Raymond Bonin

[Broadcasting Act, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and with the confidence and backing of my constituents that I stand in support of Bill C-216.

This bill is about protecting the consumer's right to choice and the banning of a marketing practice which should have never been allowed to take hold in this country.

Negative option marketing is a practice by which a company can automatically add a service and its related charges to contracts without the prior consent of the consumer. The service and charge remain as long as the consumer does not notify the company that he or she does not want the new service. It is like someone dropping off a package at one's door and demanding payment unless it is returned. The difference is that the consumer who receives the package at the door can call upon laws to protect his right as a consumer. No such protection is available to the consumer of broadcasting and telecommunications services.

We know we are here today debating Bill C-216 because of the cable revolt in 1995. It is regrettable it took a revolt to bring us to the point of debating legislation that guarantees basic protection for cable subscribers. For all of us, that revolt served as a real eye opener as to the true consideration given to consumers by the CRTC and the cable companies.

The CRTC in pursuit of its mandate and the cable companies in pursuit of profit forgot the consumer who did not want new channels, new packages, or new fees. Hundreds of people called, wrote and faxed my office to protest the changes and the practice.

My response was simple. As consumers, we hold the ultimate power. If one is dissatisfied with a cable company, cancel the cable or reduce it to basic service. Send a strong message. They did and I did. Within a few days, our local cable distributor announced new packages, new fee schedules and new trial periods for new channels. Consumers were successful, but should they need to resort to a revolt to protect their interests? No.

It is our job as responsible parliamentarians to listen to consumers and implement a ban on negative option marketing. This is only common sense. A company should not be allowed to introduce a new service into an existing agreement unless the consumer expressly consents to accepting the new service.

The legitimacy of a contract depends on mutual intent and agreement: an intent to enter into a contract; an agreement on the subject matter of the contract, an agreement on the party's respective obligations to one another and an agreement on the consequences for failing to meet those obligations.

A reasonable consumer would not agree to let another unilaterally modify the conditions of the contract without prior consent. Nonetheless, the courts allow negative option marketing. The CRTC accepts it as a necessary evil and the Government of Canada permits its continuance.

Recently I read media reports that stated a government preference for industry self-regulation and market solutions to deal with negative option marketing. I truly hope this is not the case. Canadians know and appreciate the advantages of competition and the discipline of the markets, but we are not dealing here with open markets. We are dealing with cable companies that have CRTC sanctioned monopolies.

Consumers do not have a choice as to their cable distributors. This represents a significant disequilibrium in power in favour of the companies, unless of course consumers revolt from coast to coast to coast. Such astute market based solutions are not a viable option for protecting subscribers.

Recently Canadians witnessed the CRTC approve the introduction of the V-chip as an effective tool to empower parents and to combat violence on TV. It is ironic that the CRTC did not extend this support for consumer empowerment to the elimination of negative option marketing.

Certainly, the logic behind the power to choose what programs we view applies to the channels we want to receive in our homes. Bill C-216 does just that. In the heat of the cable protest, the experts told us that yes, the situation was regrettable and yes, the CRTC was the broadcasting regulator but it did not have the power to eliminate the practice. We were told that the responsibility for the regulation of marketing practices was couched in the legislative powers of the provinces, presumably under section 91(13), the provincial jurisdiction over civil rights in a province.

The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton has proven the experts wrong. The member must be congratulated for his determination and ingenuity in devising constitutionally valid legislation that will stop negative option marketing. I know the hundreds of Canadians who called my office in January 1995 to protest against the cable companies and the thousands of others who felt powerless faced by the decision of a monopoly support, thank and commend the member for Sarnia-Lambton.

It is said that negative option marketing is a necessary evil, a necessary tool to assist the introduction of Canadian broadcasting services. Few question the need or desirability of Canadian programming nor the urgency to establish a strong presence prior to the inundation of American programming in the 500-channel universe.

However, we must question the method of achieving those objectives. The CRTC will not win over supporters for Canadian programming by permitting cable companies to introduce new channels without obtaining the prior consent of subscribers.

Equity and fairness is at the heart of this bill. It is our duty as responsible parliamentarians to respond today to a situation that has for too long been tolerated. Consumers have not only asked, but demanded, an end to negative option marketing. Protecting subscribers from an unconscionable marketing practice is central to this bill. It establishes a legislative framework in which the consumer matters despite a monopolized marketplace. Protecting the consumer does not only benefit the consumer but it benefits the industry. It sets out the rules for commercial transactions in the sale of broadcasting services. This creates stable and predictable rules and a more level playing field.

However, more importantly, it ensures the long term viability of the industry by guaranteeing that the consumers will determine the success and failure of new channels. If this is not done, consumers will turn away from cable and embrace new mediums that better reflect their choice of programming. I do not believe that such a situation would benefit Canadian programming and the Canadian film and television industries. We must seek a balance between the recognized need for Canadian voices on our airwaves and respect for the consumer.

I believe that banning negative option marketing is an important step, not by far the last, in re-establishing this balance.

I stand in support of Bill C-216 and invite all my colleagues to join me in that support. After all, it is a bill that was demanded by a vast majority of our constituents. In closing, I would like to once again thank the member for Sarnia-Lambton for his efforts on behalf of all Canadians.

[Committees Of The House, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the first report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development concerning the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997.

[Fédération Des Caisses Populaires De L'Ontario, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this year the Fédération des caisses populaires de l'Ontario is celebrating its 50th anniversary. Since the establishment of the first caisse in 1912, the concept of a bank belonging to the community and serving the community rapidly spread to all of Ontario. Today, the Fédération includes 42 caisses, 65 service centres, close to 200,000 members and assets in excess of $1.6 billion.

Franco-Ontarians are rightly proud of their institutions and the central role they play in the development of their community. I invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Fédération and its directors, who are meeting in Ottawa this weekend to plan the successes of the next century.

[Competition Act, April 18th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-266, an act to amend the Competition Act (protection of whistle-blowers).

Madam Speaker, I stand today to introduce a bill entitled an act to amend the Competition Act (protection of whistle-blowers). This bill is about consumer protection, the right and protection of employees who refuse to partake in illegal anti-competitive activities sponsored by their employers which hurt the consumer. It is about improving the investigation and prosecution of companies that engage in price fixing and price gouging.

Consumers continue to be victimized by market-wide fluctuations in the price of gasoline. Both levels of government say that they sympathize with consumers but add they cannot prove price fixing. Consumers know that price fixing exists and demand that governments stand up to protect their interests. This bill provides us with the evidence gathering tools needed to expose how gas prices are really set and put an end to the practice of gouging the consumer at the pumps.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Elimination Of Violence Against Women, March 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage announced, together with heads of Canadian broadcasting corporations, the launch of a national campaign against violence under the theme "Violence, You Can Make a Difference".

This campaign will last throughout the year and emphasize violence against women and children. This multimedia project is aimed at making people aware of the impact of violence on viewers, and of the means available to us to put an end to it.

This project was made possible thanks to the cooperation of a number of federal departments, radio and television networks, community organisations, and Cossette Communication-Marketing. We are pleased to be part of this important initiative, and we urge people to join us in this vast operation to stamp out violence.

[Neutrino Observatory, March 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw the attention of the House to a unique Canadian scientific initiative in my riding of Nickel Belt which will soon help unlock the secrets of our universe.

Sixty-four hundred feet underground in Inco's Creighton mine in the town of Walden, the finishing touches are being added to a neutrino observatory. Underground and shielded from cosmic rays, the observatory will study neutrinos, small particles emitted from the centre of the sun. The results could very well change our understanding of the universe and the very foundations of physics.

The observatory represents an international consortium made of Canadian governments, the U.S., the United Kingdom, universities and Inco Limited. It is a model of how governments and the private sector can partner to achieve great things. It is also a partnership led by Canadians.

I wish to extend my congratulations to all the contributors and in particular to Inco for showing us once again that mining in Canada is on the cutting edge-

[Interparliamentary Delegations, December 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian section of the Assemblée internationale des parlementaires de langue francaise concerning the seminar exchanging views and information on parliamentary democracy in action, held at Port-au-Prince, Haiti, November 16 to 19, 1995.

[Reform Party, December 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians witnessed again the Reform leader's true loyalty and contempt for Canadian democracy.

The Reform leader said he wants to impeach the duly and lawfully elected Prime Minister of Canada, not for wrongdoing, but because he does not agree with his policies.

In a democracy, disagreements are settled in general elections and by the majority of votes in the nation's democratic institutions, not by trying to eliminate or silence by any means those with whom we disagree.

After two years in the House he should know and respect the democratic procedures of Parliament. How far is the Reform leader willing to go in his quest for power? We do not know. But the defenders of democracy must be on guard.

If the Reform leader does not agree with policy, let him come to the House, present his views and let the elected members vote. He will then see that the majority does not share his vision of a divided Canada. If he wants to launch an American style impeachment, let him agree to a vote in the House on whether he should resign. I am sure the result will be more than a 50 per cent plus one split.

[Committees Of The House, December 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

This report deals with the subject of co-management of natural resources with aboriginal peoples. The report discusses the evolution of co-management regimes and recommends the delegation of authority to regulate small scale resource development to local co-management boards.

It is the committee's hope this report can further co-operation between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people and contribute to the sustainable use of our natural resources.

I thank my colleagues from all parties who participated in this study. Through their determined efforts they were able to come to a consensus and produce a unanimous report.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests the government table its comprehensive response within 150 days.

[Bankruptcy And Insolvency Act, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the private member's bill put forward by the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby.

This legislation is a clear example of a good idea whose time has come. In fact, the idea of amending the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act so that people who have been accused of sexual and physical assault cannot use bankruptcy as a way of avoiding penalties imposed by the civil courts has also been raised by government legislation.

Bill C-109 was introduced a couple of weeks ago. Under it, fines for physical and sexual assault become non-dischargeable in the event of bankruptcy. The legislation before us takes this idea one step further and I think it is a good step. Under Bill C-323 the pre- and post-judgment interest on awards would also be non-dischargeable. I want to commend the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby for his foresight in closing this loophole. This is an excellent amendment to the laws regarding bankruptcy.

The hon. member's bill inadvertently opens another loophole. Section 178 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act refers to a number of instances where debts are non-dischargeable. Among them are alimony payments, child support and fraud.

In cases where the courts award pre- and post-judgment interest in these other circumstances, I do not think the bankrupt should be able to escape these obligations simply by declaring bankruptcy. Nor do I think this was the intention of the hon. member when he tabled this legislation.

The bill after all seeks social justice. It is an endeavour to make sure that those who have incurred debts and interest charges by order of the court cannot escape their obligations by declaring bankruptcy.

I am certain that if the hon. member had the opportunity to redraft the legislation, he would do so in a way that would close down the loopholes for the bankrupts listed in section 178. I would suggest to him that the surest way of having his recommendation adopted would be to withdraw Bill C-323 and resubmit his proposal as an amendment to Bill C-109 now at second reading.

I am convinced that the amendment will be welcomed by the committee. We have already heard expressions of support from both sides of the House. We all know that the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby has hit upon an excellent idea and a worthy amendment and we all want to see it incorporated in law as soon as possible.

That is why I support the principle of Bill C-323 but I cannot support the bill as it now stands. I encourage the hon. member to withdraw Bill C-323 and present its substance as an amendment to Bill C-109 at committee. There it will be incorporated into a bill that has been designed to address the broad spectrum of both consumer and corporate issues that relate to bankruptcy.

Many of the amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act contained in Bill C-109 are aimed at redressing an imbalance between consumer debtors and their creditors. The legislation puts more pressure on debtors to rehabilitate and to act more responsibly by repaying their debts. For example, as we have discussed in the House before, most consumer bankrupts are discharged nine months after bankruptcy. Even if they start obtaining surplus income, it is costly for creditors to get back what they are owed.

Under Bill C-109 consumer debtors will be required to remit a portion of their surplus income, the income which exceeds the minimum cost of living. The creditor will not have to go to the courts to receive his due.

The legislation also covers student loans. Some students have declared personal bankruptcy upon graduation as a means of discharging their student loans. Under the new law, students will continue to be able to declare bankruptcy but their student loans will not be discharged for another 24 months.

Under the new amendments, insolvent spouses may submit a joint proposal for bankruptcy. This will help save time, cut costs and streamline the process. Former spouses will no longer be able to use the bankruptcy laws as an easy way to get out of making support payments. Spousal and child support payments become provable priority claims.

The legislation also contains measures to ensure that low income families will not lose their GST credit refunds. Such refunds will be exempted from seizure in the event of a bankruptcy.

All these are good amendments. Among the good amendments is the proposal to ensure that people who have been accused of sexual or physical assault do not use bankruptcy as a way of avoiding penalties imposed by the civil courts.

The hon. member has added a very useful amendment to this last provision. I look forward to discussions in committee on it if he is willing to withdraw his bill.