Hansard does not record standing ovations.

For what it’s worth…

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Pursuant to standing order 98, the honourable member has 12 minutes for her presentation.

HELENA JACZEK, MPP

Ms. Helena Jaczek: At the outset I would like to make sure that everyone knows that this bill, Bill 102, An Act to amend the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000, is co-sponsored by my colleague from Parkdale–High Park and my colleague from Parry Sound–Muskoka. I think that this type of collaboration is something our constituents expect of us. We know that in our ridings many people did not actually vote for us or our party and it is our duty to represent them in this House wherever we can. It has been certainly an interesting and very satisfying experience to work with my two colleagues on this particular bill.

I’d also like to recognize in the west members’ gallery some supporters of the bill: Les Stewart, the founder of the Canadian Alliance of Franchise Operators, and Detective Fred Kerr, the corporate fraud manager for York Regional Police’s major fraud unit.

…

The Legislative Assembly of Ontario
Toronto, Canada
September 23, 2010

• http://infofranpro.wikidot.com/20100923-second-jaczek1
• http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do?Date=2010-09-23&Parl=39&Sess=2&locale=en#P953_222324

My project work in franchising

There was no map or rule book in testing the limits of the industry.

By nature, these were all unreasonable actions from the conventional viewpoint.

To me, they were just taking one step ahead of the other.

• national franchisee association (Canadian Alliance of Franchise Operators),
• defined Big Franchising,
• manual archive of published articles,
• investigate government guaranteed loans (predatory franchise lending),
• multi-million dollar one party lawsuit,
• group lawsuit (Grand & Toy, Tupperware),
• request made to for support from Ontario government (letter/proposal: Information Sharing Project),
• class action,
• digital archive of documents (WikiFranchise),
• national attorneyless franchisee association (National Bread Network),
• franchisee-created trademark system wiki,
• a franchisee-funded private equity structure (The Grange Fund).

Not bad.

[At Play]

Tupperware, Les Stewart, CAFO and freedoms, 1

Franchise freedom of speech and association in Canada, circa 2004.

Two pages of a Record of Motion filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice by Michael Shell and Drazen Bulat on behalf of their client, Tupperware Canada Inc. on September 23, 2004.

– and-I voluntarily closed down the “TupperWars” section of CAFO‘s website in response to this challenge (see context). This happened days after we (for the first time) sent out a series of emails to U.S. franchisees/distributors.

We received zero requests to stop the emails from franchise investors.

Only through organization can franchisees access new-found justice

The Canadian judiciary is rapidly creating a franchisee-sensitive justice environment.

Franchisees need to help themselves, too.

In 1998, we published a mission statement for the first Canadian national franchisee association: Canadian Alliance of Franchise Operators, CAFO. A place where leaders for each franchise system could be developed (an association of associations).

It was going to:

improve the equity within the franchise industry, be recognized as the definitive franchisee voice in Canada, and promote responsible and enforceable government regulations.

It would be done through education, a Franchise Industry Registry, advocacy, research, legislation, membership services and the Canadian Centre for Franchise Excellence.

Ted Dixon at the INFO Franchise Newsletter published our objectives and WikiFranchise.org has an archived copy here.

Canadian Alliance of Franchise Operators, CAFO 1998-2005

We started CAFO in 1998. These were its goals.

I killed it off in December, 2005.

I have no idea who Elizabeth Miranda is but I have a very, very good understanding about what WSIcorporate.com is up to.

This is kind of CAFO’s death certificate.

Trade Show activism: Counterspin the Lies on their Selling Field

This ad appeared in today’s Toronto Star.

Just a few points:

1. Contrary to the heading, you do not “buy” a franchise. You sink cash into this type of business opportunity and hope to achieve a salary and ROI over the life of your license of using the trademark using a promised “proven system”.

2. Small business is always a lot harder than you’d ever think. It takes years to develop the technical, management and decision making skills to be a success. Often the cash burn rate in franchising is so great that you never get to see profitable times: You simply flame out too early.

3. Your first contact with a trademark franchise system should never be at  a trade show. You are at a very big disadvantage at a trade show: they control the atmosphere, appear much more successful than they actually are and give the false sense of being in a group of profitable businesses.

Big Show costing Big Dough: National franchise associations such as the Canadian Franchise Association rely very heavily on the revenue that these shows deliver. These types of shows are ground-zero in the subtle and not-so subtle art of persuading mom and pop investors that the next franchise will make them a millionaire.

In 1998, I showed up with a CBC television crew to the fall CFA show. We handed out pamphlets warning attendees, intercepted the minister as he was exiting from his franchisor rah-rah speech (the last time an Ontario minister showed up, I think) and barged our way into the trade show to get some grip-and-grin footage with thinly smiling salespeople.

• The CFA and their supporters were not amused.
• Everyone pays a lot of money to bamboozle the next chump.
• They certainly don’t need anyone coming to piss on their parade.

Their carefully planned PR news puff piece, was turned inside out: Toronto viewers instead saw a be careful of the predators out there story instead.

I guess it was predictable that Dan Farmer of the Royal Bank of Canada would insist that I never show up at another franchise trade show if I wanted financial support for the Canadian Alliance of Franchise Operators. I kept my word although I never saw $1 from any of the 5 banks that financially underlay all Canadian franchising.

In 1998 we had to convince a television editor to assign a reporter, a videographer, record, edit and then air the results. Tough getting media attention because franchise fraud is pegged as a niche audience item.

A little over 10 years later, someone just needs to:

1. slip a digital camera in their jacket,
2. record a few clips,
3. use free edit software,and
4. create and post YouTube video (I’ve already reserved a FranchiseFool channel, btw) that shows examples of how franchise salesmen openly lie at a trade show because the franchise agreements that give them a License to Lie, Cheat and Steal (kudos to Blue MauMau) from mom and pop investors.

Reza Solhi and 3 for 1 Pizza & Wings

Sean over at FranchisePick asked me if I knew of Mr. Solhi’s work.

• I do and
• I keep an eye on AnthonyFranchiseInformation.com, too

Please note the first 6 articles that the Information Sharing Project would return if it were alive on the internet (searched for tradename). Download the entire article if you like.

1. Frustrated franchisees call for legislation, The Globe and Mail, December 3, 1998 Excerpt from article: Jesu Dasan figures he lost $180,000 in the 20 months he operated a fast-food franchise in Scarborough, He alleges the franchisor changed the terms of the contract, which drastically reduced the number of homes his business was allowed to service. [download pdf]
2. Ontario introduces bill to protect franchisees, The Toronto Star, December 4, 1998 Excerpt from article: “Everything goes to (the chain) … These people cheat us and we’ve lost everything.”…Vahdati said she and her husband spent $100,000 on legal costs in a fruitless court fight against the pizza-chain owner. [download pdf]
3. New franchising  law called sales job: Ignores ongoing illicit practices, operator rep say, The Toronto Star, December 5, 1998 Excerpt from article: “This is the wooliest thing I’ve ever seen,”…Commercial Relations Minister Dave Tsubouchi “is just like one of the franchise hustlers,” said Stewart. “He’s selling an idea and there’s nothing in it.” [download pdf]
4. Franchise laws welcome, The Toronto Sun, December 8, 1998 Excerpt from article: “What a disappointment.”…“This law is worse than what exists now, which is nothing,” snapped Les Stewart, founder of the Canadian Alliance of Franchise Operators. “It will only lull potential entrepreneurs into a false sense of security.” [download pdf]
5. A declaration of war: breaking into the business, The desperation tactic of gaining entry to a locked business, known as ‘self-help’, is seen as an occasionally useful skill when relations hit a sour note., The Globe and Mail, January 13, 1999 Excerpt from article: Gaining entry to a locked business under cover of darkness isn’t taught in franchise manuals, but it’s a skill that both franchisees and franchisors occasionally find useful. [download pdf]
6. The great franchise trap, The Indo-Canadian Voice, January 15-27, 1999 Excerpt from article: The family lost $150,000 and sadly, the man who put his life’s savings on this scheme, is today on welfare…“These people need to be protected. It is mostly the new immigrants who fall victims to such schemes. And in Ontario, there is very little by way of laws that can protect them in times of dispute.” [download pdf]

Anyone know what happened to these franchisees who were mentioned in the articles?

• Wasim Ansari,
• Tarek Fatah,
• Rayappu Jesudasan [Jesu Dasan],
• Ali Mahmoudzadeh,
• Nhan Van Nguyen,
• Fereshteh Vahdati, or
• Ali Mehmood Zadeh

Or the other  people?

Richard Cunningham, John Deverell, Peter Macrae Dillon, Howard Hampton, Mike Harris, Murray Katzman, Linda Leatherdale, Ned Levitt, Tony Martin, Reza Solhi, John Southerst, David Sterns, David Tsubouchi, Dawn Walton

And these organizations?

Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Canadian Alliance of Franchise Operators, Canadian Franchise Association, 3 For 1 Pizza and Wings, McDonald’s, Tim Hortons, Golden Griddle,  Siskinds, Cromarty, Ivey & Dowler, Canadian Tire, 3 for 3 Pizza Ltd., Canada Post, Ontario New Democratic Party

The sympathetic Toronto lawyers are there to manage your anger. That’s their job for the industry: a soft landing, breeding passivity.

A franchisee white knight (the appearance of franchisee advocacy while acting to weaken franchisees’ rights; a traitor) lawyer:

• to ensure that learned helplessness infects the immigrant leaders by raising then dashing your hopes for justice.

No Canadian lawyer can survive financially by representing only franchisees. It is impossible. They HAVE to have to behave in an acceptable manner (don’t rock the boat) or the industry elite will not allow them to exist.

1. The appearance of an opposing position provides the pretense of industry balance to outsiders.
2. You are NOT protected by a lawyer’s theoretical fiduciary duty to a client when you talk to them initially. That protection is ONLY when you are in a solicitor:client relationship (a contract: agreement, money exchanged, etc.). Do NOT rely on his advice at this stage: He maybe protecting the industry’s interests (not yours).
3. Because law services are a credence good, you never know exactly how or when your interests were sold down the river.

The antidote to compromised legal representation is a knowledgeable second opinion (ie. a consultant who does not make his living from the industry). They’re rare but if you know where to look for them, they’re out there.

But I’m the most special of all:

I seldom charge anything for my advice to franchisees.

It’s my way of giving back to an industry that has given so much to me and my family over the last 10 years. Call today 1-705-737-4635 and let’s discuss if the lawyers or I was more accurate in predicting Ontario’s franchise industry’s degeneration from 1998 to 2008.

Economic sanctions

The single best defense against things that go bump in the night for franchisees, is a mature and well-financed independent franchisee association, IndFA [see todays Thought-terminating cliche post on Blue MauMau].

1. Each franchise trademark system should have their own.
2. You should never buy into a system that does not have one.

Don’t be fooled: Unless there is a lawyer that the IndFA retains to give independent advice, the salesmen are telling you lies. The franchisor very often creates their own advisory committee to give the illusion of franchisee input. Ask for the lawyer’s name and talk directly to him or her.

National Associations: Starting and running a trademark system is difficult at times.

In the U.S. there are about 5,000 franchise systems and 1,200 in Canada. In Canada, there are only a few dozen functioning IndFAs for one reason alone: The franchisors don’t franchisees talking together.

In the U.S. there is the American Franchisee Association, AFA and the American Association of Franchisees and Dealers, AAFD. In Canada, there isn’t one and Australia’s seems pretty inactive lately.

• I started the Canadian Alliance of Franchise Operators in 1998 and killed it off in 2005.

The only reason I stopped it was because others were using it to give the impression of strength that was not there. I approached all the major Canadian stakeholders (Big Franchising: franchisor association, 5 Canadian banks, product franchisors, law firms, salesmen, Ontario Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Industry Canada etc.) for assistance or financial support.

• Even offered to give the Ministry the Information Sharing Project for free.

Big Franchising’s position has been consistent ever since 1998 when I breached the sacristy of the CFA’s trade show at the CNE with a CBC film crew. Franchising holds it beliefs rigidly: Like some 2nd rate religion or cult.

The irony, of course, is that without their resistance as expressed in my brilliant 6 week banking career [see The Apprenticeship of Les Stewart] and my recent blackballing (RE: providing general and employee benefits to Canadian franchises),I wouldn’t have the time much less the need to be typing away here.

• Funny how things work out, eh?

Susan Kezios: one tough cookie

I had the great fortune of meeting Susan Kezios, the president of the American Franchisee Association in 2000.

She was brought to Toronto from their Chicago, U.S. offices to give expert witness testimony to the Ontario legislature Standing Committee on Regulation and Private Bills on March 6, 2000.

• Here is the link to her testimony.

As you can see, Susan knows her stuff and is fearless in speaking her truth.

The American Franchisee Association was very important to me establishing the Canadian Alliance of Franchise Operators.

She is, however, not without a well-developed sense of black humour. As an example, this is how she left the 13 or so Canadian politicians and various industry hangers-on after her 45 minute “lively” chat about the state-of-the-union in North American franchising:

The Acting Chair: Thank you for your presentation. Safe trip home.

Ms Kezios: Thank you, especially with all the franchisors out there, right?

Dead Logos Walking

I founded the Canadian Alliance of Franchise Operators, CAFO in 1998 and killed it off in September 2005. I used to run a website called cafo.net, too.

I still own the logo [left], the trademark and copyright.

Anyone that would like to use it, by all means, copy and reproduce as much as you want. You may choose to use it selectively but please report back as to its effects.

For some time, I had felt the need to compete with the Canadian Franchise Association, CFA which is the franchisor-only trade association. I guess it is the second oldest in the world, next to to the International Franchise Association in the U.S.

I stopped CAFO when it became apparent that it was being used to give false sense of a franchise investor voice. I’d rather be silent that feed into the misrepresentations, half-truths and silent lies. And these were from the people that claimed to be on the franchisee side [wolf in sheeps’ clothing lawyers].

Clever marketing. Useful for some time, I suppose.

1. The death will never be acknowledged.
2. It’ll start with single-unit investors.
3. Liars believe everyone else lies (so they have lost the capacity to trust even someone who doesn’t).
4. A hint of the desperation and that the law can only divide [not integrate] is shown when the main course fails to show [see 1 and 2].

Take a listen to St. Leonard of Montreal: Everyone Knows

• But strictly on a good taste basis: Which logo do you like better?

Let me know.