Mr. Speaker, like the other speakers in the debate on Bill C-216, I too received hundreds of calls over a period of one week in my constituency office. This issue is perhaps the one on which I have received the most calls during my period as a member of Parliament. One resident of Kitchener continues to call me every two or three days on this topic.
The importance of this issue to my constituents is clear. I do not intend to talk today about the questions which have been raised by the member for Kootenay East or the member for Durham, which were on technology and the CRTC regulations in general.
The questions of negative option billing and consumer choice are important to me and to my constituents. Negative option billing is not something new to the cable industry in Canada. It is a practice which has been sanctioned and condoned by the CRTC. With the rapid change in telecommunications and the way in which television is delivered with black box decoders and satellite dishes, the cable industry faces major difficulties in adjusting to market changes.
We know fairly clearly what is in the cable companies' interests in this regard, but we must ask ourselves what is in the interests of the consumers.
When this issue first arose and when I heard about the intention of the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton to introduce this bill, I immediately decided that I would second it when he asked me to do so. I did so because of the interests of my consumers and also because this practice raises other problems in the area of consumer choice.
Some have spoken about Canadian content and have seen that issue to be of particular difficulty. I do not share that concern. In fact I talked to many of my constituents about their reaction to the action by the Rogers cable system. It led some of them to be concerned about Canadian content. Indeed, they even suggested imposing higher Canadian content rules because of negative option billing. In short, there were unintended consequences of the action which impaired the support that Canadian cultural content has had in Canadian broadcasting.
There is a danger. Canadian content is very important. The CRTC, through its regulations, has accomplished some fairly important things. It has promoted the Canadian music industry.
We have heard a great deal about Alanis Morissette recently. At the Grammy awards Canadian entertainers did extremely well. CRTC practices may have in fact created this very strong and vibrant Canadian music industry.
Canadians, in general, support the cultural practices of previous governments in supporting the CRTC and its regulations. However, they do not support a policy which misleads consumers. As the hon. member for Durham said a few moments ago, this is a tactic which has developed. People take these channels without realizing the additional cost. Even after the controversy ended, it turned out that most did not opt out.
This approach undermines moral principles. The CRTC received a lot of criticism. Rogers cable system admitted that this practice would not be accepted. There was negative publicity about the entire industry. The fact that negative option billing still exists is unacceptable to all Canadians.
The government should listen to the statements which were made by consumer groups. The Consumers' Association of Canada was mentioned earlier. I would like to read into the record a statement which was made by the executive director of the Consumers' Association of Canada. She stated:
The new telecommunications environment is about competition and choice-this Bill will help to make sure that Canadians are informed and willing consumers of cable services.
Of course the bill she was talking about is Bill C-216.
The executive director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre stated:
Bill C-216 drags the regulation of the Canadian cable industry into the twentieth century. Governments have long recognized that consumers should not pay for unsolicited goods. No matter what the motive is behind negative option marketing, it is an abuse that must be corrected.
Further, Michael Janigan of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre stated:
This Bill is an important precedent for the future, when multi-media program services will be fighting for a niche on the Information Highway. Consumers have every right to know what they are receiving and to obtain only what they request.
The consumers of Canada have spoken. The member for Sarnia-Lambton has listened and I stand with him supporting the interests of the consumers of Canada.