Leon Benoit

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 22nd, 1998]

Concerning individuals and businesses who have to pay fees allocated by the Pest Management review Agency, can the government please provide a list of all user fees these individuals or businesses have to pay?

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 22nd, 1998]

Can the government provide a detailed outline of the process used by the Pest Management Review Agency to determine how levels are set for cost recovery?

[Competition Act, September 21st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to have a very short intervention in the report stage debate of Bill C-20.

Bill C-20 is an act to amend the Competition Act. The Competition Act is an extremely important act in terms of providing responsible regulation to business. Regulation is needed.

We heard the member for Skeena talk about what an acceptable role for government is in the marketplace. I certainly share his concerns.

What happens with this Group No. 3 amendment, Motion No. 6 in particular which was brought forth by the Bloc is that it really confuses this legislation beyond what is necessary.

Already the Competition Act is complex. This legislation amending the act is complex. Motion No. 6 not only would complicate it more should it pass but it also really would make it more confusing. That is the key here. It would provide improper emphasis in the Competition Act.

This amendment would provide a prohibition against offering a statement, warranty, guarantee of performance, efficacy of length of life and that type of thing about a product unless there is adequate testing done. Should this Bloc amendment pass, it would put the onus on telemarketers to provide testing that of course is the responsibility of the manufacturer. Putting this amendment forth would provide the wrong direction for this legislation.

As well, I would like to point out that section 52 of the act as amended by Bill C-20 is sufficiently broad in order to deal with and include false claims concerning warranties, et cetera. That has been dealt with already.

I believe that this motion is out of place here. It is important to consider the proper role of government. In many cases governments over the past 30 years and probably longer have tried to play an improper role and have become too involved in the marketplace in trying to unreasonably protect consumers.

I have talked to several people who have been suckered in by telemarketing fraud, in some cases by blatantly fraudulent telemarketers. The RCMP in two cases I know of dealt with this. Charges were pressed and the issue was cleared up as well as it could be cleared up. I really feel for the people who have been taken advantage of and I refer to the very elderly.

This is a concern. This is not the way to deal with it. That is important to note.

I will close by saying that I certainly cannot support this group. I believe that the Reform members by and large will not support this amendment, but I would like to add that we will support the bill itself.

[National Defence, June 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister ought to read the newspapers today. The headlines say that the minister is blaming the victim, and the minister is blaming the victim.

The minister has prejudiced the case. He has questioned Private Dickey's testimony in public. Now Private Dickey cannot possible get fair treatment within the military system.

I want to ask the government what specific plans it has. What will the government implement to give Private Dickey a fair hearing outside the military justice system?

[National Defence, June 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I frankly do not believe what we are hearing hear today.

The Deputy Prime Minister is saying that he cannot comment on the case because it is under investigation. Yet the minister is commenting on the case to all the media right across the country and he is blaming the victim.

How could Private Dickey ever get a fair hearing when the minister is questioning her credibility through the media right across the country?

[Canadian Armed Forces, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the parliamentary secretary is not going to talk about this case. We do not know whether the investigation actually is going on or not. We have conflicting evidence.

A couple of days ago an ombudsman was appointed, who supposedly would be able to deal with this situation, but the ombudsman himself said that he relies on the minister to gain access to information through the ranks.

If this is the way the ranks deal with information, I wonder how this ombudsman appointment is going to help fix things up in any way.

[Canadian Armed Forces, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly three years since the investigation into Ms. Dickey's complaint started. It has been almost three years since the complaint was filed and her superiors have brushed it off again and again.

After three years, finally a statement was taken. Then they told her “But you have to come up with the evidence to have the investigation carry on”. They told her to get her own evidence.

I would ask the parliamentary secretary, why did it take so long to start the investigation and—

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 10th, 1998]

Whatever that means.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I made a statement earlier that the minister responsible for the wheat board was not in the House. In fact, he is not again. But he was for about 30 seconds—

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Elk Island but first I would like to clear up an inaccuracy that has been perpetrated by the New Democratic Party and the governing party.

They said that the member for Wild Rose in answer to a question gave some incorrect facts. They are wrong. The numbers given by the hon. member for Wild Rose are accurate. When the member said that 66% of farmers from Alberta supported giving freedom of choice in barley, he was correct. When he said a majority in western Canada support freedom of choice, he was correct. There was a poll done by the Saskatchewan government, which supports the wheat board monopoly wholeheartedly, which showed that more than 50% of Saskatchewan farmers support freedom of choice. That is clearly supportive.

It is interesting to me that through this whole debate the minister responsible for the wheat board has not been in this House for one minute. He has not listened to a thing that was going on.