CONTENTS
Friday, April 25, 1997
Bill C-67. Second reading. 10217
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 10.12 a.m.) 10218
The House resumed at 10.26 a.m. 10218
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 10224
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 10225
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 10226
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 10227
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 10228
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 10228
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 10232
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 10235
Bill C-439. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 10236
Bill C-440. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 10236
Bill C-441. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 10237
Bill C-442. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 10237
Bill C-443. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 10237
Bill C-444. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 10237
(Motion agreed to.) 10238
Bill C-67. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 10241
Consideration resumed of motion for second reading of, and concurrence in, Senate amendments 10249
Division on amendment deferred 10251
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 1.49 p.m.) 10251
The House resumed at 3.35 p.m. 10251
10217
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, April 25, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Douglas Peters (for the Minister of Industry, Minister
for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of
Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for
the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.):
moved that Bill C-67, an act to amend the Competition Act and
another act in consequence, be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, here we
are considering one of the last bills of this Parliament, judging
from the atmosphere and the number of members in this House.
The bill before us is C-67, an act to amend the Competition Act.
In the speech from the throne on February 27, 1996, the Liberal
government announced a reform of the Competition Act as
follows:
The Government will introduce proposals to strengthen the economic framework
with legislative improvements in the areas of competition, bankruptcy and
copyright.
Consultations followed, and then a document setting out the
proposed amendments to the Competition Act was released. The
Competition Act was updated in the summer of 1994.
After that, an advisory committee looked at all the proposals
gathered, but the competition bureau continued parallel
consultations on specific points in the law. This is the report the
minister used to draft Bill C-67 aimed at modernizing the
Competition Act. This bill, being debated this morning at second
reading, will likely not reach the end of the process, if rumours of
an upcoming election call are true, because the work will have to be
done all over again.
This is not a total disappointment, because we feel the bill lacks
certain major elements, and, moreover, contains a number of
instances of legal overlap-in which the federal government
intrudes in matters of provincial civil law, as we are constantly
pointing out. The principle is always the same: Ottawa knows
better than anyone else what is good for Canadians. This endless
paternalism rears its ugly head in many laws. Yesterday, I had the
opportunity to discuss the consideration of a private member's bill
from the Reform Party.
Ottawa's centralizing influence is clear. Having arrived here
three and a half years ago, the Reform Party has now adopted
Ottawa's style of demanding and centralizing all sorts of powers.
What does this bill contain? Based on the legislative summary, I
can tell you what the main changes proposed are.
Obviously, the merger notification process is to be improved and
the regulatory burden on business lightened.
It is designed to ensure quicker and more efficient action against
misleading advertising and deceptive marketing practices. I will
come back to this, because we must not think that this is something
new, that we have just found out about or thought of. There are
already guidelines governing misleading advertising and deceptive
marketing practices. It is also designed to amend and clarify the
law applicable to sales price advertising by retailers.
The fourth point is to provide the courts with new means of
dealing with crime, through orders on consent and orders including
prescriptive terms upon conviction.
It is also designed to address the recent proliferation of
misleading telemarketing practices that consumers have been
subjected to and which undermine the value of telemarketing as a
legitimate marketing tool. Telemarketing is a booming industry
these days, as we all know, for probably having been solicited on a
number of occasions for various things.
It is true that the Competition Act had not been amended since
1986 and that some updating is always useful-several of the
provisions seem quite legitimate and appropriate, and will indeed
help modernize the act to some extent-but there is a problem.
There is a major problem with the number of new civil
provisions concerning misleading advertising and deceptive
marketing practices. This is a clear invasion of a provincial
jurisdiction, namely local trade. I mentioned earlier that we keep
hearing nice arguments like: ``It is in the best interest of the
people. In
10218
principle, this is a good thing''. But the government is taking
advantage of the situation to invade a provincial jurisdiction.
[Editor's Note: The fire alarm having sounded:]
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: We will suspend the sitting to the call of
the Chair.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 10.12 a.m.)
_______________
[
Translation]
The House resumed at 10.26 a.m.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I hope
this time I can finish my speech.
I want to put things back in their context, since we had an
unexpected break. We are debating Bill C-67, an act to amend the
Competition Act and another Act in consequence. As I said earlier,
in the throne speech, the government had already announced a
reform to strengthen the economic framework, through legislation
relating to competition, bankruptcy and copyright.
A long process led to the bill before us today. A review was
conducted as early as the summer of 1994. The Minister of Industry
asked the director of investigation and research, appointed under
the Competition Act, to comment on the act currently in effect.
Following these comments, the minister launched, in June 1995, a
consultation process by circulating a discussion paper on the
proposed changes to the Competition Act.
An advisory committee was asked to look at the various
proposals received during the consultation process. Meanwhile, the
Bureau of Competition Policy continued its consultations on
specific aspects of the act. This exercise led to Bill C-67, which
seeks to modernize the existing legislation. As I said, there are
changes that do indeed modernize the act, which had not been
reviewed since 1986, and that could bring significant
improvements.
However, the federal government is using this as an excuse to
continue to slowly invade areas of provincial jurisdiction,
including civil law. I will get back to this in a moment.
I just want to briefly mention the provisions of the bill. There are
improvements regarding the notice to be given when companies
merge and when the regulatory burden is reduced. This will ensure
speedier and more efficient resolution of misleading advertising
cases and unfair trade practices. I will get back to this particular
point.
The bill also seeks to amend and clarify the law governing price
advertising by retailers. It also gives the courts new remedies
following convictions for criminal activity in the form of consent
orders and prohibitive orders to include prescriptive terms.
Finally, it sets out to address the problem of the recent
proliferation of deceptive telemarketing practices to which
consumers fall prey and which detract from telemarketing as a
legitimate marketing practice. As I mentioned earlier,
telemarketing is on the increase, but many use it fraudulently. We
have all seen television programs or news reports of many dubious
and very often misleading practices designed to swindle hundreds,
even thousands, of dollars out of individuals on many occasions.
There are, as I pointed out, many legitimate provisions that will
update the legislation. The new civil provisions in the case of
misleading advertising and deceptive marketing practices,
however, constitute direct interference in local commerce, an area
under provincial jurisdiction.
In 1989, the Supreme Court recognized that the previous
legislation, the Combines Investigations Act, overlapped an area of
provincial jurisdiction. This recognition notwithstanding, the Court
ratified the provisions, relying on paragraph 91(2), which gives the
federal government the power to regulate trade and commerce.
So, once again, this is not the first time our political system or
our Constitution has led to overlap that is expensive in practice
because it results in confusion and conflict between levels of
government, and is the source of many problems.
(1030)
We know that this is not unique to the trade sector. It happens in
a lot of cases, as we see on a regular basis. In a number of areas,
health for one, the government is trying to expand its powers or
interventions, while at the same time decreasing its contribution,
for example its transfer payments for health. The federal
government must have found that this money did not do much for
its visibility, so it decided to cut transfers to the provinces.
For example, it cut $2 billion in transfer payments for health and
then injected millions and millions of dollars into initiatives so that
the federal government's logo will be highly visible on the cheques
issued, whereas transfer payments would not have had that
visibility. The bottom line is that the citizens are clearly penalized.
We can see that just about all of the provinces are having to
undertake major reforms, and often to make drastic cuts in these
areas, as a result of the drastic cuts in the funding they receive.
The federal government's attempt to expand its jurisdiction is,
therefore, not unique to trade and competition. As recently as
yesterday, the Prime Minister announced that he had, during his
mandate, modernized federation and made major constitutional
reforms. So he said, to my great amazement. The only changes the
federal government has made have been hit and miss, and
peripheral, always with the goal of ensuring that Ottawa and the
federal
10219
machinery will have an increasingly large role to play in numerous
areas of jurisdiction.
The only time it pulls out of anything is when there is no more
money left. Then the federal government says: ``OK, now we are
going to pull out''. Yet it makes sure to hold on to all of its sources
of revenue. They say: ``Oh no, we will no longer interfere with
forestry or mining, for example, because we have just found out
these are provincial jurisdictions, but we will keep the cash''. The
federal government does have jurisdiction over that. It has no
struggles with its conscience when it comes to keeping hold of the
money.
As I said earlier, the court had recognized these encroachments
in the former legislation but nevertheless validated them, saying it
was impossible to do otherwise, considering section 91(2) of the
Constitution. The court decided there were factors that mitigated
the seriousness of these encroachments.
In the final instance, creating a system of civil remedies was
justified if the government could demonstrate there was some
justification for doing so. When the federal government can do
that, this mitigates the seriousness of federal intrusion. We find this
in a decision by the Supreme Court which, in most cases, comes
down on the same side and seldom on the side of Quebec, so draw
your own conclusions. This is just another example of the highest
court in the land interpreting the legislation it gets from people like
the hon. members opposite, who are gradually diminishing the
powers of the provinces and find excuses for these multiple
intrusions by the central government, and I say central, because
this has gradually become a centralist government.
With the court's blessing, the government has taken advantage of
all this flexibility it has been given by a court that is equally
centralist. And the result today is Bill C-67, which introduces more
duplication and intrusion in areas under provincial jurisdiction.
This is not necessarily about occupying a legal space that had been
vacant so far. Some provinces already have measures to deal with
these practices.
In the existing legislation, misleading advertising and deceptive
marketing practices are treated as matters to be dealt with only in
criminal court. That is as it should be, because of the federal
government's powers with respect to criminal law. However, Bill
C-67 proposes to establish a parallel non-criminal mechanism to
deal with these offences, although, as I said before, in most cases
these areas are already regulated by the provinces. In Quebec, we
have the well-known Consumer Protection Act, whose purpose is
to protect consumers against certain practices.
Now we will be stuck with two sets of legislation that deal with
misleading advertising and deceptive marketing practices. We will,
or perhaps I should have said we would, because I have the distinct
impression that we will not manage third reading of this bill before
an election is called, considering the intense activity we are seeing
among Liberal members today. This is a party preparing to hit the
campaign trail. In fact, from what I can see, several members all
already on the campaign trail.
(1035)
So, there will be two sets of rules. Which one will prevail? This
will be very confusing for consumers. How well protected will the
consumers feel in all this? Which legislation will they feel protects
them best? There already is legislation. It is clear that legislation
like Quebec's Consumer Protection Act can be used effectively
against such practices.
Now, there will be another, federal act, and the public will know
that. They will wonder what its scope is and what it deals with. This
is another instance of unnecessary overlap. There are many
businesses, but not all of them use misleading advertising and have
deceptive practices. Businesses, small and medium size ones in
particular, complain bitterly about the regulatory burden, all the
government red tape and the legalities imposed on them. They find
it quite confusing.
In the face of initiatives like this one, which will result in two
co-existing acts, one federal and one provincial, regulating
business practices, how can we expect these people to concentrate
on doing what they do best? They are not in business to fill out
government forms. These are entrepreneurs who have found a
niche where they feel comfortable, can innovate and want to sell
their products.
I recently had a discussion with an entrepreneur in my riding,
who was telling me that it makes no sense whatsoever, that one full
time employee spends one full day every week filling out forms.
Out of a dozen employees, one person works full time to fill
various forms for different levels of government. One employee
out of a dozen spends all his or her time on this. The entrepreneur is
not being unreasonable. He realizes that money must be collected
and taxes must be paid to governments. However, one wonders
about the usefulness of many regulations and about the extent to
which the information will actually be used.
It is not always easy to gather all this information. The more
information there is, the more public servants it takes in Quebec
City and in Ottawa to sort out that information, to check it out and
to do something with it. In the end, people are lost in a maze of
data. Provisions such as those in Bill C-67 will definitely not help
the process.
One wonders why. What will be the next step once this bill takes
effect? Tell the provinces they have to withdraw, as the bill gives
the federal government control over this area, since telemarketing
and trade practices transcend boundaries?
10220
The federal government probably thinks it is the one in the best
position to exercise that control. Given the globalization of trade,
what would the next step be? The federal government will not be
in a position to take that next step. Therefore, what will happen,
given that companies do businesses in several countries? Will
international legislation be required to monitor such activities?
No, because the provinces can do it. The fact that a business
engages in sales, trade, soliciting or telemarketing outside the
province or, conversely, that an outside company engages in
telemarketing solicitations in a province, does not mean we cannot
legally monitor their actions.
It may be different in the case of referendum acts, because if
money is spent outside the province, the Quebec legislation cannot
regulate that activity. This is a different issue but, normally, a
province should be able to monitor, through legislation, what goes
on on its territory. Quebec already has a number of provisions to
that effect.
Instead of stubbornly trying to find new ways to set standards
that will apply from coast to coast, the Minister of Industry should
have had the courage to introduce provisions that would have
promoted greater access to the Competition Tribunal. Currently,
the director is the only person who can go before the Competition
Tribunal. If the director does not take action in a given case, the
private parties cannot go to the tribunal for corrective action.
Therefore, under the current act, only one person can initiate
proceedings.
(1040)
In September 1996, not so long ago, the Secretary of State for the
Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec, speaking to
the bar association, admitted that his government had abandoned
for the time being the idea of allowing private parties access to the
tribunal.
The director of the Bureau of Competition Policy, however,
admitted in a speech to the Canadian Institute, and I quote: ``Given
the extent of commercial activity covered under the legislation, it is
difficult for the director to investigate all complaints that strike him
as justified and to institute proceedings, thus leaving certain parties
without recourse''.
This comment makes it plain that there are cases in which certain
parties suffer damages and seem to be justified in lodging a
complaint. He seems to be saying that he is unable to investigate all
complaints, even those that he feels are justified. We are not talking
about unjustified complaints, but about those he feels are justified.
He is therefore unable to take action accordingly and the end of his
comment is significant: ``[-] thus leaving certain parties without
recourse''.
Rather than continue to interfere in civil matters at the provincial
level, an attempt could have been made, in this bill, to sort this
problem out. It is widely recognized in our legal system that there
is no justice without access. Changes could have been made under
the bill regarding access to the tribunal in order to allow those
adversely affected by the supposed violations to correct these
injustices.
The government could have shown leadership and implemented
a more balanced system that is more accessible and that makes
recourse available to private individuals, while ensuring that
prosecutions do not serve strategic interests or objectives
incompatible with the purposes of the Competition Act.
Obviously, we want to see this done in such a way as to avoid all
sorts of problems. In the interest of avoiding duplication, the
government should ensure that recourse available to private
individuals is not already covered by the provinces. If the
provinces are already addressing these sectors, the federal
government should not interfere.
I will also say a few words about telemarketing. The advisory
committee concluded that telemarketing was a serious problem in
Canada that should be tackled at the federal level, not at the
provincial level, because of interprovincial and international
ramifications. With that kind of reasoning, one can justify any
encroachment on any sector whatsoever. If the problem is serious
and would have an impact on more than one province, the federal
government would, according to the committee, have a moral
obligation to intervene.
I may recall that the Consumer Protection Act regulates
telemarketing quite satisfactorily. As they do in so many other
cases, the provinces can get together on this and ensure their
regulations are compatible. This is not to say that provincial
regulations are infallible, but my point is that the provinces are
certainly capable of exchanging information and data with a view
to improving their respective legislations.
Although Bill C-67 merely criminalizes certain unlawful
telemarketing practices, we must warn the federal government
against intervening in this area, as it did in other cases, by creating
civil remedies. The problem is that civil remedies are a matter for
the provinces to decide.
This flexible federalism they talk about is often one-sided.
Although the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Prime
Minister keep repeating that their federalism is very flexible, it
looks a lot more like paternalistic federalism. The government
thinks it is on the side of the angels when it says it has the right to
intervene in areas under provincial jurisdiction. But now that it has
substantially reduced transfers to the provinces, as I said earlier, it
says the provinces are not doing what they ought to be doing. It
knows better than anyone else what is good for consumers.
10221
That is why we are against this bill. However, considering the
parliamentary calendar, it is quite likely the proceedings on this
bill will have to wait until the next Parliament.
(1045)
Let us hope in the meantime that the departments concerned will
have another look at their work and will see there is overlap and
infringement in a number of sectors which are covered by civil
remedies and which should remain, as in the present case, under
provincial jurisdiction, so problems are not continually being
created.
We often feel here that we create more problems than we solve.
It could be true in this case. In the end, it will not benefit those this
bill was intended to serve: consumers.
I would remind you that it is a major sector, and the director of
the competition bureau has indicated he is unable to properly carry
out the mandate. He said he cannot investigate every complaint,
many of which are well founded. That then is a practical problem.
They could have said that some people did not have access, that
their complaints were founded but left in limbo, and wonder what
they could do to give them recourse.
They start with a problem and look for solutions. They look
around and see the provinces have already done things that come
within a given field of intervention. What comes under federal
jurisdiction and what can the federal government do without
always trying to bypass the provinces in order to have jurisdiction
in the sector? So, if we have the opportunity to do so, we will vote
against this bill.
Since you are going to interrupt me, Mr. Speaker, and this may
be my last statement in this legislature, I would like, before I
conclude, to thank the people in my riding whom it has been my
great pleasure to represent and whom I would be delighted to
continue to represent as of June 2 or 3, the day after the elections
are expected to be held.
I would like to say that, in a future Parliament, people may count
on me and on the Bloc Quebecois to again remind this government
it often acts in a way that complicates things, in a way that ends up
costing more and doing less for people.
People will have someone speaking in their defence and not
coming to where they live to defend Ottawa's goals. This is what
we will be offering them in the coming weeks, and I am sure that
this is what the people of many Quebec ridings, including, I hope,
the riding of Témiscamingue or the region of
Abitibi-Témiscamingue, will want in Parliament.
I therefore thank you and remind you that we will do everything
to ensure that the bill never comes to pass-either in this
Parliament or in the next. Some provisions have merit, are good
and could be adopted. Others will have to be added and still others
will have to be withdrawn. We hope that, in the usual course of a
bill in the next Parliament, where we will begin some of this work
again, the appropriate corrections will be made.
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the
opportunity to address this House on Bill C-67, an act to amend the
Competition Act and another act in consequence.
The subject we are discussing today deals with a fundamental
element of the economic framework governing business in Canada.
Indeed, the free play of market forces is the very basis of our
politico-economic structure and shapes all relationships between
Canadians and companies doing business in Canada and abroad.
Canadians, whose quality of life is the best in the world, base
their economic relationships on the principle of competition. It is
through competition that productivity, efficiency and innovation
are improved, thereby enhancing Canada's competitiveness, our
prospects for growth and our standard of living.
The Competition Act plays an essential role in ensuring that this
system continues to flourish. The Competition Act applies to all
economic sectors and to all types of trade in Canada. It is the
legislative framework by which Canadian society, through
Parliament, ensures that businesses compete on a fair basis.
The Competition Act is also an important means of ensuring
protection of the public interest in deregulated industries. It
responds well to this government's desire to adopt less costly
solutions for Canada by avoiding direct intervention in these
economic sectors.
(1050)
The amendments we have introduced seek to improve the code
of conduct that defines the parameters for business conduct in
Canada. With this bill, we can continue to promote a climate of
vigorous competition while protecting consumers against
deceptive or misleading practices. These changes will contribute to
a healthier marketplace, and ultimately, to a better environment for
economic growth and jobs.
In our discussion of the need for a healthy marketplace, we must
make particular reference to the role of consumers. I would like to
take this opportunity to consider the relationship between healthy
competition amongst businesses and the effective protection of
consumers' interests.
Experience has shown that, where international and domestic
markets exist, consumers enjoy lower prices, a greater choice of
products, better quality goods and services, and better information
about these products.
10222
[English]
As a result of the continued rivalry within markets where
competition has free rein, manufacturers and merchants must
innovate to anticipate consumers' needs. To keep its market
position, each business must earn and renew consumers' trust
daily. The most competitive markets are those where consumer
information flows without restriction and options are avidly sought
out before goods and services are offered.
When markets are competitive, consumers are more apt to
inform producers and suppliers of needs and expectations. They are
better informed of the choice of products, services and prices so
they acquire greater power vis-à-vis producers and suppliers that
must vie for their business. That is why the free play of market
competition needs to be preserved and promoted. After all,
restrictive practices that lessen competition are profitable only to
the businesses that engage in them. They also decrease the overall
welfare of society which is the reason we must be sure to keep
vigilant and put an end to such practices.
A thorough revision and update of the Competition Act was last
carried out in 1986. We want this key element of business law to
continue to operate effectively. Accordingly, there is a need after
10 years of experience with the current model to ensure the
legislation keeps pace.
The amendments we are considering today are not intended as an
in depth reform of the act which is generally serving Canada well.
They will however clarify the law in certain areas, promote
voluntary compliance and provide a better and more effective
variety of tools to the Competition Bureau. This is a balanced and
focused package of amendments that result from broad
consultations with consumers, businesses and experts. It reflects a
high degree of consensus.
I will now deal with the main amendments we are proposing to
show how they will promote healthy competition and lead to the
faster and more efficient resolution of problem situations. To put
the proposed amendments in context, I should first indicate that the
current act contains provisions on criminal matters as well as those
of a non-criminal nature. The criminal offences it deals with
include price fixing, bid rigging, predatory pricing, retail price
maintenance, misleading advertising and other deceptive
marketing practices. In these matters the onus is on the crown to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an offence has been
committed.
The non-criminal or civil matters by contrast may be reviewed
by the Competition Tribunal of Canada. These include mergers,
abuse of dominant position, refusal to deal, consignment selling,
monopoly tied selling, market restriction and delivered pricing. For
reviewable matters the bureau may apply to the tribunal for a
remedial order.
The bill before us builds on this foundation of enforcement tools
and remedies, supplements the criminal provisions with a new
offence related to deceptive telemarketing and creates a new civil
approach for most instances of misleading advertising and
deceptive marketing practices.
The bill also improves existing provisions relating to merger
pre-notification, prohibition orders and ordinary price claims. The
common denominator reflected in these amendments is a focus on
clarifying the law for business and improving enforcement
efficiency and effectiveness.
Telemarketing is a legitimate method of product promotion.
However, when we refer to deceptive telemarketing, we are
focusing on the use of deceptive representations and abusive tactics
in the course of telephone promotions. Deceptive telemarketing has
defrauded victims of large sums of money in the process. It has
tarnished the reputations of honest telemarketers. Cleaning up this
industry could be an asset to business and consumers.
Small and medium size businesses are also frequently targets of
deceptive telemarketing. The Competition Act should not allow
dishonest undertakings whatever their modus operandi to increase
criminal operators' profits at the expense of honest businesses.
Currently the act prohibits the use of false or misleading
representations for the purpose of promoting the supply or use of a
product or promoting any business interest. The act also contains
provisions relating to promotional contests. However, the existing
law does not specifically forbid certain practices that have come to
be associated with deceptive telemarketing. These need to be
addressed.
(1055)
This bill will create a specific new offence relating to these
practices. The maximum penalty on summary conviction will be a
fine of $200,000 or a year in jail or both. On indictment the
maximum penalty will be a fine at the discretion of the court or jail
for up to five years or both.
This new provision will apply to situations involving use of
interactive telephone communications whether initiated by a
telemarketer or by potential customers. The telemarketer will have
to provide certain important information at the outset of the
telephone conversation. Also, a number of deceptive practices will
be prohibited.
To close on this subject, let me just add that another amendment
will make it easier to obtain interim injunctions from courts to
quickly put an end to the activities of deceptive telemarketers.
These injunctions will also be available against third parties to
enjoin them from providing products or services to deceptive
telemarketers.
10223
These amendments represent a considerable improvement in the
current law. They address the most problematic practices that have
been identified. They also incorporate penalties that will provide
better deterrence.
In this area of competition law, the proposed amendments will
be of great benefit to all stakeholders, consumers as well as
businesses. As I have already mentioned, the current law contains
provisions relating to misleading and false representations.
Violations of these provisions are addressed solely through the
criminal law process, prosecutions in criminal courts. Advertisers
can avoid being convicted if they establish they have acted with
due diligence.
Under the proposed amendments there will still be a blanket
prohibition of deceptive advertising and marketing practices. The
Competition Act will offer the bureau two avenues, criminal
prosecution or civil resolution, to rectify conduct which though
problematical has occurred unintentionally. Under this new civil
regime most of the deceptive practices now prohibited will remain
practically unchanged but will become reviewable matters.
The bureau can call upon a judicial member of the tribunal, the
federal court or provincial superior court, and redress can be
obtained through court order or by way of consent. Orders to
publish information notices as well as to pay administrative
monetary penalties for individuals may be issued. Last, consent
orders may be entered into and will then be legally binding.
Measures such as these will expedite decision making and
ensure that it is done consistently and by a specialized body.
The Speaker: My colleague, you will have the floor after
question period of course.
It being almost eleven o'clock, we will now begin statements by
members.
_____________________________________________
10223
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I
rise to pay tribute to the fine work of Dr. Thomas Curran who is
about to retire from his position of senior research officer, science
and technology division, research branch, Library of Parliament, a
position he has held since 1975.
Over the past 20 years Dr. Curran has ably served on committees
of the environment, forestry and fisheries, health and welfare, as
well as others. Dr. Curran has authored reports on a wide range of
topics including cloning, AIDS, global warming, gene therapy and
acid rain. Dr. Curran is one example of the highest quality of
support the Library of Parliament provides to parliamentarians in
helping us deal with complex issues in service to Canadians.
I ask all members to wish him well in his retirement, as well as
all others who are retiring.
* * *
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on this my last chance to stand and speak in the House, I want to
extend some thanks.
To my constituents for having resided their trust in me to
represent them in Parliament.
To you, Mr. Speaker, to your deputy and to your assistants, for
your advice and forbearance with me, particularly early in the
session.
To the clerk and the table. They have given a lot in advice and
counsel to me.
To the pages for their courtesy and their efficiency.
To my caucus and my staff. They have been very supportive and
very good in advising me on things to do.
To the other members of this House. I may disagree with them
politically and philosophically but I respect most of them for their
commitment to their constituents and to the House.
And lastly, to my family. The job of an MP is not an easy one for
the family. They give up a lot and I respect them very much for
having done so.
* * *
(1100)
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I, as well, will not be running again in the next election. I
want to take this opportunity, first of all, of thanking the
community of Regina and the constituents there who have been
re-electing me.
Our family came from the camps of southeast Asia to Regina,
Saskatchewan in the early fifties and that community has honoured
me by re-electing me since 1979.
The House of Commons is a tremendous institution that serves
Canada well. It does need to change and as an organic institution I
am sure it will. In the future I hope that some members will come
here through proportional representation because the voices of
hundreds of thousands of Canadians are not heard in this
Parliament because of our electoral system.
Also, I hope in the future that the committee system will be
strengthened because it is in the committee system that ordinary
members of Parliament, regardless of what political party they are
from or whether they are in the government or in the opposition,
10224
can have an opportunity of making a contribution in developing the
laws of this land.
I suggest that those two reforms are needed. I hope that this
institution will serve Canada for many more years to come.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Duplessis, Denis
Perron, passed away.
Mr. Perron, who was elected to the National Assembly in 1976
and re-elected without interruption since that time, was close to his
constituents, had an abiding concern for the future of his riding and
was deeply convinced of the need for a sovereign Quebec. Hailing
from the North, from iron ore country, Denis Perron was a man of
integrity, known for his frankness, generosity and sense of duty.
I had the privilege of his acquaintance, and I imagine that his
untimely passing will leave a sense of great loss in his own family
and throughout Quebec.
We wish to extend our sincere condolences to his family, his
wife Marie and his children Michel, Gisèle and Christian, his staff,
his friends and his constituents who supported him in his riding.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Quinte Ballet School is one of only four professional
ballet schools in Canada. In 1997 it celebrates 25 years of success
in Belleville.
Some would call it a labour of love, sustained by the hearts and
souls of dedicated teachers and staff, tireless volunteers and
talented young people who have one driving sacrifice, a dream to
dance well.
Under the capable directorship of Brian Scott, the Quinte Ballet
School has produced some of the best young dancers in the world.
Keep up the good work everyone, and congratulations. We are
proud of this cultural jewel in Belleville.
* * *
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to recognize Mr. Nicholas Varias of Nouvelle
Development Corporation of London, Ontario as the national
winner of Canada Mortgage and Housing's flexhousing design
competition.
CMHC is promoting flexhousing as new concept in residential
design. Instead of the occupant changing homes, homes can change
to suit the occupant. A home office, a private suite for aging
parents or growing children, features that meet the special needs of
a single parent or a person with a disability, flexhousing homes can
accommodate all of them.
CMHC launched a competition last year to encourage designers
and builders to create flexible, adaptable and affordable homes that
are both comfortable and attractive. Mr. Varias' winning design
reflects CMHC's flexhousing principles of adaptability,
accessibility and affordability, and incorporates a number of
healthy housing features such as environmental responsibility,
energy efficiency and occupant health.
Canadians home builders, as always, are at the forefront of
change and true leaders in the world.
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Baroness Cox, a Deputy Speaker of the House of Lords in
the United Kingdom, visited Ottawa this week on behalf of
Christian Solidarity International to draw attention to the gross
violations of human rights inflicted by the military regime of
Sudan against its own citizens.
They include the enslavement of thousands of black Africans,
military offences against civilians in the south and Nuba Mountains
and wrongful imprisonment, torture and extrajudicial executions in
the north. One and a half million people have died and over five
million have been displaced. Those suffering include Christians,
Muslims and Animists.
Will the Canada government increase its efforts to support all
initiatives to bring an end to these abominable practices?
* * *
(1105)
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with its
unemployment insurance reform and the new Employment
Insurance Act, the federal government has reduced access to
benefits for pregnant women and adopting parents. By changing
the criteria and introducing a new formula, the government has
restricted access to parental leave.
Quebec, however, will establish a broader and more generous
parental insurance system. To do so, the Quebec government has to
10225
recover, as provided under the Employment Insurance Act, the
amounts budgeted for parental leave so they can be administered
by the province. It filed an official request last fall.
When will the Chrétien government act on this urgent request
from Quebec? We hope the government will not drag its feet as it
did in the case of section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867. We hope
it will deal with this request on a priority basis.
An election is in the air. Voters will remember this in the next
election.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
returning to my riding of Athabasca this afternoon to begin my
second election campaign, probably next week.
In spite of the endless promises from the Prime Minister to
return integrity to the political process, we already have Liberal
candidates out there promising to repeal the gun law, save
medicare, end subsidies to business and get tough on crime. The
list goes on.
Actions speak louder than words. Look at the Liberal record. If a
Liberal MP dares to speak up for his constituents against gun
control, he has been and will be punished by his leader. Is cutting
funding for medicare by 40 per cent what the Liberals mean by
protecting medicare? Remember the interest free loan to
Bombardier, which just announced record profits?
What about the B.C. court case for the man who beat, raped and
sodomized a young woman and did not even receive a jail sentence
as a result of the justice minister's alternative measures act?
Yes, actions do speak louder than words.
* * *
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
congratulate the more than 250 researchers at the University of
Western Ontario, including Dr. Bob Sica, a London West resident,
who have received research grants through the Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council. The grants are part of the $260
million research competition of the council, peer reviewed.
Dr. Sica will be using a laser radar system developed at the
University of Western Ontario, in co-operation with the mirror
telescope system developed in Quebec, to help improve forecasting
and measurement of global warming.
The project brings together Canadian ingenuity and serves as an
excellent example of the benefits of scientific research. The
investments we make today will produce benefits for the future,
ensuring a thriving, innovative research community in Canada
which all members support.
From the Canada Foundation for Innovation to the support of the
work being conducted by Dr. Sica and his peers, the government
has demonstrated a continuing commitment to research. I
congratulate the federal government for its leadership in this area.
* * *
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on ANZAC day. Some will
wonder why are we recognizing ANZAC day in Canada.
ANZAC day originally commemorated the landing of the
Australian and New Zealand army corps at the Gallipoli peninsula
in Turkey on April 25, 1915.
Since that time and with the battles of the second world war and
the ensuing battles in Korea and Southeast Asia, those countries
have chosen this to be their remembrance day, similar to our
remembrance day.
The significant feature about ANZAC day in Gallipoli is the
little known fact that the Royal Newfoundland Regiment played a
significant part in that battle. This regiment suffered tremendous
casualties at Gallipoli, both from Turkish gunners and from the
terrible flood which swept through their encampment.
The Royal Newfoundland Regiment has served with great
honour at Gallipoli and in France. It made great sacrifices. We want
to thank them for their contribution.
* * *
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Canada-Nova Scotia
Labour Market Development agreement announced in Halifax
yesterday.
This historic agreement is proof that the Government of Canada
is committed to helping unemployed Canadians get back to work.
(1110 )
It is a made in Nova Scotia agreement. The province will assume
full responsibility for benefits and employment measures designed
to meet the needs of Nova Scotia workers and employers.
The Government of Canada will provide more than $200 million
over the next three years for these measures from the employment
insurance account.
This agreement is also proof of a new approach to renewing
Canadian federalism. It delivers on the Prime Minister's promise to
10226
withdraw from labour market training and negotiate new
partnerships with the provinces and territories.
Similar agreements have been signed with Alberta, New
Brunswick, Newfoundland, Manitoba and Quebec. The
Government of Canada is continuing to negotiate with other
provinces and territories.
In partnership, we will ensure together that the right things are
done in our communities to achieve our common goal, getting
Canadians back to work.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this morning we learned that the federal government as
well had a secret financial plan in the event of a yes vote in the
1995 referendum, something the federal finance minister has
always refused to admit.
This is indeed proof that, beyond the political discourse of hard
line federalists, there are two levels of government ready to assume
their respective responsibilities so that the will of the people of
Quebec, as expressed democratically in a referendum, can be
realized in an atmosphere of calm and trust.
Yesterday, on the occasion of the Quebec-Maine joint venture
trade mission, the senator for the State of Maine told the premier of
Quebec that, in the event of sovereignty, and I quote: ``We intend to
maintain a strong relationship with Quebec''. As for the governor
of that state, it would be ``business as usual''.
With the Plan B scare tactics they are using on a people whose
only wish is to fulfil their own destiny, if the federalists need a
secret financial plan after the next referendum, it will be to clean up
a mess of their own making.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on the eve
of a 1997 federal election, my wife asks the question, will she or
will she not know what to do with me?
Before each of nine elections, she prepared herself for the
vigorous schedule of the campaign, knocking on doors, the
thousand-plus phone calls, dealing with the content and the
discontent.
Thirty-odd years of having breakfast, dinner and quiet evenings
interrupted by a concern in somebody's life, but seven days a week
on the job was a good reason to stay young and let 34 years escape
so quickly.
My wife and I can say that in 30-some years of political life
together, we leave this part of public life with a good feeling of
remembering every experience, whether with an individual, a
group or an organization as positive and memorable. We leave with
no hurt in our heart.
Today, I want to pay tribute and give my best wishes to all the
spouses who will work side by side with their partners in this
election. I also want to thank the spouses who have sacrificed for us
in this Parliament and who were always there when we needed that
quiet word of encouragement.
Today I want to say a special thanks and pay tribute to my wife,
Ingrid.
The Speaker: Ray, you have served your province and your
country well. I thank you for your great service to Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the International Monetary Fund has just announced
that it anticipates unparalleled economic growth for Canada in the
next few years.
The Fund's director said, and I quote: ``There is a very solid
base, not only for rapid growth this year, perhaps the strongest
among industrialized countries, but for a solid and healthy
performance for many years to come''.
In recent months, a great many analysts have observed with
satisfaction that the annual inflation rate in Canada is 2 per cent.
Short term interest rates are lower than in the United States and the
Canadian deficit is shrinking.
This astonishing economic outlook is no accident. It is the direct
result of our policies and of our responsible management of the
public purse.
* * *
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, according to a survey in
Le Devoir, 63 per cent of
Quebecers want Lucien Bouchard not to interfere in the next
election campaign. Even 50 per cent of Bloc Quebecois supporters,
moreover, want him to stay out of it.
There are two excellent reasons in favour of Lucien Bouchard's
staying out of the federal election. The first is that the majority of
Quebecers are demanding it, and the second is that, if he had a bit
of confidence in the capacity of the Bloc and its leader to survive
without him, he would mind his own business and look after his
own provincial affairs.
10227
(1115)
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Chinese community has constituted an important part of society
in Quebec and Canada since the arrival of the first Chinese
immigrants in 1858. Their participation in railway construction and
in both world wars are but two of many examples of their
inestimable contribution to all sectors of our society.
Yet the legislation permitting exclusion of persons of Chinese
origin was abolished only on May 1, 1947. This week we shall be
celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Citizenship Act, which
finally enfranchised Chinese-Canadians. In order to commemorate
the abolition of this discriminatory act, and to encourage equal
opportunities to participate in, and contribute to society, the
Chinese Canadian Council is organizing a series of events this
week.
I join with them in recognition of these generations of Quebecers
and Canadians of Chinese origin who fought against discriminatory
legislation and battled for citizenship.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what a privilege
it has been to have been a member of the House of Commons for
this session.
As I stand here I look around and see all my colleagues. I have
learned a deep respect for parliamentarians and their work. I have
come to respect not only members of my party but I have a new
respect for members of all other parties. I think particularly of
members of the Bloc who have a vastly different political agenda
than we do. However I respect them as individuals and wish we
could stay together.
I think highly of the support staff in the House. They have served
us well. I am pleased to say so. One group that is often unnoticed in
our committee meetings and in the House are those behind the
glass doors in the little cubby holes. They are the people who do the
interpretation. They are important to those of us who are
unilingual. I thank them. I have great admiration for anyone who
can hear in one language and simultaneously speak in another. My
thanks go to all.
* * *
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this week communities across Canada including my
constituency of Dauphin-Swan River are involved in the
celebrations of National Composting Awareness Week.
Local recycling programs have tremendous support. Organic
waste represents 30 per cent to 50 per cent of Canada's total waste.
It is imperative that greater attention be placed on diverting this
valuable material to a more productive usage.
Reclaiming the organic waste from landfill by applying compost
to our soil will result in many benefits including improved plant
growth. No longer must organic waste be thought of as garbage but
rather as a valuable renewable resource.
_____________________________________________
10227
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National
Defence.
This morning we heard that military personnel were involved in
a series of incidents in Cambodia, including physical abuse,
racism, arms trafficking and running a brothel.
The army has been involved in a series of scandals in Somalia, in
Bosnia-Herzegovina and now in Cambodia. What does the
government intend to do to restore discipline among these and all
other members of the Canadian military?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question.
[English]
There were allegations that events occurred in 1992-93. I
understand that the allegations were investigated and wherever
there was substantiation action was taken. The file has been made
available under access to information. It is available in the reading
room of the department to anyone, including the hon. member if he
wishes to review the entire history of those investigations.
(1120)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, after the incidents in Somalia, the government abolished
the airborne regiment. After the incidents in Bosnia-Herzegovina,
the army took punitive action. However, in the case of Cambodia,
the government simply put the lid on the whole affair, and no one
really knows whether any punitive action was taken in the case of
military personnel.
10228
I realize we can probably get the documents via the Access to
Information Act, but I would ask the minister to give us a clear
answer. Could the minister tell us whether punitive action or
disciplinary measures were taken, and if so, what kind?
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is persistent in his question.
We must remember that this action took place five years ago
under the former Conservative government. It is an action that has
been investigated and where there were grounds for charges,
charges were laid.
The whole background of the investigation is available to the
hon. member at his convenience in the reading room of the
Department of National Defence.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, theft, misappropriation of funds, prostitution, racism,
physical and verbal abuse of Cambodians, arms trafficking,
unauthorized use of cannon and pornographic videos.
I realize people in the army like videos, but I think making
pornographic movies at the Crown's expense for an armoury in
Toronto is going a bit too far.
Does the minister agree it is high time the government woke up
and introduced specific measures to improve co-operation between
civilian and military authorities, in order to prevent further
occurrences of this kind, which are totally unacceptable?
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has taken a number of
actions to shore up training programs to bring about better ethics
and performance in the field by our soldiers and our officers as part
of the renewal plan. Action is in place in our training programs at
both the non-commission level and the officer level.
The article in the paper, which has been dressed up with liberal
use of adjectives by the writer to gain readership, may be under
question. I suggest the member take my advice, go to the reading
room, read the evidence and then think it over.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the wake
of these troubling revelations about the events in Cambodia, the
minister ought to agree with us that the government has made a
mistake in terminating the work of the Somalia Inquiry, when it
would have put an end to all this secretive attitude which is so
common with Canadian Armed Forces staff.
Can the minister, or his parliamentary secretary, tell us why the
Armed Forces staff persist in worrying about the possible political
fallout of the abuses committed by personnel becoming public
knowledge, and in denying the public's right to the truth?
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again I address the hon. member's persistence in
following up on a newspaper article.
This action took place five years ago in 1992-93. It was
investigated. The file on the action is open to the member. He can
review it at any time. Some of the things that were questioned may
be valid. Certainly it was investigated and the file was closed, but it
is available under the access to information.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is quite
obvious that the answer will not be forthcoming this morning.
What the parliamentary secretary is doing at the present time is
rerunning an old tape we have been hearing over and over for the
past two or three years. We have asked questions about the Somalia
inquiry, we have made proposals to the government, but it is
obvious that nothing works; no answers are forthcoming.
(1125)
Does the Minister of Defence, or his parliamentary secretary
who is here today, agree with us that, out of concern for openness,
his government ought to give thought to creating, in accordance
with Professor Albert Legault's proposal, a position of
parliamentary military ethics commissioner reporting to the House
of Commons, who could carry out a totally independent
investigation into the Armed Forces?
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know the methodology of the hon. member is valid and
honourable, but in this situation with the feigned acting we know
the election is at the door.
If the member had read the report of Justice Dickson he would
know that military justice was reviewed by Justice Dickson. We
intend to bring forward all the information and reforms he
suggested. They will be tabled and will be part of military justice in
the future.
It will give us a stand alone justice system with an ombudsman
to hear complaints where the justice system has gone wrong.
10229
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal pre-election brochure is kind of like a bad smell. I got in the
mail yesterday. I threw it away and there it was again in the
newspaper this morning. It is kind of like something I stepped in
and I just cannot shake off my shoe.
The first thing-
The Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. member not to get in any
deeper than he is.
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, when you open up the brochure one
of the first things it says is: ``Why support the Liberal Party of
Canada?'' Why indeed after 37 tax increases and after broken
promises on things like the CBC, day care and a number of other
issues? The GST promise has to be the biggest whopper of all.
It is very clear the Liberal record is in complete disarray, that the
Liberal record is in flames. Why would people of right mind
support the same hucksters who sold them off last time, ran away
with their wallets and dashed their hopes in 1993?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberal record is a solid record of achievement for Canadians
across the country. If my hon. friend is aware of a bad smell it must
be coming from the Reform platform he is carrying around in his
pocket.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when
we look at the next section of the government's election document
it says: ``Liberal policies at work''.
Maybe their policies are at work but certainly Canadians are not
at work. Right now we have 1.4 million unemployed Canadians,
almost exactly what it was when the government came to power.
There is 20 per cent plus unemployment in Cape Breton and
Newfoundland. The national youth unemployment figure is 17 per
cent. The real unemployment rate when we count all the people
who have dropped out of the workforce is approaching 11 per cent.
Given that horrid record, is the government really intending to
run on the worst job creation record since the great depression?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member keeps making a statement at the end of his
questions that is not accurate as far as I am aware. With respect to
the Liberal record on unemployment there is certainly more to be
done, but the unemployment rate has gone down by some two
percentage points since the last election and close to 850,000 jobs
have been created.
When we talk about a good start, this beats the smelly fresh start
program of the Reform Party. The hon. member should clean out
his pockets. Then he will feel a lot better.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, so
many people have dropped out of the workforce that
unemployment is virtually unchanged from when the government
came to power.
One of the other headings in the document states: ``Make a
donation today''. Indeed if a donation is made, in return the
Liberals say they are willing to listen to you. Certainly it has
worked for Bombardier. We know that.
(1130)
I think the Liberal grease my palm approach to gathering public
opinion says a whole lot about their opinion of regular Canadians
and about their opinion of why they should listen to regular
Canadians. Given their record of pork-barrelling, scandal, broken
promises and incompetence, why should Canadians believe
anything they say when they go to Canadians in the upcoming
election?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians will believe Liberals far more than members of the
Reform Party when they listen to questions like the one just placed
because there is an inherent contradiction in the Reform position.
On the one hand Reformers are complaining about not enough
jobs being created and on the other hand they are criticizing
measures taken by this government, like the Bombardier
investment, to create thousands of jobs. No wonder the Reform
Party is not believable.
Speaking of dropping out, according to the polls and according
to the statements in the House every day, the dropouts are all on the
side of the Reform Party. They are quitting and running as fast as
they can. Why do they fear the electorate? Let them answer that
question.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
On April 14, the minister said, in response to a question by the
Bloc Quebecois on the future of Mirabel airport, that he was
prepared to co-operate with any organization wishing to improve
the utilization of Mirabel, without specifying whether he would
take part in the joint commission created by the Quebec
government. Again yesterday, a spontaneous public protest was
held. Eight hundred people gathered to oppose the closing of
Mirabel, and this is just the beginning.
10230
Given the enormous responsibility of the federal government
in this matter, and considering that its mistakes resulted in
considerable losses for the Lower Laurentians, will the minister
finally be clear and say that he will take part in the work of the
commission announced by Premier Bouchard?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to reply to the hon. member. As the member knows,
she and I both represent ridings that are close to Mirabel.
The member raised a serious issue, and I find it totally
unacceptable that her colleague, who represents another region,
would not think that the future of Mirabel is important. It is
definitely important to me and to my constituents.
Let us not forget that ADM made the decision regarding
Mirabel. As everyone knows, that decision was not made by the
federal government. Moreover, ADM was set up by a previous
government and is structured in such a way as to preclude federal
representation. I am prepared, and so is the government, to do
whatever must be done to help protect the future of Mirabel airport.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the
minister really cared about this issue, he would give us a clear
answer today.
On April 16, the transport minister announced that he would
spend another $60 million, paid in part by Quebec taxpayers, in
addition to the $185 million given to Toronto's Pearson airport on
March 25, to make up for his blunders.
With an election about to be called, will the minister show the
same stubbornness regarding Montreal's airports and say that he is
prepared to sit on the commission to correct the mistakes he made
regarding Montreal and Mirabel?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my colleague, the Minister of Transport, indicated that the
Government of Canada had contributed as much, if not more, per
passenger, at Montreal's airports than at Toronto's facilities. The
hon. member opposite knows that.
The hon. member is asking whether the government will take
part in a meeting convened by the Quebec premier. To this day, we
still have not been invited.
Mrs. Guay: That is not true.
Mr. Boudria: If we do get an invitation, we will be pleased to
attend.
An hon. member: That is totally untrue.
(1135)
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have been looking at the brochure that the Liberals have been
sending around to households throughout Canada and I guess we
see the election strategy is before us. However, I carefully looked
through it and cannot find anything about the broken promises on
the GST. I cannot see anything in there about the promised day care
spaces they were going to create. I cannot see anything in there
about the Somalia affair. I cannot find any of the highlights of this
35th Parliament.
I looked but there are no coupons for the 1.4 million
unemployed. It is too slick to line a bird cage.
I ask the Minister of the Environment, is it true that this brochure
is actually the Liberal contribution to national composting week?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I might just as well ask the hon. member about the fresh start
program or the no start program that is being carried around by his
colleague in his pocket, which may be why he is complaining about
a bad smell. Why does it not say anything about the Reform plans
to destroy the pension system, the health care system and the social
welfare system for Canadians?
Furthermore, I wonder if we might get some kind of medical
opinion as to why the hon. member and his colleagues are so
fascinated by the Liberal program. There must be something in it
they really fear if they keep talking about it. It confirms it is a good
program for all Canadians.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon House leader has caught me. I have found some interesting
things in here. The three things I found most interesting were
reforming the Young Offenders Act, reforming the parole system
and reforming the employment system in this country. If we really
wanted to do it right we would just elect a Reform government and
this document would not be necessary.
In the spirit of non-partisanship to which we have become
accustomed I wonder if the environment minister could tell us what
he is going to do to protect all Canadians from the noxious gases
that seem to be flowing freely here in the House of Commons
today.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I think the answer would be embarrassing to his colleague who
asked the first question because he is the first who complained of a
noxious smell. I identified for him the source, the Reform program
10231
that he carries around in his pocket. I think the two of them had
better go behind the curtains and settle the problem before they
create a bigger one for all of us here.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is still all over the
map with the linguistic school boards issue. After cosying up to
Alliance Quebec and The Gazette, he tried to drive a wedge
between Quebec and the bishops; now he is painting extreme
scenarios in an effort to encourage Catholic pressure groups.
Can the minister tell the House what his real objective is in
making this kind of remark and in stirring up possible conflict?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government's objective is of course to help
Quebec society modernize its school system. That has been our
objective from the beginning.
The Bloc Quebecois has given vent to all sorts of insults and
accusations since this issue first came up. The question is why, and
the answer is crystal clear: from the beginning, the Bloc has tried to
create antagonism between anglophones and francophones with
respect to the school issue, because the Bloc wants to make the
Liberals out to be a pro-English, anti-French party.
The Bloc is wasting its time, because the Liberal Party of Canada
includes all sectors of Quebec and Canadian society.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
psychology, what the minister just did is called projecting.
There has been a failure to act. We have heard his inflammatory
remarks, and now, with the company he has been keeping over the
last few days, we do not know what to think.
Can the minister confirm that his sole objective is to delay the
amendments Quebec has requested by calling for a joint
parliamentary committee, which will never see the light of day in
the 35th Parliament in any event, and that all this is merely a
strategy so that the movements opposing Quebec's consensus can
get organized and block this consensus that exists in Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has said it was very happy
to sponsor the proposal submitted to us by the National Assembly
and thus to help modernize the school system.
(1140)
We are going to do this with full respect for the democratic
values of Quebecers and of other Canadians. The official
opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, keeps droning on about Alliance
Quebec and The Gazette for reasons I explained earlier, but
everyone disagrees with the Bloc on this issue.
Let me give a few examples. Agnès Gruda of La Presse had this
to say: ``In the end, Ottawa is right. Pushing for a vote on the
constitutional amendment before the federal election is completely
artificial. It has taken Quebec City two years to come up with its
request, which it forwarded to Ottawa only two weeks before the
election call. There is no national emergency that requires us to
move full steam ahead in an emotional climate that can only be
detrimental to the debate''.
Michel C. Auger, of the Journal de Montréal wrote: ``It is very
difficult to ask the federal government to hurry up when we know it
took the Government of Quebec several months to decide on the
wording of a constitutional amendment and another three weeks to
put it to the National Assembly''.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, every time a rural person
in this country turns around the government or one of its agencies
throws dirt in his face.
Why should rational farmers who are going to have to deal with
rail line abandonments, gun registration, grossly increased CPP
payments and empty promises to modernize grain handling and
marketing support their sworn enemies by supporting this elitist,
urban centred government?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my hon. friend overlooks the reality that the Liberal Party is proud
to have in the House rural members from every part of the country
who are doing an outstanding job of reflecting the interests of their
constituents.
It is clear from the effective action of the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food and the Liberal team on this side of the House that
we have a record of achievement which fully justifies the rural
voters of this country's not only returning the Liberal members
from rural areas but electing a lot more and getting rid of the
useless Reform members who are still hanging around.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it has been mentioned a
few time in the
10232
House that there are some rural Liberal members. Unfortunately
their first loyalty is to the Liberal Party. About their 11th loyalty is
to their constituents.
Nobody suffers more than farmers from the collapse of a
national transportation system. When they have produce to move to
market it is kind of handy to have a railway or a road.
When will the government allocate a reasonable share of the $5
billion that it takes out of Canadians' pockets every year in fuel
taxes to help the provinces rebuild and refurbish the disintegrating
highway system so that it is safe and partially serviceable?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I find the question from the member opposite at least unusual. He
and his party criticized the infrastructure program after the last
election, after proposing it to their constituents, and now they are
asking for a similar program to repair roads and infrastructure
again.
It is the policy of our party and I thank the hon. member for
finally supporting us in our initiative for infrastructure. I hope he
convinces the premier of Ontario to sign on with the rural members
of the Liberal Party and with the rest of Canadians in having a new
infrastructure program.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.
General Motors plans to invest $14.7 billion in retooling its
plants throughout the world. Of that amount, $1.4 billion will be
invested in China. Oshawa is also on the list of plants that will
benefit, but there is nothing indicated for Boisbriand in Quebec.
(1145)
Since the federal government has loaned $110 million to the
Boisbriand plant, it cannot be unconcerned about its future, which
depends on a retooling which would cost $300 million.
What does the minister plan to do to ensure that the Boisbriand
plant benefits from the investment required for the retooling on
which its future depends?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am certain that, if an application is made which fits the program
criteria, the government will be very open to giving it serious
consideration. I will pass this worthwhile question on to the
minister responsible.
When programs meet the necessary criteria, we are interested in
developing the automotive industry anywhere in the country.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, more than 1,000 GM workers at Boisbriand are currently
waiting to be called back to work.
Can the minister assure us that he will follow up on the $110
million that has been paid out, and that he will insure that the
people concerned will be called back promptly?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the decision for such a callback is in the hands of company
management. The government does not have the power to order
people to be called back to work in any plant in this country.
I am sure that my colleagues with responsibility for industrial
development matters will do their utmost to help this company
attain greater market success, with the result that the workers will
be called back. This is something we all wish for, in the interest of
the region and in the interest of our country.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ron Fewchuk (Selkirk-Red River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
many members of the House are aware, Manitoba has been struck
with a very serious flood that has impacted the lives of many
Manitobans. This weekend people from all over Manitoba are
gathering together to fight this disaster and to help the flood
victims.
Will the minister of revenue tell my constituents and the people
of Manitoba what the federal government is doing to help the
victims of this terrible disaster?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of all members in this House, we recognize the
concern that the member for Selkirk-Red River has on behalf of
his constituents and all Manitobans who are fighting the rising
waters of the Red River.
Without question, all Canadians are watching the media reports.
As the water rises and we see the evacuation of Manitobans from
their houses, from their properties, we feel their isolation and their
concern.
We take some heart and hope when we see all levels of
government working productively and positively together, the
federal government, the provincial government and the municipal
government in support of Manitobans.
My colleague the minister of defence visited the area. He has
deployed over 1,500 members of the Canadian forces to work side
by each with Manitobans as they evacuate, as they sand bag. The
10233
Minister of Foreign Affairs is there today with his constituents
announcing support from the federal government, working with the
province, working with the municipalities.
All Canadians are watching Manitobans with concern and with
hope. Let them all understand that they have Canada in their corner.
* * *
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to
the question my colleague from Saskatchewan asked, I cannot help
but think that canoe museums, hotels, tennis courts and boxes in
stadiums do not help to move grain.
We are coming to an election apparently. That means people
seeking election will go to the electorate and make promises.
I would like to ask a question of the government with respect to a
very explicit promise made in 1993 by the Liberals. It was written
right in the red book. It was the one that said the government would
appoint an independent, underline independent, ethics counsellor
who would report directly to Parliament. These words are directly
from chapter six of that book. That has not happened. The ethics
counsellor is not independent. He reports to the Prime Minister and
he does not report to this House. He has not yet.
(1150 )
As the Liberals now go to the electorate, how will they explain
this discrepancy between what they have said in words and what
they have actually done when they had a clear opportunity to fulfil
that promise without anything impeding them?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it has been a real achievement to create the position of ethics
counsellor. One can debate about whom the individual should
report to but I think this is a meaningful response to the
commitment in the red book.
If my hon. friend is serious about his question, then he will
abandon his position as a Reformer and support the Liberals so we
can go on and make further progress in this area of ethics. We have
a government we can be proud of when it comes to integrity,
comparable to any other in Canadian history.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the question
actually was not whether or not what the counsellor is doing is fine.
It really is not. In the red book the Liberals promised that he would
be independent and that he would report to Parliament. That has not
happened.
As these members of Parliament seek re-election, what do their
words, whether printed or spoken, really mean? Are they prepared
to fulfil them if they get another mandate? And we do not think
they will.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
a very substantial part of the Liberal platform has been put into
effect. We can be proud of what we have achieved.
The hon. member's question strongly creates the impression that
he expects the Liberals to be re-elected. Otherwise he would not
have asked the kind of question he did. I thank him for his
endorsement. I will use it in my next pamphlet.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question was intended for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Since February 28, Quebec volunteer Serge L'Archer has been
held hostage in the Sahara desert by Toubou rebels who are against
the authoritarian regime of Niger.
Who is in a position to inform the House of the latest
developments surrounding the detention of Mr. L'Archer in Niger?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it will be a pleasure to answer the hon. member's question.
I personally had an opportunity to meet authorities of Niger,
including a number of ministers, the ambassador and several
others, and I asked them to do everything in their power to secure
Mr. L'Archer's release as soon as possible.
I personally spoke to members of Mr. L'Archer's family and to
his employer, the CECI. The Canadian government is still
demanding the release of Mr. L'Archer. Our ambassador has
intervened locally, on our behalf, to have him released as soon as
possible. We have reiterated our request for his immediate release
to those who are holding him hostage.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since so
far, the minister's actions do not seem to have been successful, I
would like to ask another question.
Considering that Libya has right from the beginning financed
and trained the group of rebels who are holding Mr. L'Archer
hostage and that it still seems to have some influence with this
group, does the government intend to put pressure on Libya in an
attempt to obtain the release of Mr. L'Archer?
10234
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Canadian government has not spoken to the Libyan
government about this matter.
We have approached the government of Niger, the embassy of
Niger in Canada, our own ambassador in the area and all legitimate
authorities to ask them to intervene in this matter. We will continue
to do so. I reiterate the Canadian government's request that Mr.
L'Archer be released as soon as possible.
* * *
(1155)
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Transport has falsely claimed that the $60
million Pearson settlement combined with the $185 million rent
gift to the new Pearson airport authority will create 10,000 jobs.
The truth is with legal costs added to those figures no jobs will be
created without the spending of additional money. Where is that
going to come from?
The Pearson contract that the Liberals breached prohibited the
contract holder from introducing a passenger head tax at terminals
1 and 2. What is the Minister of Transport going to do to ensure that
the new airport authority will not subject those using Pearson
airport to a passenger head tax to pay for his costly error in
handling the Pearson contract?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if this government had structured the agreement with the
independent airport authority in such a way as to tie its hands
completely, the member would be the first to criticize the
government.
We have created a local airport authority in Toronto as we have
done in other cities across Canada. We strongly believe that there is
no one better than the local community to direct the airport and
make it work properly and in a prosperous manner for the benefit of
all Canadians, not simply to hand it over to a group of lobbyists the
way the Reform Party was advocating we do not that long ago.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister completely ignored the question. I will try a
different transportation mode.
In answer to an earlier question he stated that the infrastructure
program was the answer to the highway repair system.
The total federal spending on the infrastucture program
amounted to 40 per cent of one year's collection of federal excise
revenues on fuel. The transport committee travelled from one end
of the country to the other and heard from a majority of people that
there had to be dedicated revenues of at least 20 per cent of that fuel
tax revenue. The government ignored them.
Why does the government bother to consult with Canadians if it
is going to ignore what it hears?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I take note of the further input and support by the hon. member
along with his other colleagues for the infrastructure program
initiated by the Liberal government.
He knows of course that the program was immensely successful.
Obviously that is why he is asking for an extension of the program.
Need I remind Canadians as well that over 100,000 jobs were
created by the previous infrastructure program. Phase two of the
program is well under way. The province of Ontario has yet to sign
but we hope it will very shortly. This will enable municipalities that
have the greater responsibility for roads together with the province
and the federal government to construct even better roads in the
province, which is our wish.
I thank the hon. member for his continued support for the
infrastructure program.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as a rural member of the House, I have often heard the
minister of agriculture state that he has set goals in conjunction
with the provincial ministers of agriculture for greater exports in
agriculture products and agri-food.
The minister has set that goal at $20 billion of exports by the turn
of the century. How well are we doing in reaching that goal and
what strategies are in place to serve agriculture in this area?
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when
we look at agri-food exports it is certainly a good news story, the
kind of story Canadians want to hear about.
[Translation]
Statistics Canada figures show that we are already exporting
$18.8 billion worth of agri-food and agricultural products. We must
recognize however that this could not have been achieved without
the efforts by this government, and the minister in particular, in
leading trade missions abroad to promote Canadian agricultural
and agri-food products.
We are on the right track. We will certainly meet and quite
possible exceed our $20 billion target.
10235
If you will bear with me for a moment, since this is probably
my last chance to do so in this Parliament, I want to thank you
all for your co-operation and especially for your friendship.
* * *
(1200)
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the government House leader. He is aware that it has
been discovered that the amendments which were made to the
Canada Elections Act with respect to staggered voting hours are
going to have an adverse effect on Saskatchewan, I might say an
unexpected effect on Saskatchewan. An oversight that was built
into the legislation has come to light.
The Prime Minister received a letter from the premier of
Saskatchewan asking that the government address this problem in
some way, either legislatively or alternatively, and I quote from the
letter: ``that the Chief Electoral Officer provide a clear
interpretation of the original intent of this amendment''.
I wonder what the intention of the government is with respect to
this problem and whether it will be consulting with the Chief
Electoral Officer to see whether anything can be done about this.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank my hon. friend for a useful and important question.
I draw his attention to the actual text of the legislation. It
establishes voting hours by time zone and not by province.
Saskatchewan has two separate time zones, each covering a
different portion of the province.
This is not limited to Saskatchewan. I am informed that part of
eastern Quebec is in a different time zone than the rest of the
province. It is in the Atlantic time zone. I am referring to an area in
the Gaspé. Part of Ontario is in a different time zone than the rest of
the province, namely, Kenora-Rainy River.
The matter could most easily be dealt with if the legislature of
Saskatchewan passed a relevant resolution to declare the province
of Saskatchewan all under the same time zone for electoral
purposes. In any event, I am informed that because of the way the
act is written it does not mean that anyone in Saskatchewan is
deprived of the right to vote in normal voting hours.
I have consulted with the Chief Electoral Officer in this regard
and if there is further information to provide I will be happy to do
so.
I want to point out again that the legislation is not based on
voting hours in provinces but on time zones. That is the reason why
this issue has arisen.
The Speaker: This brings question period to a close today,
notwithstanding the fact that I do not have any more information
than you have.
[Translation]
This may have been our last question period of the session.
[English]
I want to thank you very much for serving this Parliament and
Canada as well as all of you have served our people.
I want to personally thank you for the great honour that you have
given me to be your Speaker during this session. I wish you all well
in the upcoming elections. God willing we will all be back to
continue in our service to Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it would be more than appropriate if I, on behalf of members of the
House, thank you, sir, for your service to the House as the Speaker.
You have carried on your duties with professionalism and dignity,
warmth and humour, and we certainly appreciate that.
If by some chance we are here next Monday, all the good
sentiments expressed about you and Parliament and the members
of Parliament I am sure will continue to apply.
(1205)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I add my voice to the government House leader's to say
that, while we may not always have seen eye to eye and agreed on
how things should go, we have always appreciated your honest and
straightforward approach in the position you occupy.
It was a pleasure to be here to defend the interests of Quebec of
course, but also, in some ways, those of Canada, since we played
our part as watchdogs on a number of issues. I very sincerely hope
we will be back with a new mandate to work together toward
Canada's prosperity, and especially Quebec's.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker I would also
like to add my thanks on behalf of the Reform caucus to you as
Speaker of the House. I also note our appreciation for the give and
the take, the adversarial system, the democratic system, working
well in the House during the 35th Parliament.
The challenge was great for you when we started. There were
some 200 new members you had to assist and bring through a very
delicate process at times. We think you have done well. We would
10236
like to thank you for your service and we look forward to the
service that will be provided in the 36th Parliament of Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to add to what has already been said in regard to the
possibility that we all, including yourself, may not be here next
week to enjoy each other's company.
Although our differences are a matter of public record with
respect to how this Parliament was organized in its early days in
terms of party status and other matters like that, I have never
questioned your dedication to this institution and the fairness you
have been able to exercise within the limits that have been set and
that to some degree you set for yourself early in this Parliament.
For the benefit of others, although some members of Parliament
may well know this, some of us have had the benefit of attending
Forum for Young Canadians dinners. One thing that has always
struck me in talking to these young people has been the very deep
impression that you, Mr. Speaker, have made on them. I am not
kidding when I say that they rave about you, Mr. Speaker, at dinner
time. They have come away from the sessions they have had with
you, Mr. Speaker, with a respect and an affection for Parliament,
for this institution and for our country. For that in particular we
owe you a great vote of thanks.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what would
the last day be without a point of order?
During question period a topic came up about a smelly substance
and I would like to identify that as a Liberal deodorant called
Shameless.
The Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I would
like to point out a geographic fact. Saskatchewan is all in one time
zone. It is on continuous mountain daylight saving time. As usual
the hon. House leader for the Liberal Party does not know what he
is talking about.
_____________________________________________
10236
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table two sets of
documents. First, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a
number of order in council appointments which were made by the
government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these have
been referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
(1210 )
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I
have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
government's response to 31 petitions.
* * *
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
34, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, a report
from the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary
Association concerning the 46th parliamentary seminar which took
place March 4 to 15, 1997, in Westminster, United Kingdom.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-439, an act respecting the measurement of
economic activity by criteria that reflect resource consumption and
environmental stress.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is an attempt to provide for the
establishment of a genuine progress indicator which would reflect
the cost of all natural resources consumed and the environmental
debt incurred during the process of production, to give a more
realistic measure of real progress.
It would also require that whenever a change in the gross
domestic product is cited in official documents, the genuine
progress indicator or change therein must also be cited.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-440, an act to vacate the conviction of Louis Riel.
10237
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill, entitled an act to vacate the
conviction of Louis Riel, has two purposes.
[English]
First, this bill would vacate the conviction of Louis Riel. Second,
it would recognize Mr. Riel as a father of Confederation, a point
that I have made in the House of Commons in addressing a
government motion of 1992.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-441, an act respecting the
territorial integrity of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this enactment is to affirm
Canada's sovereign indivisibility and to preserve its territorial
integrity.
The Constitution of Canada formed a federal state that is one and
indivisible because this best serves the interests of all Canadians. It
would secure the reputation that Canada now enjoys in the world
community as a nation in which two founding cultures and other
diverse elements have already demonstrated an ability to live and
work together for the common good within a strong and united
federation, Canada.
It is based on the fact that there is no provision in the
Constitution for the withdrawal from the federation of a province
or territory, that the federation may not be deprived of any part of
the territory of Canada except with its consent by due process of
constitutional amendment, and that no province or territory may
unilaterally withdraw from the federation.
No province or territory shall either unilaterally or in
conjunction with any other province or territory attempt to or
declare its intention to secede from the federation and form a
separate state. Canada is constitutionally sovereign and indivisible
and extends fairness to all cultures in all parts of this nation.
No province or territory shall initiate, authorize, sponsor or
permit a referendum to be held on any question purporting to seek a
mandate for the withdrawal or indeed the intent of withdrawing of
that province or territory from the federation without the
federation's consent.
(1215)
I present this for the consideration of the House.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-442, an act to amend the National Capital Act.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this bill to the
House. Our government was elected and has continued to pursue a
policy of open consultative government.
The National Capital Commission established under the
National Capital Act has as its purpose to develop a capital that is a
source of pride and a force of unity for all Canadians. In the process
of doing that, it interacts very strongly with local governments and
has, in its decisions, a very strong impact on the local community.
This bill calls for amendments to the National Capital Act to
require, under certain circumstances and with certain limitations,
that the National Capital Commission hold its meetings in public
and consult with the public in making its decisions.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-443, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(definition of child).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this will be part of a series of bills that I
have introduced. The purpose of it is to make this legislation in
conformity with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
This will ensure that a family is responsible for a child until the age
of 18.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-444, an act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights
(right to housing).
The Deputy Speaker: This proposed bill does not have the
requisite amount of notice and therefore it will require unanimous
consent for the hon. member to proceed with it.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Harb: Mr. Speaker, this bill will amend the bill of rights to
ensure it includes the right of an individual to proper housing at a
reasonable cost and free from unreasonable barriers.
10238
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
The Deputy Speaker: The next bill also requires the unanimous
consent of the House because of lack of notice. Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is another bill in the same
situation. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: There is one last bill by the member for Ottawa
Centre in the same situation. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
(1220 )
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
have been some discussions among the parties for the following
motion. I move:
During this session of Parliament, whenever the House stands adjourned, if a bill
or bills are awaiting royal assent, the Speaker may, at the request of the government,
give notice that the House shall meet at a specified time for the purposes of royal
assent. The House shall meet at the specified time for those purposes only; and
immediately thereafter the Speaker shall adjourn the House to the time to which it
had formerly been adjourned. In the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing
to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Chairman of Committees or
the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in the Speaker's stead for all
purposes of this order.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here from petitioners from
Palmer Rapids, Barry's Bay, Round Lake Centre, Combermere and
Killaloe, Ontario.
They are asking that we request the federal government to
immediately rescind section 55.2(4) of the Patent Act, thus freeing
up millions of dollars in savings.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents I present a petition which
requests that the House of Commons enact legislation to amend
existing legislation defining a marriage as the voluntary union for
life of one woman and one man to each other, to the exclusion of all
others.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting three petitions.
The first is from a group of 75 petitioners from the Edmonton
area asking the federal government to remove taxation on the GST
and in doing so fulfil a pre-election promise of the Prime Minister.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the other two petitions of over 600 signatories from
primarily in the Edmonton area ask that the Parliament of Canada
ensure that those who would murder their spouse and then claim
provocation as a defence be denied the right to use provocation as a
defence in the case of family violence and family murder.
This is of significance to the whole country but is of particular
importance to the Edmonton area as a result of a particularly
egregious situation there.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions to present today.
The first is from residents of my riding of Athabasca. The
petitioners ask Parliament to reconsider and repeal the provocation
defence in the Criminal Code. My constituents do not feel that any
provocation is sufficient provocation to take another person's life.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): The other two
petitions, Mr. Speaker, I present on behalf of my colleague and seat
mate from Yorkton-Melville.
The petitioners urge Parliament to remove the GST from books,
including the Bible, magazines and newspapers.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): The other petition, Mr.
Speaker, is signed by Canadians who are concerned that the
government has used the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child to create legislation, programs and bureaucracy which
undermine the fundamental rights and freedoms of parents to direct
the upbringing of their children.
(1225)
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a
petition that has been signed by over 2,000 residents who are
calling on the House of Commons to ask the government not to
proceed with the site for radioactive disposal at Chalk River.
Most of these residents are in or around Renfrew county. They
are asking that this petition be presented on their behalf.
10239
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The
first one is signed by 113 residents of my riding.
Whereas freedom of choice in health care is becoming
increasingly curtailed and further threatened by legislation and
statutory regulations of the Government of Canada, the
undersigned request that Canada's Food and Drugs Act be revised.
They list several ways but the principal one is that the definition
of food should include dietary supplements and foods for special
health uses and that the definition of drug be amended to include
any substance other than food.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second petition is
signed by 369 Canadians, mostly residents of Swift Current and
some from the immediate area.
Whereas Canadians with disabilities have soundly demonstrated
their skill and competence in many sectors of business and the
labour force, whereas 58 per cent of working age Canadians with
disabilities are either unemployed or not in the labour force, and
whereas the planning and methods of supported employment
programs have proven successful in increasing business and labour
opportunities for people with disabilities, the petitioners humbly
petition Parliament to promote and maintain supported
employment, community placement, training and access projects. I
heartily endorse this petition.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
present three petitions on behalf of my colleague from Calgary
North. Two of the petitions involve citizens from several provinces.
The petitioners are calling on Parliament to remove the GST
from reading material.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the other petition is from Calgarians.
These petitioners are calling on Parliament to upgrade the
national highway system.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions to present.
The first is signed by 100 individuals from my constituency
calling on Parliament not to increase the federal excise tax on
gasoline and to consider reallocating its current revenues from
excise taxes to rebuilding Canada's crumbling national highways.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is signed by 225 of my constituents
and calls on Parliament to establish a DNA data bank on convicted
sex offenders and murderers.
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be
answered today: Nos. 62, 63, 64, 65, 67 and 97.
[Text]
Question No. 62-Miss Grey:
Can the Minister of Justice indicate the number of lawyers defending the federal
government in the lawsuit initiated by former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and
the daily cost of the court case to the federal government?
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): During the
course of the litigation, the government retained five agents to
represent the interests of the defendants: Messrs. Claude-Armand
Sheppard, Yvan Bolduc, Vincent O'Donnell, Bruno Pateras, and
Harvey Strosberg.
The agents were assisted as required by members of their
respective firms. The government negotiated substantial reductions
from the agents'normal hourly rates.
As of January 17, 1997 the Crown had paid out $935,732.60 in
lawyers fees.
In addition to the agents, lawyers with the Department of Justice
in Montreal and Ottawa have worked on the Airbus litigation as
required.
Question No. 63-Miss Grey:
Can the Solicitor General indicate the precise date for the commencement of the
current RCMP investigation into former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, the number
of individuals devoted to the investigation and the daily cost of the investigation to
the federal government?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): In so far as
the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada is concerned, the
answer is as follows: The subject matter of these questions involves
an ongoing criminal investigation. The information requested
cannot be released at this time.
Question No. 64-Miss Grey:
Can the Solicitor General indicate the precise dates for the commencement and
termination of the Airbus related investigation initiated as a result of the complaint
lodged by the Minister of Justice in November 1993?
10240
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): In so far
as the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada is concerned,
the answer is as follows:
As is a matter of public record, on December 2, 1993, the
Minister of Justice wrote a letter to the Solicitor General of Canada
regarding allegations of wrongdoing by the former government. On
December 9, 1993, the Solicitor General of Canada forwarded the
letter to the RCMP.
Upon receipt of the informatiom, the RCMP undertook a review
of the allegations in the Minister of Justice's letter, which it should
be noted, did not refer to Airbus. Having undertaken this review, by
letter of February 22, 1994, the RCMP advised the Minister of
Justice that there were insufficient grounds to commence a
criminal investigation.
Question No. 65-Miss Grey:
Can the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office indicate whether
anyone within those offices, or on contract, was involved in any way in the Airbus
affair, or the ensuing investigations, and the nature of their involvement?
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): No one in the Prime Minister's Office was
involved in the Airbus investigation.
The Privy Council Office did not know of the September 29,
1995 letter of request to the Swiss authorities, or of the RCMP
investigation of Mr. Mulroney until after the letter became public
knowledge on November 18, 1995.
If the Royal Canadian Mounted Police approached any
department of the public service, it was as part of the investigation.
Accordingly, the information requested cannot be released at this
time.
Question No. 67-Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge):
Can the Minister of Justice indicate any/all individuals he, or his executive
assistant, met with pertaining to the Airbus affair, including the name of the
individual(s), the date(s), and the subject matter of their meeting?
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): The Minister of
Justice had no knowledge of the Airbus investigation that was the
subject matter of the lawsuit commenced by Brian Mulroney until
November 4, 1995 when he was contacted by Mr. Mulroney's
counsel, Roger Tassé.
Subsequent to the initiation of the lawsuit on November 20,
1995, the Minister of Justice and his executive assistant received
briefings concerning the status of the litigation as required.
Question No. 97-Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert):
Within the framework of its mandate to coordinate the activities of the Canadian
intelligence community, can the Privy Council Office (including the intelligence
agencies directly or indirectly under its authority) specify, for the 1995 and 1996 fiscal
years: (a) what persons or agencies it authorized to carry out intelligence studies, (b)
what subjects were covered by these studies and (c) what were the costs of each of
them?
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): In so far as the Privy Council Office is concerned,
the Intelligence Assessment Secretariat (IAS) has commissioned
the studies listed below.



![]()
![]()
![]()


[English]
Mr. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-67,
an act to amend the Competition Act and another act in
consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was speaking about some changes to
the act concerning deceptive advertising and marketing practices.
The Competition Act will offer the bureau two avenues, criminal
prosecution whereby the bureau will refer cases to the attorney
general if an infraction has occurred, or civil resolution to rectify
conduct which, though problematic, has occurred unintentionally.
Under the new civil regime most of the deceptive practices now
prohibited under the act will remain practically unchanged and will
become reviewable matters.
(1230)
The bureau can call upon either a judicial member of the
competition tribunal, the Federal Court of Canada or a provincial
superior court. Redress can be obtained through a court order or by
way of consent. Orders to publish information notices as well as to
pay administrative monetary penalties of up to $200,000 for
companies and $100,000 for individuals may be issued. Consent
orders may be entered into and will then be legally binding.
Measures such as these will expedite decision making and
ensure it is done consistently and by a specialized body in the vast
majority of cases. At the end of the day we will have quicker and
more effective resolution of instances of misleading advertising
and deceptive marketing practices.
I now turn to regular price claims, essentially comparisons
between regular selling prices and cut rate prices. As we all know
consumers like to wait until products they want are on sale rather
than buy them at the regular price. Advertising showing how much
one can save over the regular price can therefore be a powerful tool
to attract consumers. The Competition Act already prohibits
materially misleading regular price claims.
Representatives of the retail sales sector as well as some
consumer groups have asserted that the act does not give clear
guidelines on what kind of regular selling price claims may be
made.
Under the amendments the government is proposing,
representations as to the ordinary selling price will be valid if they
meet one of two tests. One is based on the price charged for a
substantial volume of sales. The other is based on the price at
which the product has been offered for sale for a substantial period
of time. According to the new provisions, when determining
whether an order is called for the judge will take into account the
nature of the product and the relevant geographical market. Even if
the representations fail to meet either test no order will be made if
such representations are not otherwise misleading.
On quite another subject, we are proposing amendments to the
provisions requiring advance notice to the bureau of large merger
transactions. An efficient pre-notification process is essential to
allow the bureau to determine whether a transaction would have a
negative effect on competition before the transaction is finalized.
A number of measures are proposed that would improve the
process for businesses by reducing the regulatory burden for no
issue transactions. This will be achieved through reduced
information requirements and greater flexibility to waive the
requirement for pre-notification or for some of the information
required under certain circumstances.
Other measures are directed toward facilitating the review of
transactions raising potential concerns. For example, the amend-
10242
ments will provide more realistic conditions for the issuance by the
tribunal of a provisional order to delay the completion or
implementation of a proposed transaction.
It is widely recognized by experts that some provision for
requiring pre-notification of mergers is essential to preserve the
effectiveness of the merger review process. A more efficient
process will benefit the players directly involved: the bureau and
the merging parties. Ultimately improvements are beneficial to
society as a whole if they help to safeguard competition, which is
still the best way to provide consumers and business with a wide
choice of products at the best possible prices.
I will say a few words about the amendments dealing with
prohibition orders. The Competition Act provides that the court
may, when it has found a person or company guilty of an infraction,
issue a prohibition order enjoining the offender from continuing or
repeating the offence. Independent of any finding of guilt, the
prohibition order can also be issued if the parties consent and upon
resolution of a contested case.
Amendments proposed in this area open up some new
possibilities. In some cases it may be preferable to require
defendants to commit themselves to the adoption of acceptable
behaviour. That is why we propose to allow the courts to issue
orders requiring defendants to take specific measures to conform to
the requirements of the act. Among other advantages this may help
avoid lengthy and extensive litigation.
In the past amending the Competition Act has been along and
difficult task. The amendment procedure we have adopted is based
on partnership and respect among stakeholders often with differing
views. The amendments we are proposing reflect a consensus
among stakeholders. We hope to build on the choices we have
made to provide for a more regular review of the vitally important
Competition Act.
As I said in my earlier remarks before we broke for question
period, the act is functioning generally well but these changes will
enhance its operation.
The details of the bill under review will be considered in detail in
due course. I have merely provided an introduction to some of the
principal changes contemplated and an indication of the benefits
that may result from its passage. This package of amendments is
balanced and achievable. It is the result of extensive consultation
with stakeholder group representatives and consumers. The private
sector, the judicial community, academia and law enforcement
agencies took part in the deliberations of a consultative panel
created to make recommendations to the government. I thank all
individuals and organizations that have worked with dedication to
review the Competition Act, as well as those who have provided us
with the benefit of their opinions.
(1235)
Before coming to the House on being elected in 1993
competition law was an area of practice for me. I can say from my
experience as a practitioner in this area that the consultation that
goes on with the private sector, with people interested in the
strength and operation of the Competition Act, is one of the best
examples of the system working properly.
The amendments to the act at this time, as did earlier revisions to
the act, represent a considerable effort on the part of government
and stakeholders to arrive at valuable and timely solutions to
sometimes complex issues. The proposals before us today have
been carefully developed and considered. I believe they merit the
support of the House.
That concludes my remarks on the Competition Act, but I might
just take a moment while time still remains to me to say this may
well be my last speech before the House. I will not be seeking
re-election. As such I wanted to take a moment, first and foremost,
to thank the people of St. Paul's riding in central Toronto, for
putting their confidence in me and asking me to come here in 1993
to represent them. It has been an honour and privilege to do so.
I also recognize the staff of the House, table officers, pages and
all those who assist us in the functioning of our work. If people
watching our proceedings on television think it is easy and
straightforward, they really need to know the hard work that goes
on behind the scenes, behind the curtain, at the table and in the
Speaker's chair to assist us in moving business along in the House.
I also thank members of my personal staff in Toronto and in
Ottawa who have contributed enormously to my ability to serve my
constituents. They have my gratitude.
In closing I will say a word about serving in the House and about
my colleagues. Some people refer to serving in Parliament as
serving in an exclusive club. I think that is a confusing description.
It is exclusive only in the sense that it provides Canadians from all
parts of the country the opportunity to meet, work together, share
views, learn, grow and do a better job as a result. In that sense it is
very exclusive and a privilege.
The House is a microcosm of our great country. It has been my
honour to serve.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it was an eloquent ending to a speech by the parliamentary
secretary when he talked about his departure from Parliament.
This is my first Parliament. I was rather surprised at the lack of
surprise in the calling of an election when in actual fact we do not
have a fixed election date. Many things have to be put in place to
run the electoral process. I know I am off topic but it all points to
the fact that a fixed election date is probably a pretty good idea. It
works in a lot of democracies and I think it would work very well
10243
here as well. It would certainly level the playing field in terms of
all parties knowing exactly where they stand.
I am joining in the debate today on Bill C-67, an act to amend the
Competition Act. From the outset I would like to say the Reform
Party has no serious reservations with the bill. In fact we are
pleased to see the inclusion of some of the amendments to the
Competition Act. It is important that we keep the debate about
competition open for discussion, what it is and how it could or
should function. In this way we could continue to respond to a
changing business environment and to ensure the legislation set out
is both flexible enough to respond to the marketplace and
efficiently administered in order to be effective.
(1240)
The Reform position on competition is clear. We support
vigorous measures to ensure the successful operation of the
marketplace, such as promoting competition and competitive
pricing and strengthening and vigorously enforcing competition
and anti-combines legislation with severe penalties for collusion
and price fixing. The intent of Bill C-67 supports this philosophy.
It is useful to review the Competition Act to see how it works
and what it is designed to do. It is designed to promote competition
and efficiency in the Canadian marketplace. It forms the legislative
framework for some of the basic principles for the conduct of
business in Canada, applying with few exceptions to all industries
and levels of trade.
We can all agree the act is honourable. The act contains both
criminal and non-criminal provisions. Criminal offences include
conspiracy, bid rigging, discriminatory and predatory pricing, price
maintenance, misleading advertising and deceptive marketing
practices.
As we see in Bill C-67 the issue of telemarketing falls under
these provisions. Other areas that fall under the act are reviewable
matters including mergers, abusive dominant position, refusal to
deal, consignment selling, tied selling, market restriction and
pricing. This would include such areas and items as gasoline
pricing.
The enforcement and administration of the Competition Act are
carried out by the director of investigation and research who heads
the competition bureau at Industry Canada. At present that
individual is Mr. Konrad von Finckenstein. When the bureau
becomes aware of a possible competition offence, the facts are
examined to determine whether they raise a concern under the act.
If the director believes on reasonable grounds that an offence under
the act has been or is about to be committed, an inquiry is
commenced.
Inquiries can also commence when the minister so directs or
when six Canadians make an application for an inquiry. Recently
we saw an inquiry commence on the issue of gas pricing in the
Ottawa area, for example.
Although the director can use formal investigative tools to
gather information, in cases where the director believes a criminal
offence has occurred matters are referred to the Attorney General
of Canada for prosecution before the criminal courts.
Bill C-67, which the Reform Party supports, enhances the
current Competition Act. We are pleased to see the issues of
misleading advertising and deceptive marketing enhanced and the
issue of deceptive telemarketing addressed. The act currently
addresses deceptive marketing. Bill C-67 provides for a more
effective means of punishment and is an improvement.
If consumers find themselves victims of deceptive marketing,
for instance false advertising, the bill sets out new provisions that
will make the system more effective both in terms of
administration and cost. Under the current act, when infractions are
committed criminal prosecution is obligatory. The new provisions
will create a dual regime of c