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-
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
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 civil and criminal offences.
In the case of serious infractions involving repeat offenders or fraud, a criminal regime will be maintained. In less serious cases where an individual or corporation was unaware of the law, the amendments would allow for the infractions to be addressed through civil court by means of fines, cease and desist orders and information notices. This means that civil offences could be addressed without lengthy court delays which can only be an advantage to both the consumer and the taxpayer.
(1245)
Another area which catches our attention is that of the provisions set out to address deceptive telemarketing. Telemarketing as defined by the bill is the practice of using person to person telephone communications for the purpose of promoting directly or indirectly the supply or use of a product, service or any other business interest.
We can all attest to the growth of the telemarketing industry, somewhat ruefully perhaps. I am sure we can all tell stories of being interrupted once or twice by an eager telemarketer during dinner or at some other inconvenient moment. How best to handle the interruption is a subject for discussion. In my case, I am thankful for the invention of the answering machine and private listings.
Whether we appreciate the work of telemarketers or not, there are serious issues concerning telephone marketing which should concern us all. It is safe to say for the most part that telemarketers are above board, but as with any industry, there is the possibility of deception. Many people, particularly seniors, are at the risk of being taken advantage of at the hands of unscrupulous people.
In the buying and selling of products over the phone there are rules of logic we must all follow. It is wise for instance to be suspicious of anyone who might offer money or grand prizes over the phone for a small fee. As well, many of us know it is inadvisable to give a credit card number to anyone over the phone.
As we do more and more everyday activities by phone and as progress and technology make that more and more possible, the old rules simply do not apply across the board. It is not that simple. This can leave the consumer confused: Do I or do I not provide my credit card number to this individual?
The only solution is to ensure that laws exist to address unscrupulous practices. In order for both the industry and the consumer to benefit, the consumer needs assurance that the marketplace is being monitored to assure fair and legal practices. Where telemarketing is concerned, sound competition policy not only means a confident consumer, it means an educated consumer.
By setting out what is required in order to conduct fair telemarketing practices, Canadians will know what they can demand from any financial transaction conducted over the telephone. We are satisfied that the provisions set out in Bill C-67 address these issues sufficiently.
I mentioned earlier that it is important to keep discussion on competition open in order to ensure its effectiveness and efficiency, but the issue of competition has taken on a broader context in the last few years. This is particularly the case where global competition now plays a direct role in determining the economic policies of Canada.
Competition has become the mantra of the 21st century. Governments around the globe promote its merits and its values in generating wealth and in contributing to innovation. Competition dictates policy in everything from free trade in softwood lumber to the information highway and whether we have direct to home satellites in Canada.
(1250 )
If we look closely, we will see that competition is the reason given by governments to explain many things, including why they must spend money on business subsidies and infrastructure programs for example. In fact it seems that the notion of competition has dominated every policy paper, federal budget, government initiative, piece of legislation, committee report, study and countless conferences we have seen since the government came to power. Sometimes it is sad to say it is nothing more than a euphemism for political patronage and/or vote buying.
For the average consumer it must be confusing. As a voter trying to understand economic policy, the emphasis on competition has left many more questions than answers. Can competition be good if the result is downsizing and the loss of jobs? Can competition be good if it means lower wages? Is competition good, we wonder, when the success of the new Wal-Mart means the closure of the local business down the street?
The average consumer should not apologize for being confused or for asking questions or for feeling some anxiety. For too long voters have been left out of the economic process. The answer that because it is good for competition hardly suffices in their attempts to understand which government policies are sound. The truth is that fair competition is a good thing as long as competition in and of itself is not what dictates good economic policy. Fair competition is integral to sound economic policy.
The Reform Party is a strong supporter of the competitive marketplace but we are very aware that competition alone is not enough to ensure the economic stability we seek. Nor will it alone create the kind of marketplace that builds strong industries and businesses and protects the consumers.
Reformers do not accept that in order to have competition it must come at the expense of the taxpayer. Reformers believe in competitive strategies that have substance. We believe there are ways in which we can increase competition by allowing the taxpayer to function freely in the marketplace without compromising the interests of the consumer or at great cost to the taxpayer. In fact, our definition of a competitive Canada would not only save the taxpayer money but would also provide economic stability.
For the sake of good and fair competition, we would take the politics out of economic decision making in Canada. We would not use competition as an excuse for the unreasonable waste of taxpayers' money spent on business subsidies. We would eliminate grants and subsidies to businesses. A business should be able to survive on its own merits. Taxpayers should not support inefficient or ineffective businesses in this manner.
For the sake of good and fair competition, we would support the removal of all measures that insulate industries, businesses, financial institutions, professions and trade unions from domestic and foreign competition. That would mean dropping Canada's internal trade barriers once and for all.
In order to realize fair and good competition, Reform would orient federal government activities toward the nurturing of physical and human infrastructure. We would give greater priority to the development of skills, particularly those that would provide future job flexibility within a co-operative training environment.
We would base physical infrastructure spending on economic criteria rather than on the basis of artificial temporary job creation. In order to realize a fair and competitive marketplace, we would invest in basic scientific research and ensure grassroots investment
in research and development in order to keep Canada on the leading edge of innovation.
(1255 )
If Canada is truly competitive, we will see a better country where the entrepreneur is valued and the small business person is free to grow, where our children are educated and provided with the skills they need to succeed, where families are relieved from an unfair tax burden and where Canadians are free from worrying about their futures. Instead they must be empowered to reach out and grasp every opportunity that comes their way.
Competition must mean something to the average citizen, not just to bureaucrats and policy makers. Canadians must see real evidence of competition in their everyday lives and feel the effects that a truly competitive society provides. That means direct to home satellites. That means freer internal trade. That means prudent regulation of our financial institutions. That means reasonable interest rates on our credit cards. That means fair prices at the grocery store and at the gas station. For that is a country built on sound economic and social policies where the result is fair and good competition, and that is the kind of country Canada can be.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-67, an act to amend the Competition Act and another Act in consequence.
Reading the bill, I got the impression that we were dealing with a bill from the 1970s, from the Trudeau years, when the present Prime Minister was Minister of Justice. The present one seems to share the same lineage.
While the throne speech announced steps to reinforce the economic framework by updating the legislation on competition, bankruptcy and copyright, here we are faced instead with a bill that represents one more intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. Thus, all the new civil provisions on misleading advertising and unfair business practices are a direct intrusion into an area of provincial jurisdiction, namely, local commerce.
In 1989, the Supreme Court recognized the infringement of the old legislation, the Combines Investigation Act, on provincial jurisdiction. Today, in the current legislation, all provisions on misleading advertising and unfair labour practices are criminal matters, and rightly so, because of the weight of the federal government in criminal law. However, Bill C-67 is proposing to create a parallel civil system for such offences.
Let us take the example of Quebec. It has had consumer protection legislation for a number of years. This legislation has even been amended to better meet the needs of the public. It is really forward-thinking legislation, in a way. Now, however, with Bill C-67, there will be two sets of legislation covering misleading advertising and unfair business practices.
It is quite surprising in this day and age when the prevailing view is that business must be regulated as little as possible so as to facilitate the development of small and medium size businesses, to see a bill brought out at the end of the session, almost on the sly, which repeats the same process we saw ad nauseam in the 1970s-the systematic intrusion by the federal government in provincial jurisdictions. As if the provincial governments were incapable of looking after their own jurisdictions.
The present government probably espouses this basic principle that in Canada there is a national Parliament, and it is the one in Ottawa. The others are mere branch Parliaments which should go along with Ottawa's every whim. But that is not how things work.
The Constitution sets out certain rights. The provinces assume their responsibilities. Quebec, for instance, has passed the Consumer Protection Act. I believe that the bill before us today is one more reason for Quebecers to continue having a voice in the House of Commons, that will stand up for their interests and constantly fight overlap and eliminate it whenever possible so that businesses are not hampered by red tape, which they could do without in today's market.
(1300)
For example, I recently attended a trade mission in Maine where 200 business people from that state met 200 business people from Quebec, mainly citizens from the Quebec, Chaudière-Appalaches and Lower St. Lawrence regions, who were there for the first time.
During the long bus trip, I had several hours to speak with business people from the Lower St. Lawrence and they told be some horror stories about problems they encountered when dealing with the government and about the complexity of the regulations. Today, if I were to show them Bill C-67 amending the Competition Act, they would realize we are trying to make things even more complex; this seems totally inappropriate.
For instance, these business people told me it was simpler to register the brand name of a product made in Quebec in the United States than in Canada. This kind of situation is unacceptable. The measures contained in Bill C-67 will increase duplication instead of eliminating it, as it should. What we need is legislation that makes things simpler while taking provincial jurisdiction into account. That is why, in a sense, I am happy to see this bill die on the Order Paper. This way, when we come back in the next Parliament, we will have taken the time to study the bill in committee and to include the respect of provincial jurisdiction as a basic principle.
When the federal government agrees to take that approach, the results are usually positive. The infrastructure program for example was initially designed in a way that respected municipal and provincial jurisdictions, making it possible to allocate funds in an
appropriate way, without having to invade jurisdictions, at least for the part that was defined on the basis of local population.
But there seems to be a hard core of people from the Trudeau era in this government, and the Minister of Industry could be a spiritual son of this era, for he seems to believe that, unless a piece of legislation comes from the federal government, it is not good enough and will not produce the expected results.
When we say that the Bloc Quebecois wants to defend Quebec's interests, this also means, in concrete, practical terms, ensuring that the legislation will not create problems for our business people and fellow citizens as consumers. Given the current situation, the government should go back to the drawing board and take into account the opinion of the Supreme Court, which confirmed that the former act, the Combines Investigation Act, encroached on an area of provincial jurisdiction. The government should keep this precedent in mind and make sure that, when the bill comes back to us, it will have been amended accordingly.
Several provisions deal with telemarketing. The advisory committee felt that telemarketing was a serious problem in Canada, and that it should be tackled by the federal government, rather than by the provinces. Again, this is a somewhat paternalistic approach, given that Quebec's Consumer Protection Act regulates telemarketing quite efficiently. As in many other cases, the provinces can certainly agree among themselves to co-operate in ensuring that regulations are compatible. This is the way of the future.
We live in an era where free trade is being promoted. The government signed agreements with the United States and Mexico, and it wants to extend free trade to the whole American continent. But on the other hand, it introduces bills which create local barriers to telemarketing, while also generating insidious effects that were not anticipated.
The effect of creating more regulations is that major telemarketing companies, the ones that can easily afford lawyers, can always circumvent an act such as this one.
For example, there is a marketing company in Trois-Pistoles, which is in my riding. It is a small telemarketing company that is just starting up. Whenever regulatory problems occur, as would be the case with the amendments to the Competition Act, it adversely affects the company's competitiveness and its ability to get contracts, because such a small business cannot afford the lawyers that could help it find its way through the legislative maze.
(1305)
Therefore, if the federal government really wants to help small and medium sized businesses to expand, to get the largest possible number of government contracts and to compete on a level playing field, it should not introduce bills such as the one before us today.
While Bill C-67 only criminalizes certain illegal telemarketing practices, we must warn the federal government not to interfere in this area of jurisdiction, as it does in many others, by providing for civil remedies which should be the provinces' prerogative.
This is a far cry from this government's so-called flexible federalism. On the whole, Bill C-67 tends to shore up the Bloc's arguments, since the federal government, which should be among those promoting total respect for Canada's Constitution, in sticking to its centralizing tendency, is passing laws which simply are not in its jurisdiction.
Let us imagine this bill being introduced in the House, without the Bloc. Federalists all have a rather centralizing approach. Many such laws were adopted in the past. But today, because we are in the House, and we have a right to speak here, having been elected by the people, and because we hope to be re-elected, the public can rest assured that we represent it and that we will ensure that the very best and most appropriate legislation possible is adopted.
It is essential that there be no more errors like those made in the privatization of Pearson Airport and the creation of ADM, over which the federal government has practically no authority anymore. It does not have the sense of responsibility needed to rein in ADM or seriously address the air transportation problem in the Montreal area.
On such issues, Bloc members have no particular ties preventing them from exposing unacceptable situations. We will therefore continue to promote our views, so that bills like Bill C-67 can die on the Order Paper or at least be sent back to committee for review, and so that, when bills come back to the House, they respect provincial jurisdiction. I think the least we can ask of the government is to take enough time to read Quebec's Consumer Protection Act. It will see that it has no business interfering in this area.
[English]
Mr. Harb: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to the amending legislation to the Competition Act.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. It is entirely the fault of the Chair. The member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup is entitled to questions and comments if there are any.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the legislation came about as a result of the throne speech in which the government promised to look into the Competition Act in order to
ensure its fairness and transparency in order to ensure that it met the needs of the 1990s.
The main objective of the act will be to ensure that the marketplace is fair, that both the rights of the retailers as well as the rights of consumers are protected within the framework of the law. In some cases transactions may take place where a company or potential investors may have to consult the Competition Act. A certain segment of the bill will address and deal with those issues in order to smooth them out.
(1310)
The amendment deals with misleading advertisements as well as deceptive marketing practices. The bill also deals with telemarketing to ensure that when people use telemarketing for the purpose of promoting their product that they tell people specifically what they are selling, the price and the implications.
Other matters the bill deals with are pricing and specials. If a company is trying to put a product on the market and it has a sale, it has to truly reflect what the actual intended selling price is before and after the special comes on line.
It deals with an element that is very dear to my heart and the hearts of my constituents, the element of fair competition. While it does not specifically mention the issues by name, it deals with pricing, price fixing, advertising of pricing, manipulation of the market through misleading advertising and so on. In particular, I am very much interested in the section that touches on gasoline pricing practices in Canada. I believe this act takes another step in the right direction in trying to ensure fairness for consumers.
A lot more needs to be done. I am extremely delighted to see the minister taking the lead on this issue and trying to get this bill through the House so it can go to a committee. At committee, all of us collectively as well as consumers and interested parties can speak to committee members concerning some of the shortcomings as well as some of the good things the government and the minister have done on this issue.
The leadership this minister has shown has ensured that the amendments to the act increase the penalties. There will be up to a $200,000 penalty per offence. This is great when we compare it with what we had before. In some cases the penalties were $2,000 or $5,000 or $10,000. The fact that these measures are now in the bill and that the court can even increase the penalty so it fits the offence is excellent news.
Why do I like this act? I like the amendment concerning misleading advertising and deceptive marketing practices. I have a letter which was received from a company in the United States by one of my constituents. It is from Andrews, Barton & Blaine, a company in San Clemente, California: ``Re: Award control number 134248098''. It begins:
As Sweepstakes Administrators for DAM, Inc., it is our responsibility to locate and notify scheduled award recipients and to arrange for delivery of award cheques to them.Here is the cheque. The cheque is made to the order of the name of my constituent in the amount of $7,500 and is dated April 3, 1997. The cheque is not signed. The letter goes on to say:
Therefore, it gives me great pleasure to advise you that our most recent list of scheduled cash recipients has your name on it.
So there is no misunderstanding, let me repeat this urgent news. A cash award is definitely yours.There is a definite statement that an award is going to be given to my constituent.
All you have to do is claim it, and correctly answer the required skill question.(1315)
If my constituent answered the question, she could win $7,500. The cheque has already been written and delivered. My constituent is required to answer what is 110 times 20 plus 8 minus 5 according to the quiz sent out in the mail by the company.
It goes on further:
No purchase is necessary, and there is no obligation on your part. However, to assure that each recipient gets the correct cash award, we have established strict security procedures, which require you to register your Award Control Number, 134 248 098, with this office by mail or phone before the deadline.In order to ensure my constituent and probably thousands of Canadians that each one of them receives $7,500, the company has established a hot line. In order to dish out the money it has opened its offices seven days a week, 24 hours a day. It is telling constituents and citizens it has targeted that they could use their touch tone to call from anywhere.
It goes on to state:
Do not mail the enclosed cheque back to us. This will only delay processing your claim. When you contact us, we will issue a signed cheque in the correct amount of your award and rush it to you. Keep your security code that appears in this letter confidential until your award cheque arrives.The letter goes on and on talking about the award and increases the award from $7,500 to $14,413. If my constituent were to answer an additional question, the letter continues:
Put very simply-what all this means to you is that you are fully eligible to receive-$14,413 in cash.The number given is a 1-900 number. In tiny letters at the bottom of the letter it says the call would cost $4.99 per minute or that the average call is for eight minutes. It does not say whether this is the minimum length of time they have to answer the quiz but I presume it is.
This is an utterly misleading communication. The company had no intention whatsoever of awarding that amount of money. It was
purely and simply to rob my constituent of $40 if she called the eight minutes required by the company.
The legislation deals with that aspect. It clearly states that the marketer would have to disclose basic information to the consumer in a timely manner and prohibit certain other deceptive practices.
If the amendments to the act were to pass, Canadians and constituents who have dealt with situations like this one would have the answer. The government would be able to deal with the issue.
(1320 )
How often do constituents in my riding as well as others receive letters from companies describing wonderful holidays they could take or the wonderful time they could have on the sandy beaches of the Caribbean, in Europe or elsewhere around the globe?
These companies ask them to send a cheque in a certain amount, in some cases up to $200. When the constituents send the cheques they discover that a further $1,500 or $1,600 is required. Even when that happens, individuals get to their destination only to find their holiday has turned into a horrible nightmare. The bill will deal with those concerns.
I want to share with the House information one of my constituents sent to me in a letter complaining about an organization. The letter reads:
Dear Mr. Harb:
Are you aware of what-are asking senior citizens to do?
The nerve of them to ask us to fight-government, so that they can feather their nests.
Is there anything you or the Prime Minister can do to stop them?
This enclosure will explain what they are doing.This organization sent out a petition on pensions, telling seniors in my constituency that the overhaul done by the Government of Canada to their pensions will substantially cut their pensions and end universality. It also told them that the only way to stop this action was by sending a contribution in the amount of $35, $50, $75, $100 or $250. If they could not afford to send money, they can simply sign the petition and pay a processing charge of $3.50 to help with the cost of handling the petition.
When constituents want to introduce a petition in the House of Commons there are no processing costs involved. All they have to do is sign the petition and it will be sent here. We as members of Parliament on behalf of constituents, whether on the government or opposition side, have the responsibility to table all petitions that can be certified by the House of Commons. I do not know whether there were any petitions tabled in the House signed by senior citizens concerning the pension plan.
I wrote a letter to the constituent on the matter. I promised to raise the matter at the appropriate time. This is the time to tell her that issues such as this one will be dealt with by the amendment to the Competition Act as proposed by my colleague, the Minister of Industry.
The bill will create a criminal and a civil regime in the competition system to allow enforcers to deal with much more serious offences. This section will streamline the Competition Act. It will make it more flexible and allow the government to deal with serious offences and to assign the resources accordingly.
(1325 )
The amendments to the Competition Act which are before the House of Commons are extremely important. Members from all sides of the House have spoken in support of the amendments today.
Congratulations must go to all those who worked on this bill, in its drafting, in writing to the department, in consultations, and to those who gave their views to the department, the ministers and to my colleagues on both sides of the House who have spoken on this issue in the past. Again I want to congratulate the minister on this excellent initiative.
I look forward to seeing this bill go to committee because I would like to propose some amendments in particular as it deals with the whole issue of gasoline price fixing across Canada. And on that I also want to go on record and commend the Competition Bureau on the excellent work it has done. Every time a complaint has been raised and somebody asked it to look into a matter pertaining to gasoline pricing across the country the bureau has looked into it. The bureau has tried its best to address those concerns.
I understand there are some things about which nothing can be done unless the act itself is amended and strengthened so it can deal with those specific issues. I am alluding to the relation between suppliers and retailers which is the subject of ongoing debate both inside and outside this House.
The bill before us is a fantastic step in the right direction. The amendments are long overdue. I want to join with my colleagues in saying how thrilled and delighted I am that finally this act is before the House of Commons and we have a chance to deal with it.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, for his very interesting speeches. I have two questions for him this afternoon.
First of all, and this is a very important question, how are the amendments going to help the constituents he has been talking about?
[English]
Second, I know for a fact that my colleague is most interested in the gas pricing by large companies. I would like to ask him how this law is going to help Canadian consumers.
[Translation]
Mr. Harb: Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle for his very interesting and intelligent question.
I look forward to working with him as soon as we return, either on Monday or next year, and working with our colleagues to continue our work and to make sure consumers on both sides of the river have an opportunity to express clearly and effectively their views on this legislation, as concerns gas prices and relations between businesspeople. We know that this has something to do with what they buy in their own areas.
This legislation deals with these issues related to competition and gas prices. One of the amendments raises penalties to a maximum of $200,000 for each company. Offending companies will be covered by this bill.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.