy of proposals and options as well as the issues surrounding child pornography. This material will not just assist this side of the House but will assist all parties to come together on an issue that must not be divided on party lines. I was heartened to hear members of the opposition say that they were not looking to score political points on this. I think they too, as we on this side, recognize the value and importance of getting the wording in the legislation right.

I want to be very careful here. I do not think we should use the notwithstanding clause to protect children until such times as we have exhausted the wording that we think is necessary to protect children. I do not want this House of Commons or parliament to fall or be divided on the basis of semantics, words and language. The irony about words being such an important consideration for the protection of children is that it is simply trivialized by those who say the written word means nothing.

There is an obvious dichotomy that the words have to be written legislatively to protect children against pedophiles. At the same time, the words mean absolutely nothing, particularly when it comes to being in the hands of those who create or possess this information or worse, disseminate it. There is an obvious contradiction there. The House of Commons will have to try to resolve that. It will have to resolve that as quickly as it humanly and possibly can.

I have been challenged by the belief that somehow those who have written information which leads in many cases to the rape, torture and masochism of young children might in some way have some artistic merit and that the merit is somehow subjective.

A child molester and a pedophile are people who have a sickness. These people can never be cured of that sickness. It is a disease. It requires therapy, not obtuse legal reasoning. I cannot give a much better display of where we have surrendered our obligation to posterity than in the case where parliament does not act to fill the void.

I am convinced that the Minister of Justice and parliament are of one mind, that all issues must be put aside until we can deliberate on this issue to ensure the maximum penalties and force of law and to ensure that the charter of rights and freedoms brought forth by the hon. prime minister of many generations ago, Pierre Trudeau, is not intended in any way, shape or form to undermine the rights of children. I point out that while there are those who talk about fundamental freedoms, particularly section 2(b), freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, they certainly would not have precluded the life, the liberty and the security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

The constituency which we are speaking of is a constituency that pervades our society and thankfully so. For if it were not for children we probably would not have a future generation.

Let us understand something about child pornography. When minors are involved in a situation where their names or identities are reproduced around the world and are reproduced permanently, that puts those children in a position of victimization.

The House was in an uproar a few years ago about Martin Cruz, an individual who had been molested by pedophiles. We know what happened to poor Martin after his plea and his passionate coming out to talk to people about this issue. He took his own life because he was tormented by what had happened to him over generations. No human being should suffer that kind of indignity. Whether we talk about the issue of consent, human beings should be put in the position where a person in a position of trust can take advantage of them and forever inflict a wound which can never ever be healed.

I share the frustrations of members of parliament, but I also know that many members of the House have worked diligently and have a pretty good idea of those things that need to be done. We need one important element. This parliament must decide the laws of this land. This parliament must be the vanguard of the rights, the liberties and aspirations of human beings and of Canadian citizens who enjoy benefits and rights thereof.

We need to ensure that the role of the supreme court and the courts are there to interpret the limits of law, not to write in the law. I respectfully submit that in the case of the Supreme Court of Canada on Sharpe, they got it wrong. Parliament must now get it right.

To that end, it is fortuitous that the minister has brought forth through the Senate Bill C-15A.

Its timeliness is not to be gainsaid but it also means that there are opportunities here for us to use this as a model of what we plan to do in the not too distant future.

I know the appeal period for the decision in British Columbia is about to expire. It may be as soon as April 25. On behalf of members of parliament I would like to encourage the attorney general of the province of British Columbia, and by saying encourage I do not to tell him what to do but simply to urge to encourage him to seek the appeal.

Like the hon. member for Provencher, I think there were a number of errors in law. They are too weighty and would probably take me over 10 or 15 minutes to deliberate. I understand, in the interest of time, that what we can do here as a House of Commons is to work diligently, ensure that the amendments reflect the expectations of the public and that we do not get caught in dilatory or nonsensical defences or excuses that somehow obfuscate and derogate our understanding of the importance of protection of people within society who must have the life, liberty and security of person to be able to benefit from the things that make us unique as Canadians.

Parliament had to rush in 1993 to use certain wording. The intent may have been right, the wording may have been wrong but the intent to protect children must always be paramount whether that be a decision of the House of Commons or that supreme court.

We cannot allow people to undertake fishing expeditions at the expense of people who happen to be the most vulnerable in society but who happen to be the most precious constituency that we have in this country.

I boldly commend the Minister of Justice for having the courage to bring this forward. I look forward to working with members of parliament, to look at the number of options that they and experts have raised and to make this parliament not just relevant in our time but relevant for future generations to come.

[International Day of La Francophonie, March 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, March 20 is the International Day of la Francophonie. This is not only a day of rejoicing for the 625 million francophones on this planet, but is also an occasion for those whose mother tongue is not French to celebrate this language.

French is one of our two official languages and we must continue to promote it from coast to coast. In a world where borders are no longer as restrictive as they once were, where information circulates freely and culture is an export product, it is vital to keep in mind the usefulness and beauty of this language we share with 53 countries.

As a Franco-Ontarian, may I take this opportunity to wish everyone a happy day of la Francophonie.

[Competition Act, February 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank all my colleagues for giving me a few minutes. I will be brief.

First, I wish to congratulate the new Industry Minister, who is responsible for this file, as well as his new parliamentary secretary, who made a speech a few minutes ago.

Without belabouring the point, it has been stressed here enough that there is no doubt that the prime trigger for the changes in Bill C-248 and, prior to that in the previous parliament in Bill C-509, was indeed the Superior Propane case. About that there is no argument. I think that what is important for the House to understand is that it for the first time creates a precedent in law whereby someone may use the efficiencies defence to obtain a monopoly.

I need only give the initial judgment of August 30, 2000 to relay my point. After looking at this, the tribunal realized just how dangerous this takeover of Petro-Canada's ICG by Superior Propane would be when it said:

Although the Tribunal finds that the merger is likely to prevent competition in Atlantic Canada and lessen competition substantially in many local markets for national account customers, the majority...dismiss the application...on the grounds that the respondents have been successful in demonstrating their efficiency defence--

That sets not just a precedent but a very dangerous precedent. While I understand that the Supreme Court of Canada has said let us not deal with this and the federal court ordered the tribunal to revisit this issue, the effect of which is that the competition bureau has suspended part of its merger guidelines dealing with this because we are in sort of a no person's, no man's land on the bill, it is important for us to stress that the role of members of parliament will become extremely pivotal in doing our job: creating legislation.

We do not have rule made law in this country. It is for that reason that the bill is very timely. I have heard a couple of other comments from members suggesting that we should wait until the tribunal or whoever makes its decisions. I respectfully submit that we are the ones who create laws and we are the ones who will protect the interests of consumers to the extent that does not collide with other laws like, for instance, the constitution of this country and the Canadian charter of rights. I see no reason why those important pieces of our mosaic are not challenged. I cannot see why the parliament of this country, in particular beginning with the House of Commons, would not refer this matter to the committee.

I am pleased to see that the government and other parties will be doing so. I would not characterize the comments that we have made here as being somehow selective or, as one of my colleagues from the Alliance has suggested, very narrow minded. While I appreciate his concerns, I would also remind him that the very concerns that I have brought forward can be found in the Treaty of Rome, by which the competition bureau in that country operates on a set of assumptions very similar to what has been presented in Bill C-248. It states that it is clear that there is a limit for the defence under section 85 of the Treaty of Rome:

The limit of that use of the defence efficiencies argument is the elimination of competition. Even if parties can prove that an agreement would bring about high efficiency gains, these efficiencies are not able to justify the elimination of a competitor.

This is a very pivotal sector of our economy: heating. I do not wish to trivialize the importance of Superior Propane. As many people in the country know, last year a lot of people did without and had to turn their thermostats down. They are people who are listening today and people who are on fixed incomes, individuals who live in every single riding of the country. They now know that with this proposed legislation they would at least have some semblance of hope that there will be some meaningful competition.

That is not to say that companies cannot create some kind of efficiency by simply being the only player in town. Sure they can. We are simply saying that if they do that it has to be passed it on to the customers. There has to be a very real trade-off between having a monopoly or a near monopoly or a dangerous anti-competitive monopoly and the ability for that to flow through to customers or at least to consumers.

I am heartened to hear that other members will be supporting the bill. I want to take this opportunity to thank the members of the industry committee who are now beginning to really sink their teeth into the issue of competition. This will fall at a very good time since our industry committee chair is now beginning to understand the issue of efficiencies, not only from the perspective that there are 200 economists and lawyers who have an opinion but in fact from the perspective that there are people in the House of Commons who have also developed a modicum of understanding of this very complex act. They are now realizing that if Canada wants to compete with its global partners, and I am sure that the members of the Alliance will agree with this, we should not have laws that are weaker than those of our American or other trading partners. We should have laws that, while showing similarities, differences and nuances between ourselves and the rest of the world, do not leave consumers in a situation where they are always paying the highest price for their own product.

Therefore I leave this with you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr Speaker, I am very grateful for the time you have given me. I know you are aware of the energy situation in your riding. A few years ago, a Liberal committee on gas travelled to northern Ontario to express itself, study the situation and find the problems. I wish to acknowledge the effort you made with other members of parliament to create a great momentum in terms of changes to the Competition Act.

I believe we all agree with that. I will say to my colleagues that I look forward to at least the opportunity to have the bill discussed before a committee of the House that has some expertise. I have faith in the committee system and I think we can do this by ensuring that the bill is sent to that committee.

[Competition Act, February 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you know, I have spoken to Bill C-248 and I thank all hon. colleagues for doing the same. I understand that there may be an opportunity for a few more minutes. Could I seek the indulgence of the House to make a few more comments before the House decides to deliberate?

[Ryan Gibbs, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute to Ryan Gibbs of Pickering who passed away on December 31, 2001, at the tender age of 11. Diagnosed with brain cancer last October, Ryan underwent four operations and chemotherapy. After a valiant battle he passed away peacefully in his sleep with his loving parents Trevor and Ingrid by his side.

Although he was only here for a short time he lived life to the fullest. Ryan was the proud and successful captain of the Pickering East Enders Atom AA team, sporting jersey No. 10. He not only excelled in hockey but was also an accomplished black belt in tae kwon do.

He will be sadly missed by his coaches and teammates alike. Ryan will be forever remembered as a vibrant and caring little boy who his friends could always count on. Ryan enriched our community in so many ways and we are indeed blessed to have had a person like him in our lives. Ryan will be truly missed but the memory of his lively personality will continue to live on for all those who knew him.

I know all members of the House join me in extending our sincere condolences to Ryan Gibbs' family and his countless friends.

[Question No. 80—, December 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik. It is agreed that one of the purposes of this bill is to ensure that the consumer has more of a voice and perhaps more opportunity to benefit from the Competition Act.

That said, it is thanks to the phenomenon we have seen in this committee that the members were able to ensure the presence of safeguards, not just to protect the consumer, but also to ensure that abuse of the system, and frivolous cases are not included.

One more thing: This is not the end of the process. In connection with the reform of the Competition Act, we plan to at least make changes with respect to collusion. This is, of course, a really important aspect of this legislation. At present, the committee is in the process of thinking about changing the term “unduly”, mentioned earlier in the other debates.

I would like to touch on the gasoline question. Although the price of gas is 48 or 49 cents a litre in certain regions, I am not complaining. When an independent has to buy it at 54 cents, however, it is obvious that something is not working right. Only the people with the deepest pockets are going to survive. There are still consequences, then, but a small change will come about with this bill, or at least I hope it will.

[Competition Act, December 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to be here today after several years of attempting to redress certain wrongs that were not being perceived correctly in the marketplace. The efforts of myself and my colleagues are finally being recognized on the floor of the House of Commons today.

It is a privilege to have worked with members on the other side of the House, in particular le député de Verchères--Les-Patriotes, the member for Winnipeg Centre, the member for Fraser Valley, the member for Edmonton Southwest and the member for Peace River. I want to give particular thanks to my colleagues who have stood shoulder to shoulder with me over the past several years as we went through the historical and concerned battles with respect to inappropriate pricing, particularly for the independent retailers of gasoline, and the impact which I think we are seeing unfold today of the mergers in the grocery industry and in the telecommunications industry. I thank the member for Tobique--Mactaquac; my good friend and colleague from Yukon; the member for St. Catharines, who is also the vice-chair of the committee; the member for Eglinton--Lawrence; the current chair, the member for Essex; the member for Burlington; and the member for Algoma--Manitoulin.

The bill in essence has been drawn from three or four private members' bills. The more controversial parts, needless to say, came from my Bill C-472 in the last parliament. This understanding of the need for change started back in 1996-97. Yes, it occurred in the energy industry but it also meant that it applied to every other industry as well because we understood the competitive process. At the time there was much resistance to Bill C-235 in the House. Notwithstanding that it had been voted on at second reading and sent to committee, the bill suffered ignominious defeat. It dealt with a concept which has now gripped the country in other industries, that is, the whole concept of the strength and effectiveness of predatory pricing.

It took the courage, understanding and sympathy, as well as the good intentions of the member for Scarborough Centre who, along with the competition commissioner and the then minister of industry, took the time to hear the concerns. They heard the frustrations that were being delivered to me as a member of parliament by a number of businesses in the country that had no voice.

This legislation could not have been without his efforts. The hon. member for Scarborough Centre will be one of the unsung heroes should the legislation meet with the support of the upper house. I wanted to take the time to pay tribute to his efforts without which I think this change to the Competition Act would never have been debated today. We certainly would be dealing with other issues.

I have been on a very long road, some would call it a crusade, not only to amend and bring our competition law in line with our competitor's but also to have it respond effectively to the needs of Canadians, whether they be in large businesses, in small businesses or consumers.

Years ago I wrote an article with respect to the CRTC. At the time I quipped that it was not Canadian radio, television and communications but rather consumers who were rarely taken into consideration. I think we have for some time forgiven ourselves for not doing enough to ensure that there is a level playing field for consumers who want to receive not just effective costs but also choice.

More often than not people will ask how we can attack this issue or that issue when the price is so darn good. We all know the old common quip of short term gain, long term pain. If one business is able to remove its competitor, often through a lack of oversight, which it must rely on for supply or from an acquisition perspective, we suddenly see the prices rise dramatically.

More recently the member for Fraser Valley and I have been co-slaggees, which is not really a word. We have been hit by a couple of editorials in some of what I would say are papers that are more in tune with business papers such as the Financial Post and the Southam chain or at least the Ottawa Citizen . That happened because we dared to suggest that the Competition Act, which they wrote in 1986 with the help of a handful of individuals, should now be subjected to the democratic rigours of members of parliament.

Day in and day out members hear frustrations from their constituents that there is no response because the competition commissioner or the Competition Bureau does not believe there is a case or there is indifference. Also if someone were to speak out without the protection of a member of parliament and parliamentary privilege, that person's company could find itself subjected to rather unsavoury tactics after the fact.

We are here today to provide a new direction, a direction that does not radically depart from the essence of due process of the Competition Act. What we are saying is that in the case of private right of access, interim orders, and certainly in the case of cease and desist as is better described, we are now helping people who might not have the time let alone the financial deep pockets to spend the time trying to defend themselves.

We saw this happen with independent gas retailers. I have mentioned a number of other industries where this occurs. Parliament and the media are very much gripped with the issue of Air Canada. It was music to my ears after writing a letter on November 23 to the Minister of Transport. I requested that he not issue a separate operating certificate for another discount airliner but, more important, that we toughen things up given his position, the week before of improving the Competition Act. Perhaps more adjudication of issues coming out of the airline industry could be provided and more issues surrendered to the rigours of our Competition Act. We could also look at a scenario that provides stronger, tougher cease and desist, not just for an 80 day maximum but right up until the tribunal has the time and an opportunity to review the potential or alleged anti-competitive act.

I also called for a penalty of some $50 million. As colleagues know, the committee, I guess wisely, chose to make that $15 million. The point was made. I want to suggest, not just to Canadians who may be listening to us today but to backbenchers and people who normally do not have a hand in influencing law, that indeed we can make a difference when we decide to apply ourselves on issues that are relevant to Canadians.

We have had opportunities in the past to look at changes to the Competition Act. The subject I would like to discuss is private access. So that people will understand, this allows it in four limited areas. We wanted to make sure we were observant of the safeguards. So many thought we would dispose of them, that we would somehow fling ourselves open to that terrible system which the United States has, not to mention that it is the most productive nation in the world from an economic point of view, but God knows we were not allowed to talk about triple damages or Australia's example of double damages.

No, Canada had to have a form of economic feudalism imposed on it by a handful of individuals who wrote the Competition Act in 1986. For some strange reason they do not want members of parliament meddling with a perfectly good piece of legislation when it is improved and certainly sanitized by the views of Canadians as represented democratically.

I found it very interesting that we heard from the likes of, and I will not mention his name because I do not think it is worth mentioning, people involved with the Financial Post . They actually suggested that members of parliament ought not to be making deliberations, that they should be something between business and business when it comes to the Competition Act.

Comments like that obviously are made by individuals who very much believe that they can hide behind their pens and write whatever they want in the solid belief that paper will not refuse ink.

We have heavier goals to respond to. One of those is to ensure that we have effective legislation that meets the test of time. It is for this reason I compliment the initiatives by our government to address some of the fundamental failings of the Competition Act but in particular not to give businesses an opportunity to engage and an opportunity to bring their cases before the Competition Tribunal. Why is that so important?

As we heard on several occasions, there are not enough precedents with the cases that are submitted to the Competition Tribunal. This is why we do not know the specific weaknesses and strengths of our Competition Act.

It has been at least 15 years since the act was truly reformed and the vast majority of Canadians think we should take this opportunity to review it and ensure that the objectives of our constituents, of consumers and of all businesses, big and small, are included in this legislation.

It is therefore with great pleasure that we made representations, as we are doing now at third reading of the bill, to ensure that small, medium and large sized companies, which really know their product and their business, are at least given an opportunity to know that they can submit their case to the tribunal. We want directors and those who work with the Competition Bureau to have an idea of these lesser known changes.

These differences are often not perceptible to public servants, but they are well understood and supported by those who work in that business field. This is why I am sure that by providing tools to businesses first they will at least be able to settle their cases, because we will have made the act accessible to them.

It is for this reason that these initiatives affect small businesses as much as large businesses. The public perceives that there is a problem but cannot get the proper justice. It cannot get the attention of the Competition Bureau to express the difficulty that exists. Those difficulties may happen in a short period of time, such that the person may be physically out of business.

There are many examples of businesses that have gone under. They have not gone under because they were not efficient and competitive. They put in their sweat, equity, their children's future and their own future. However, much larger businesses with deeper pockets knew full well that the Competition Act was written in such a way that only those who had deep pockets could make use of it.

It is for this reason that we have finally changed the definition and perhaps changed the Competition Act in such a way as to give those individuals a fighting chance to bring their cases before the Competition Tribunal.

These are not questions that we could easily dismiss about whether or not there would be effectiveness with the legislation. The committee heard from Australian commissioner Allan Fells. Australia is not just another country. It happens to be literally a brother or sister within the Commonwealth with laws that are much along the same wavelength as ours. The commissioner came to the conclusion that much of the body of law had been improved by private access, particularly in the area of refusal to deal. My hon. colleagues had an opportunity to exchange those views with the commissioner. We were very pleased to see that happening.

On the other hand there were concerns that having a bit of private access in Canada might ultimately lead to some kind of perversion in which we would have frivolous and vexatious or, as some would call it, strategic litigation. My amendments in committee were improvements. We improved on the terms “if it finds that the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious or that any step in the proceedings is taken to hinder or delay their progress” by putting forward an amendment in accordance with the provisions governing costs in the federal court rules, 1998.

There is little that one can raise as a concern about what this would lead to because it is already understood in law and it is the practice of every court. It is literally a situation wherein a judge would ask to have this stupid case removed from his court right away. The rules the committee suggested, and I hope parliament would approve, would see individuals who bring frivolous or vexatious claims pay a substantial cost as an disincentive for them not to engage in frivolous or vexatious activity.

The member for Fraser Valley suggested that was inevitable. We know that we can do this before any court. The provisions and safeguards are there. Notwithstanding their efforts, professors Michael Trebilcock and Tom Ross suggested that the time to deal with this had ended. We have been dealing with this for 30 years. Let us get on with it. They also suggested that perhaps down the road it would give rise to the need to extend it to other areas, for example abuse of dominant position in sections 78 and 79 of the Competition Act.

Those would be bold moves but they are not ones that parliament would want to make today. We have struck the right balance between assuring that the provisions of the bill would incorporate both the anxieties of those who suggest it is going too far and accommodating those who say in the main that we have not gone far enough.

I am pleased to see that the committee and parliament are addressing this issue with the help of the Minister of Industry at a speed that would allow us to ensure that 2002 will bring with it new expectations for the economy.

This is not just any other bill. The Competition Act, as we will learn today, is probably the second most important economic instrument to Canadians after our fiscal and monetary policy. It is for those reasons that while there are some who say monetary and fiscal policy must be in sync the bill says that our competition law must be in sync, with the rest of the world in a more globalized environment. I am pleased to see that the committee decided to proceed with some of those necessary changes.

We have heard some criticism being levelled at people who tend to venture out and respond to crises several months before their time. When I began my concerns about what was happening in the energy industry, it was not simply about gasoline.

I have a bill before the House that is votable. It deals with the efficiencies defence in the Competition Act in the area of propane. Last year I was concerned about the sudden dramatic rise in the price of heating oil. The government acted responsibly in helping those who had no way of defending themselves. I applaud the Minister of Finance for having done what he did.

If we can take advantage of loopholes in the Competition Act in one specific area, chances are we will be able to do it in others. It is quite ironic that in an article written last week by the Financial Post we read that airlines do not need to be regulated any more than gasoline. This speaks to the very issue that I brought forward. The Competition Act responds to many sectors of the economy as a framework law. We are here to improve the process.

I find it passing strange that the same papers which lament members of parliament and senators engaging in issues that are important to Canadians have the unmitigated gall to engage in a critique in a soft and independent editorial viewpoint.

We saw that this week with respect to Southam telling members of one of its many groups that if they did not like what it was doing they should not bother publishing it. What happened to local views? What happened beyond the question of price to some of the competition? It is clear we have a problem. This is exactly why on August 3, 2000, I wrote to the Prime Minister, saying:

This week's announcement by CanWest Global to acquire controlling interest of Hollinger Inc., coupled with BCE's acquisition of CTV, has fuelled wide speculation that more media takeovers and mergers are pending...Communications media compete in part by offering independent editorial viewpoints and an independent gatekeeper function. A scenario that eventually sees only a handful of media players, cannot effectively respond to a demand for choice or diversity of competition by extending their product lines, since the new media products will inevitably bear, to some degree, the perspective of their common corporate parent.

If it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander. This has been done in industry without even the prospect of oversight. Companies have disappeared in the night, have been wiped off the map, because they were buying gasoline for 52 cents a litre wholesale with all the taxes included but the person who was supplying the gasoline was selling it for 47 cents.

That is anti-competitive yet it is not illegal under the current definition in the rigours of our act. Nor is it illegal to have 75% of the market for propane in one specific region of the country at a time when farmers need it for drying their crops. Nor is it illegal for an airline company that has 80% of the airline market to say it will drop its prices, but only in two locations where it has any semblance of a vigorous and effective competitor.

It is nice to receive editorials, condemning or otherwise, but it would be nice if papers had the intestinal fortitude to publish a story relating to that which they are criticizing. That is politics, I suppose. When we do not have to put our name on the ballot to get elected, is it any wonder that we can hide behind the pen and say anything we want?

The courage of the House of Commons and members of parliament to make dramatic necessary changes in the context of the country and the Competition Act warms the heart of every consumer in Canada. I applaud each and every member of parliament. Let us keep up the good work and make a difference for Canadians.

[Competition Act, December 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my deep gratitude to the members of parliament who have mentioned my riding from time to time. I also would like to thank the hon. member for Fraser Valley. He was instrumental in assisting the committee and was very much, along with the member for Verchères--Les Patriotes, instrumental in ensuring a co-operative spirit in which we could advance the bill.

We heard from a number of witnesses during committee, as we had before, who were suggesting that was the end of the earth, while more reasoned level heads suggested that perhaps, as far as private access was concerned, it did not go far enough.

Clearly, I do not wish to anticipate what the other House will do, but I know the hon. member represents a party that has a substantial holding in the upper house. Would the hon. member be able to reassure the House, given where some of the lobbyists will be going, that the wisdom found collectively by all members of the House can also be repeated, certainly with his assistance, and will he endeavour to do that?