Debates of April 26th, 1996

Budget Implementation Act, 1996

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be able to stand in Canada's Parliament and talk about the one issue which is probably more important to Canadians than almost anything else.

Canadians are concerned about the justice system and its failures. They are concerned about the fact that these days they are not represented in Parliament by their MPs because the rules of the party do not permit that to happen. Undoubtedly what hits people the most across the country is the problem of jobs, of balancing their budgets and paying their bills. With that comes that greatest of all expenses for most Canadians, the largest single expense that they incur, their monthly tax bill. That is the biggest item in family budgets.

We are in this House today debating on behalf of the Canadian people whether or not their money should be spent wisely or foolishly and how it should be allocated. I am somewhat appalled that there is little accountability here.

I do not know exactly how to put this. I need to stay within the rules of debate. I will studiously attempt to do that. It is totally unconscionable for individuals, for citizens of this country, to go around during an election campaign laying out their plans so that the voters can presumably make a decision on who to send to Ottawa to represent them while during that campaign, the words they use cannot be trusted. We have heard so much rhetoric these

past days about what we meant, about we said and about what we wrote. Frankly, those three should coincide.

We should write what we intend to do. We should communicate what we intend to do and we should intend to do what we say and write we intend to do. How can the voters during an election make an informed decision if they cannot trust the words that are being used?

That is really the crux of the matter. There are 295 members of Parliament. I am very honoured to be one of those. We have that awesome responsibility of being, in essence, the board of directors of this giant corporation called Canada.

Some people say that government cannot be run as a business. I am afraid in some areas there is no choice but to run it as a business. That is when it comes to budget.

We can certainly debate what we want to spend our money on. That is a legitimate debate. How much should we spend on welfare? How much should we spend on health care? How much should we spend on education?

I am appalled that the governments of the past 30 years have arranged our affairs so that right now Canadians from coast to coast to coast are being cut down at the knees. There is no longer sufficient money to support education. There is no longer sufficient money to support a proper level of health care. There are cutbacks all over the place.

Every week I get letters and phone calls from people who say that my son cannot get a job, therefore he will not be able to continue his education. I get others who say that mom is in the hospital and if we were not there to care for her, she would have no care at all because all of the nurses have been let go. That is not acceptable.

Our predecessors in this place over the last 30 years have not been honest with Canadian taxpayers. They kept telling them election after election: "We will do this. We will do that. Elect me and you will have this in your community especially if I become a cabinet minister. There will be all sorts of grants and special privileges available. If I am already a cabinet minister, be sure to re-elect me. Those goodies will continue if you do".

Meanwhile the government is spending $1,000 each second more than is taken in. That is unconscionable. To add the greatest insult of all to Canadian taxpayers, at election time, when their candidates say that they are going to do this and this with taxation, that they will eliminate the GST or whatever the issue of the day is, the word, eliminate does not mean eliminate.

Usually in the English language, we have come to a consensus. I am sure it is the same in French. There is a consensus on the usual meaning of words. In the fall 1993 election campaign not once did I hear the Liberal candidate for Elk Island tell the people in our constituency that if elected the Liberals would harmonize the tax. I do not recall hearing that word once, yet the Liberals are now saying that eliminate means harmonize. A new synonym. A change to the dictionary.

The poor taxpayers do not have any input which is not right. It has happened year after year. The taxpayers are given a choice, but once elected the people sent to this place do whatever they want. There is no accountability. I do not want to hang my head in shame because I have done everything I could to resist this. I will have to exclude myself, members of my party and frankly, some members of the other parties in the House.

I have spoken to some government members in private conversations. I will not divulge names but they have said: "Keep hammering the budget. You guys are right on". Liberal members have said that to me, yet they are not permitted to rise in the House of Commons to speak against the budget or to move amendments.

How can taxpayers, through their elected representatives, ever get control of the spending of their hard earned money if we are not going to permit members of the House to speak and to vote according to their own conscience and according to the wishes of their constituents? If that does not happen, I do not hold out much hope for Canadians. It has to happen.

I am very proud to be a member of the Reform Party of Canada which, since its inception, has endorsed this as part of its principles. In fact it is one of the things which drew me to the party. I will stand here and try to communicate as forcefully as I can for as long as I can that what this country needs is a system whereby, like in the Reform Party, members not only have the right to represent their constituents when they debate and when they vote, but they also have the obligation to do so.

I would be out of step with my party if I went against the wishes of my constituents. I do not know whether my party would kick me out of the caucus; we have not discussed that. I really doubt it. Although it might because I would be breaking a very fundamental principle of what Reform stands for and also what is right for the country.

I will say one more thing about the budget and the fact that the government is overspending so greatly. The government proclaims how wonderful it is because it has brought the amount of overspending from $40 billion to $35 billion, from $35 billion to $30 billion, and down it goes. The present number it is projecting is somewhere in the area of $17 billion. Some Canadians, because of the way the words are spun and because some people do not bother to explain the difference between the debt and the deficit, really think that the debt is being eliminated.

I do not wish to embarrass him, but it just so happens that last week I hauled out the campaign literature from my riding and I looked at the Liberal literature to see what that candidate said. Believe it or not, in the brochure which he distributed to the voters of Elk Island, his statement was that a Liberal government would bring down the debt to 3 per cent of gross domestic product. The debt. Of course, the official platform of the Liberal Party was to bring the deficit, the amount of overspending per year, to 3 per cent

of the gross domestic product. I will forgive him. I think it was a legitimate error. He did not know any better. However, I think it is unconscionable.

When there are deficit budgets it means the debt is still growing. I want every member of the House and every Canadian to understand that the debt is not decreasing under this government. The debt is still increasing. Admittedly it is increasing at a slower rate than it did before. If I can give any commendation to the government I will give a reluctant one on that issue. At least it is not putting us into the hole as fast as it could.

When the government continues to add to the debt, right now at $17 billion per year, that is premised on a very important assumption. Those who have lent Canada the money it is borrowing, whether they are foreign investors or domestic investors, all expect their money back. That is based on the assumption that sometime in the future we will have a surplus of over $50 billion a year for 25 years in a row before we can pay off that debt.

Mr. Speaker, you do not know how much I regret that my time is up because I am just starting, but thank you.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on the government's third budget. In speaking against it I hope to ring the alarm bells across Canada that this is not the budget which is being portrayed by the government as a be happy, do not worry, go back to sleep budget, this is a budget that all Canadians should be alarmed at.

There were two major election promises made by this Liberal government which are not even mentioned in this third budget. The first is jobs, jobs, jobs which Canadians were so desperately looking for and the second of course is the GST. The words goods and services tax do not even appear in the budget. The only reference is to a federal sales tax. In this budget two major election promises that were broken are not addressed. All Canadians should be deeply concerned about that.

A third promise has been destroyed in this budget and has been magnified this week. It is the promise by this government to do something about the level of cynicism across the country today which has developed between the voters and the politicians. There was an opportunity for the government to do something about it.

As a matter of fact the Liberals alluded to it in their famous red book under the chapter "Governing with Integrity" on page 90. At the beginning of chapter 6 it states: "The most important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of its citizens to whom it is accountable. If government is to play a positive role in society, as it must, honesty and integrity in our political institutions must be restored".

Instead of restoring it in this budget, what has happened in the House today has shattered it. What the government once described as sleaze by the Conservative Party is now depicted as an honest mistake: "We did not know what we were doing".

At least there is some disagreement here between the Prime Minister and the finance minister. The finance minister says it was an honest mistake but the Prime Minister does not agree. He still says it was not a mistake, that the government is living up to its word in the red book.

To suggest that government members do not know what they are doing, they are not new members of Parliament; most of the people in cabinet have been here for many years. To suggest that all of those years in opposition have been wasted and that they have taken over the reins of government and do not know what they are doing is an absurdity Canadian voters will not accept.

When our current finance minister was in opposition he was very much opposed to harmonization of the GST; harmonizing the GST with the PST would entrench it forever and we would never be able to do anything about this hated tax. How the rhetoric changes when one moves from opposition to government. One wonders which statement to believe, the statement that was made in opposition or the statement being made by the government today.

This is the old style politics of saying one thing to win votes and doing whatever once elected. The promise to scrap, abolish, get rid of the GST was a cold and calculated vote grabber. It was made with every intention to win votes. When we consider that some of the ridings were won by as few as two, three and eleven votes, the promise that was made in less than good faith could very well have swung those seats to enable the government to win its mandate on a policy of deception and not one of being honest with the voters.

When the Deputy Prime Minister, a veteran politician and by no means a rookie to this House, said that she would resign if the GST were not abolished, it was done in a cold and calculated way. She is currently suggesting it was done in the heat of the moment but that is not a fact. The videos of past press conferences will prove that. It was said more than once. It was said repeatedly during the 1993 campaign.

Canadian voters will not miss the glaring contradiction this week in the Prime Minister's reaction to two members of this House.

There was his reaction to the member for York South-Weston who stood on principle and said: "This is not what we said to the Canadian people. This is not what I said to the people in my riding and in all conscience I must resign from this government. I must step aside. I cannot face my people on anything less than that".

The member for York South-Weston was reprimanded for being honest with the voters he represents in this place. I should not have said he resigned. The Prime Minister removed him from caucus on the basis that the member should not represent his voters and be honest to himself but that he must do as he is told.

Contrast that situation with the situation of the Deputy Prime Minister who said to the voters: "I will resign". The Prime Minister sees no problem there. She did not really mean it and she will remain as a member of this House.

That contradiction, that double standard has not been missed by the voters across Canada. The public has lost confidence in this place and in their politicians. On the basis of what has happened here, that loss of confidence is certainly with good reason.

I mentioned in question period that all of us will pay because of the lack of integrity displayed by the government in not living up to and honouring a promise that was made to the voters. Members on both sides of the House, federal, provincial, municipal, all politicians will be tarred by this brush that the voters cannot trust what politicians say when they are out seeking their votes. We will all pay very dearly for that, which is the tragedy of what has taken place here this week.

The Prime Minister referred to the red book and said: "There is not one promise I will not keep. Point to any page, any time and ask me". Let us take a moment to do that.

We have covered the GST. Compensation is now being offered to provinces to come onside at the expense of all of the provinces. Pressure is being put on Ontario. Ontario's finance minister has made it clear that the province of Ontario is not in the tax increasing business, it is in the business of decreasing taxes and giving some relief to taxpayers.

Concerning NAFTA, the government promised to renegotiate, although that promise was not kept.

MP pensions were not dealt with. There was some minor tinkering but the overhaul Canadians were looking for was not done. I am very proud to say that 51 out of 52 members of my party opted out of it where 97 per cent of government members stayed in. The government has lost all credibility in not dealing with that issue.

Freer votes were promised in the red book. I believe three private members' bills had free votes but not one government bill in two and a half years has been put to a free vote.

The Liberals promised that old age security would not be cut and yet 25 per cent of seniors are going to be cut by 10 per cent. Universality, as they had promised, is dead.

Let us go to the infrastructure program. Let us quote from page 60 exactly what was outlined in the red book on infrastructure.

The term "infrastructure" refers to undertakings for the common benefit, such as transportation and communications links, and water and sewage systems.

Nowhere is there talk about boccie courts. Nowhere is there talk about a canoe museum. Nowhere is there talk about trade centres or hockey arenas. It talked about benefiting all citizens.

That program was a $2 billion shell game that was played on the voters across Canada. What a great offer, a two for one. How could anyone resist it? The one taxpayer was being bribed with their own tax dollars?

Finally, the ethics counsellor. On page 95, getting right to the core of returning integrity to government, the red book says:

The Ethics Counsellor will be appointed after consultation with the leaders of all parties in the House of Commons and will report directly to Parliament.

That did not happen.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I regret to tell the member his time has expired. Is there unanimous consent to let him continue?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on this legislation which will allow the enactment of certain provisions of the budget for this year.

It distresses me somewhat when I talk to people who do not seem to understand the serious financial situation in which this country finds itself. I believe it was a Liberal government about 30 years ago that started us on some very serious deficit financing and that was carried on by the Conservative Mulroney government which preceded this Liberal government.

Canadians felt that when we entered into the election debate in 1993 that the people who now represent this government recognized that this trend to go into serious deficit budgeting had to stop. It distresses me that although we hear them talking about lowering the deficit from $40 billion to $38 billion or $36 billion that they seem to believe that is going to solve the problem. It will not.

Canadians are looking for a government that is committed to reducing government spending in very serious and real ways.

Speaking for voters and taxpayers of British Columbia, I know it concerns them when they see that the government seems to deal differently with different parts of the country.

The Liberals talk about things like equalization payments. There is a program which is supported by most if not all provinces where those provinces that do not have the ability to provide some of the basic services for their people that the taxpayers in those provinces who are in a better position economically are more than willing to add financial support to see that the basic services are provided to those have not provinces.

Not only is there this equalization payment act that allows for this up front, but we are also finding, over and over again, that in different government policy programs there continues to be special financial considerations for these other provinces above and beyond the equalization payments that fall under the equalization payment act.

The people in British Columbia are getting a little bit tired of carrying not only the additional burden under the equalization payments but a continual added burden in various legislation, whether it is the regional development grants, whether it is in the infrastructure program or whether it is the billion dollars that is going into Atlantic Canada to convince them to co-operate with the federal government in its harmonization of the GST and the provincial sales tax.

The people of British Columbia are getting tired of having to pay for these programs in order to convince the have not provinces to co-operate with the federal government. To be quite honest, it is not fair to the taxpayers of British Columbia to have to support the equalization payments which give money to the have not provinces. It is not fair to the taxpayers of British Columbia to have to support Quebec's $90 million grant for settlement services for their immigration program.

British Columbians know that the number of immigrants and refugees that province is going to be taking in is a very small portion of the total number of immigrants and refugees coming into Canada. It is not fair for taxpayers outside of the have not provinces to not only be hit with the equalization payments, but to continually support government programs which favour one region over another.

The west coast fishery is struggling. It is proposed that the fishing fleet be cut in half. Hundreds and hundreds of west coast fishermen will be put out of business. They will not be able to afford their boats, their homes or look after their families. What is the response of the federal government? To throw a few pennies in that direction compared to the financial and other support that went to the east coast fishery when it was in difficulty.

It is these inconsistencies in how the country is operated which promotes questions about being part of this country. Canadians do not understand the differences. Canadians do not understand why they pay for the equalization program, the Canada-Quebec accord and again for the billion dollar buyout of Atlantic Canada. They have paid for programs which built hockey rinks and boccie courts. I do not know what boccie is, but that is okay. I do not have the time to play it anyway.

Canadians do not understand how the government with a national debt I believe of $575 billion and growing, knowing that it is going to be $600 billion in debt in 1997, can continue to spend money for these programs at the expense of three provinces of the country.

It is also difficult for Albertans to understand how it could be hit with the national energy program, where it put $900 billion more into confederation that it has received. It is continually being asked to spend more and more to support government programs such as the billion dollar expenditure to convince some of the have not provinces to let the federal Liberal government walk all over them one more time.

I would suggest that with the exception of a few of the younger members of the House, the real tragedy is for the future generations. The real tragedy will be the young people of today who are having a difficult time affording a post-graduate education and when when they do get that education they are not able to find work. When they do find work it is at minimum wage which does not allow them to buy a house, buy a vehicle or establish a base to start a family. That is the real tragedy.

Part of the tragedy is that the federal government continues a process which expects those individuals who are already struggling to make their place in Canadian society to pay for programs and policies which they are not going to receive any benefit from. It is my children and my grandchildren who are going to see most of their income going to pay the debt of the federal government, the debt of the provincial government and to pay the cost of municipal government.

That is not fair. It is not fair to these young people who are looking to the future with some hope and excitement to find out that all they are doing is paying for programs of which I and my parents have had the benefit.

In my two and one-half years in this House I would like to say I have seen some change in attitude from the government side, but I cannot honestly say that I have. I do not see any difference between the Liberal government of today and the Brian Mulroney Conservative government of days gone by. It has an attitude of largesse when spending money, of not understanding that the government's money comes from the taxpayers and that the government does not have this great big money tree growing outside of Centre Block.

I can honestly say I do not see any difference in attitude and that is the greatest tragedy of all. We are no further ahead now than we were three or four years ago when the Canadian people said they

wanted something different. They wanted a government to take control of government spending.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I might indicate that I have to interrupt the debate 1.35 p.m.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by doing something just a little different. I have to offer the House a correction of what my own colleague, the hon. member for Simcoe Centre said.

He pointed out that the Prime Minister had said: "There is not one single promise I will not keep," and he suggested that he did not live up to that. I have to point out to my hon. colleague that the Prime Minister, in fact, did. The Prime Minister said there was not one promise that he would not keep and he is absolutely right. There is a whole pile of them.

The Prime Minister likes to twist things around and use semantics. By doing that, he is technically correct but it is a bigger shame to say that he did not keep one promise. He did not keep any of his promises, relatively speaking.

I am the Reform Party's transport critic. I might add the national transport critic. I would like to focus my comments on those transport issues that relate to this budget.

One in which I have had a lot of involvement is probably one of the bigger and more scandalous pieces of legislation that this Liberal government has been involved in, and that is the Pearson airport development contract.

I did not see anywhere in this budget proposal money allocated for the cost that this government is going to incur because of its unwarranted interference in the private marketplace and its overturning of the rule of law in the mess that it has started with this Pearson airport legislation.

There are all kinds of costs involved in that legislation and one cost which is huge and growing daily are legal costs. I see nothing under transport that shows the cost of defending this absolutely unconscionable legislation originally called Bill C-22. Now I believe it is Bill C-28. It was hardly worth giving it a new number when it came through the House again. It only took one minute and 35 seconds. Nobody was allowed to speak on it. I do not think it was worth the costs for that second time around.

The government had to involve its legal and justice departments in order to draft this terrible piece of legislation. Then when justice did seem to prevail a bit and it could not get this bill through the House and through the Senate, the consortium, as is its right in normal society, took the matter to the Supreme Court of Ontario.

First the government used the might of the tax dollar, the Canadian taxpayers' money, and mounted first a legal challenge to try to prevent it from going to court.

That cost us a bundle of money right there. There is nothing in the budget about that. When they lost all their stalling tactics and ran out of things they could do, they finally went to court.

The court case was dealing with whether there was a contract and if so was the government in breach of that contract. The government mounted a tremendous defence with a battery of justice department lawyers and lost.

There were big costs involved in that. There is nothing in the budget dealing with that or future legal costs. Having lost it and having the unlimited resources of Canadian taxpayer money, they mounted an appeal.

They did all their preparation, it went to court and through the whole appeal process. They lost again. Millions and millions more of taxpayer dollars were wasted. Now they are in court for a third time, with the court having recognized that there was a contract and that the government was in breach of that contract.

The government, having exhausted its appeal rights, is now in court asking what compensation should be given. When we get the compensation, the consortium that had a contract, which the courts have said was a legal and binding contract breached by the government, is asking for over $600 million in compensation.

Most of this is lost opportunity for profit. This is a normal thing to sue for when one unjustifiably has a contract taken away. Once again, the government has its battery of lawyers trying to defend the terrible piece of legislation the Liberal government brought forward.

Again it is costing untold amounts of taxpayer dollars. This is in this fiscal year, but nothing in the budget. There is nothing in the budget about the compensation package either.

Are we getting our money's worth for all these millions of dollars in legal costs? Here in the House the government said for two years while this bill was going through that this was a terrible contract, that it was far too rich and that the developers would make too much money. That was the justification for the cancellation.

What have these lawyers done with all the money they are spending, money that is not in the budget? What are they using for a defence? They are saying to the court there should not be any costs awarded to the contract holder for lost profit. It was such a bad contract with such a likelihood of the contractors going broke that they probably would not have made any money at all.

It seems like one side of the justice department lawyers should get together with the other side and get their stories straight. If the

government is then to squander millions of dollars on legal defence of this legislation, at least we might get something by way of some value for our money.

Let us look at the financial impact of the contract. Thousands of jobs were involved in this contract at not $1 cost to the Canadian taxpayer. One of the many utopian schemes the Liberal government came out with is jobs, jobs, jobs; it would create jobs.

Before the government started running on this, there were studies done that indicated that it cost the government $75,000 to create a $35,000 job. For this, it gets $10,000 worth of economic benefits, tax revenues versus paying out on social programs, for a net loss of $65,000 a job. That is the cost to the Canadian taxpayer of the government's buying jobs.

Now that the government has run through its infamous job creation program dealing with infrastructure, if we take the number of permanent jobs the government claims it created and divide it by the amount of money spent, we find $75,000 a job. Is that not interesting?

Thousands of jobs could be created by the contract the government cancelled with not $1 of cost to the Canadian taxpayer. The contract holders were to spend over $800 million at not one dime cost to the Canadian taxpayer.

I do not see anything anywhere in the budget dealing with replacing those jobs at Pearson airport at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Because this construction is not going on, we have tax loss of all kinds.

The government specifically banned passenger facility tax to the consortium to build this. Now it has to build the facilities itself at a cost now of over $1 billion. There is nothing in the budget for that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. Pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Under Standing Order 45(6), the division stands deferred until Monday, April 29 at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

The House resumed from March 27, 1996 consideration of the motion that Bill C-216, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act (broadcasting policy), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Broadcasting Act

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-216 entitled "An act to amend the Broadcasting Act (broadcasting policy)", which was introduced by the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton, gives me an opportunity to rise in the House today to address this issue.

I am doubly pleased to do so since I share the hon. member's concerns, and I congratulate him on supporting the protection and preservation of cultural industries in Quebec and Canada.

The bill before us proposes to amend section 3 of the Broadcasting Act to protect consumers against the questionable practices of certain cable companies and to question the almost abiding role played by the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC.

We will recall that, over a year ago, cable companies were authorized by the CRTC to increase their revenues through negative option billing. What is this high handed method used by cable companies?

In 1994, the CRTC licensed eight new specialty services, including the Réseau de l'information, or RDI. These services were available starting on January 1, 1995. That is when the new channels were added, in most cases, to the basic service provided to subscribers, who then had to pay a monthly surcharge without ever having been notified or consulted.

Cable companies had introduced negative option billing before finding themselves confronted to angry subscribers. They have since had to backtrack and apologize to their customers, promising that, in the future, when they introduced new services, they would give subscribers a choice.

Is it not paradoxical for the CRTC, whose mandate includes looking after the interests of television service consumers, did not say a thing and that circumstances led the cable companies to self-regulate? In light of the CRTC's neglect of duty, Bill C-216 proposes to legislate to prevent this kind of situation from ever occurring again.

We agree with the spirit of Bill C-216, which seeks to give consumers greater control over the programming services they get and, of course, over the costs of such services. We certainly hope that Canadians and Quebecers can enjoy adequate protection, so that no company can demand from them money for programming services that they never requested or accepted. TV viewers must pay for the services they want, not for those a cable distributor or the CRTC wants to impose on them.

That being said, we wonder, as the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton did on March 27, about the federal government's authority to legislate on this matter. As the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe pointed out, Quebec already has a consumer protection act to prevent abuse such as negative option billing.

The member for Richmond-Wolfe also said that such bill tabled in this House is very clearly a duplication of regulations and an intrusion of the federal government into the jurisdiction of the state of Quebec. It is not ill will on the part of the member for Sarnia-Lambton, added my colleague, it is because his own government has not taken its responsibilities and he is calling it to order. He is also reminding the government that many provinces have no consumer protection legislation and that the present government, with the CRTC, is sending a very clear signal to cable distributors to take whatever action they see fit.

This bill reminds us once more of the ineffectiveness of Canadian federalism. The Consumer Protection Act is a provincial law, while broadcasting is regulated by federal legislation. The result is that when consumer rights need to be protected in the broadcasting sector, there is overlap.

Even in the case of something as simple as consumer protection, regarding which there seems to be a consensus, the whole issue turns into a federal-provincial tangle. Last year, the former heritage minister himself thought that broadcasting was a field of provincial jurisdiction. A few days later he revised his position and stated that broadcasting came under federal jurisdiction. If the former Minister of Canadian Heritage had trouble making sense of all this, how can ordinary citizens figure out these contradictory signals?

Let us be clear, Quebec, just like Nova Scotia, has already passed legislation to protect its consumers against negative option billing. The problems experienced by Canadian subscribers in January 1995 did not happen in Quebec. Quebec has, for some time now, assumed its responsibilities with its Consumer Protection Act.

What Canadians and Quebecers want is a government that is effective, able to act rapidly in the interests of the public, not governments that overlap, contradict each other and duck issues. In the area of consumer protection, we believe that the provinces can best meet these needs. If people in the other provinces are not happy to find themselves subscribing through negative option billing, they must urge their provincial governments to take action.

Incidentally, when all this happened, at least three provinces, British Columbia, Ontario and Manitoba, indicated their intention to step in to prohibit commercial practices such as negative option billing. Why does the federal government now want to bring in legislation, unless it is to duplicate what the provinces are doing or make up for others' failure to act.

The other question raised by Bill C-216 concerns the appropriateness of adopting such a measure at this time. The disputes in question took place over a year ago and were resolved subsequently, under pressure from consumers. Well after everyone else, when the problems are a thing of the past, when the provinces are beginning to assume their responsibilities, when the cable companies have regulated themselves, the federal government would now like to pass this bill today. Why? The Liberals know why and we have a good idea.

We repeat that the provinces are best placed to regulate the business practices of cable companies, including negative optioning.

The member for Sarnia-Lambton and the federal government should, instead, look at the new challenges created by technological developments in telecommunications, which will increase in both number and complexity. We already have a pretty good idea of what to expect at the turn of the century. It is only a matter of time before consumers have broadcasting services on a pay-per-view basis. Apart from a few common interest channels, people will make their own choice and pay only for the services they want.

The choice available to consumers will be ever more vast, and government control will be increasingly difficult. This is where the government will have to be more vigilant than ever before in order to ensure the survival of Canada's cultural institutions.

The Bloc Quebecois shares the concerns of the member for Sarnia-Lambton and, as we said earlier, the principles underlying Bill C-216. However, for the reasons given earlier, including the duplication of provisions of the Quebec consumer protection act, we cannot support this bill.

[Guy Arseneault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to speak to you briefly, you and those assembled here, on bill Private Member's Bill C-216 on negative option billing.

First of all, I wish to congratulate my colleague from Sarnia-Lambton for his unflagging, and finally successful, efforts over recent months to get this question onto the Order Paper.

Most Canadians will recall the launching of the new Canadian specialized services some 15 months ago. It is unfortunate that this excellent opportunity to discover these Canadian programs was overshadowed by the issue of what is called "negative option billing".

The public did not criticize the choice of programming, but rather the fact that they were trying to force subscribers to pay for a whole package of programs and then burdening them with the need to reject the options they did not want.

My colleague's proposal will amend paragraph 3(1)( t ) of the Broadcasting Act on distribution undertakings, making use of the negative option approach illegal.

It is important to point out that the Minister of Heritage and myself, as well as the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton, are all vigorously opposed to the practices that were common early in 1995, and we hope that the committee debates will cast more light on the optimum way of solving this question once and for all, so as to implement an approach that is better suited to the concerns of the Canadian consumer.

You may be aware that the Broadcasting Act is mainly concerned with key principles and objectives in the area of culture, and not with trade practices such as negative option billing.

Therefore it might be worthwhile if, during their discussions on the matter, committee members considered referring it to the CRTC with a view to amending its regulations or the mechanisms governing the licensing process.

By changing the regulations, the commission might set new requirements for negative option use, or make the standards imposed upon industry for customer service more stringent.

Perhaps it is time for a national approach to the rights of consumers. Despite the need for Canadians to know about the diversity of quality Canadian programming on the newer specialty channels, it cannot be done at the expense of consumer choice. It is the right of Canadian consumers to have Canadian choices but not to have these forced upon them.

New information technologies are transforming the traditional parameters between producers and consumers. New players can offer an ever increasing range of viewing choices that transcend territorial boundaries and pose new challenges for the dissemination of our cultural products. Canadians know this. Therefore, it is important that all distribution undertakings follow the same rules and recognize the consumers' right to be consulted before subscribing to new services.

The CRTC is preparing to re-examine a wide variety of new applicants ready to deliver to Canadians new and exciting program venues. Previously the CRTC has expressed its concern about negative option marketing. The minister is strongly behind the end of negative optioning and is prepared to support measures which ensure that all future programming entries are evaluated on their own merit without resorting to a marketing instrument such as negative optioning. This point will be made clearly to all persons concerned with broadcasting regulations.

This reminds me that the issue of Canadian content and programming which underlined this episode provoked some very strong views, particularly from the western provinces. In my view, the past 25 years or so of Canadian content regulations have allowed us to grow from a fledgling music and television industry to one that has gained international acceptance and recognition. We should take great pride in everything that has contributed to forging our identity.

The competition will be fierce for the specialty channels that want their programming to go to the largest possible number of Canadian households. However, we know the CRTC has received as many as 40 proposals for its May hearing on new specialty devices or services. This large number of proposals demonstrates that Canada's creators and broadcasters still contemplate original concepts and remain optimistic about the Canadian public's reception of their offerings.

At this critical time when tensions and divisions loom to tear us apart, we must call on the ideals and values that bind us. We must affirm our commitment to Canada's cultural objectives which define our national identity.

In the era of a multichannel universe and the information highway, the challenge to keep our domestic content on the airwaves can be both frightening and exhilarating. The new opportunities created by technical advances also translate into global consumer empowerment, making McLuhan's global village a reality. McLuhan could also have said that in this global village the Greek democratic ideal is resuscitated in a modern form in which the consumer is poised to become a pivotal player in a newly emerging marketplace.

I personally support the project put forward by the hon. member.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will also speak in favour of Bill C-216.

Bill C-216 is interesting in that it deals with regulating the broadcasting industry so it cannot bill somebody for something they really do not want. It cannot force somebody to take a service and then charge them for it unless that person indicates they do not want the service.

During the debate when this actually happened I was taken aback by the consumer response. My riding has two cable companies. One of the cable companies chose to use negative billing while the other company chose not to do so. It reminded me of when I was in municipal politics and was phoned at all hours of the day and night about barking dogs, garbage not being picked up, and all those other issues that hit so very close to a person's home and environment. This issue really seemed to catch consumers and get them up in arms trying to find some way to change the policy.

The amount of animosity from these individuals when they phoned my office, came to see me or wrote letters was interesting. What most concerned them was that the concept was supported by the regulating body. The CRTC supported it then and as I understand it the CRTC continues to support the concept of billing individuals for something unless they indicate they do not want it. The consumers had a feeling of helplessness in trying to deal with the issue. I find it a little distressing that a Canadian licensing body would support such a concept.

I heard the argument from across the way that it is important to protect Canadian content and our Canadian heritage through the broadcasting industry but I do not buy it. If Canadian content and Canadian culture is done properly, it will sell itself. People will be more than willing to pay for that programming and will want to watch it. Canadian artists do not need a regulating body which is forcing consumers to pay for something they do not want.

The Bloc member mentioned that Quebec and Nova Scotia had legislation in place which prevented this kind of negative option billing. What she failed to mention is that British Columbia also has legislation which prevents this kind of negative billing but only in some services. Unfortunately broadcasting falls under federal legislation and therefore the provinces do not have control over the broadcasting companies, such as the cable companies.

With the new conversation of today, the information highway, and the competition among the telephone companies, the satellite companies and the cable companies as to who is going to control the information highway, we should be looking at how they practise business. If there are companies in the cable industry which choose to exercise their monopoly and control over broadcasting and the delivery of this service to the consumer by using these kinds of practices, there are Canadians other than myself who would be very concerned about allowing them to control the new technology of the information highway.

We would be very uncomfortable with a company which thinks nothing of providing people with something they do not want without asking them, billing them for it and then hiding behind the federal regulatory body saying that it agrees so it is okay. I have extreme difficulty in suggesting that the Canadian government should be supporting cable companies having control over the information highway.

I want to get back to the two cable companies in my community, the one which chose to use negative billing and the one which chose not to do so. The reaction and attitude of the consumers to those two companies was interesting.

One local company chose to offer the new programming at an extra cost but provided it to the consumers I believe for a period of 60 days so that they could see what was offered on the new channels. The consumers appreciated that. They could decide whether or not they wanted to purchase the service. Consumers appreciated and supported that approach. I would imagine many consumers chose to take on these new channels.

On the other hand, consumers were outraged at being billed for something they did not want. However, if they asked not to have those new channels they would also lose channels they had previously and still wanted but which were tied into these new channels.

I do not think that is right. Consumers indicated to the companies which did this that they did not think it was right. Unfortunately the biggest voice consumers can have is to cancel their service or refuse to buy the product. That was precisely what I presented to them, that if they did not like what was happening, the consumer has a choice. That choice is to say they no longer want the services because they do not appreciate what you are doing.

These people will not have the choice anymore because, as in many other communities, one cable company has bought out other cable companies. In my community now there will be no choice. There will not be two cable companies to provide different ways of dealing with these situations. There will be a monopoly, a cable company with no competition to do whatever it wants.

Members of the Reform Party caucus will be quite interested in supporting Bill C-216. The bill proposes to amend the Broadcasting Act to disallow this type of negative billing. It will amend section 3 of the Broadcasting Act by providing in the context of broadcasting policy that a cable distributor or other distribution undertaking should not demand money from a person for the provisions or sale of a new programming service where the person has not agreed to receive the new service.

It is important that it will include other distribution undertakings. We have competition for control of the information highway. There are telephone companies and satellite companies that want to move into this new field.

This bill and the amendments it suggests would include any other companies coming into the system, be they telephone companies, satellite companies or more cable companies. I believe this is an important consideration for us today. It is clear to anyone who has taken an interest in this that there will be distribution companies outside of cable companies. This is very important, knowing what happened last year, to make sure it does not happen again by anyone involved in providing those services.

We are pleased to support this effort. We feel it will be an important contribution to the Broadcasting Act, even though many of us question whether the CRTC even has a place in Canadian society. It would put some controls on it. I believe that is important.

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Brampton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-216.

Negative option billing has been used by cable companies in the past to the consternation of tens of thousands of Canadians. As parliamentarians we face a clear choice on this issue. We can lead Canadians into the 21st century by creating laws to regulate the manner in which cable companies market their increasingly vast array of channels or we can leave it to the industry to formulate these policies.

Parliamentarians are accountable to citizens. The industry is accountable to its shareholders. It is up to us to determine whose interests are paramount. We must take a leadership role and ensure Canadians are presented with clear choices from cable companies. Our decision on this matter will send a clear signal on the manner in which parliamentarians view the role of government in the large communications revolution sweeping Canada and the world. The cable industry is part of this phenomenon, which includes the Internet and soon direct to home satellite television.

The emergence of these new technologies has evolved to a level where we can truly say we are witnessing the evolution of a new frontier. It is a frontier without political or geographic boundaries, a frontier which offers infinite choices to consumers and a frontier where entertainment and productivity share the same medium.

We must be mindful that it is also a frontier in which the roles of government and large corporations remain largely undefined. We are faced with the choice of how to approach this frontier. We have demonstrated we are not afraid to act in the best interests of Canadians with respect to the Internet.

The Minister of Justice has indicated that he intends to introduce legislation to deter the promotion of hate propaganda in cyberspace. I applaud the minister for this initiative which reinforces the principle that government should become involved in an issue when it is in the best interests of Canadians.

From an ethical perspective this is certainly the case with respect to negative option billing. The notion that a consumer can be charged for a product which they have not explicitly indicated they wish to purchase contradicts the principles of the free marketplace. Specifically, the principle of consumer choice which is central to our economy is threatened by such schemes.

The unprecedented consumer protests of early 1995 against negative option billing strongly suggest Canadians support the salience of consumer choice. Bill C-216 recognizes this reality. Canadians joined together to protest negative option billing. Now is not the time for parliamentarians to abandon them to cable companies.

There is certainly a great need for clarity among the billing practices in the cable industry. A poll by Compass Research in 1993 found that 66 per cent of cable subscriber recipients believed they are receiving basic cable service, the lowest priced channel package. The reality was that only 8 per cent of the subscribers actually received basic services. Ninety-two per cent of cable subscribers received extended services of some kind but only 34 per cent were aware they were paying more than the basic rate. This is unacceptable.

I am confident it would have been remedied if we had been dealing with any other industry. In all fairness to the cable industry, there is currently a lag between the technology available to allow consumers to pay for only those channels they want and the technology which offers a virtual universe of channels.

Cable companies are feeling pressure from consumers to expand the choices available to them. In response to these demands they have assembled packages of specialty channels. The element of choice which cable companies are trying to promote through this scheme is lost with negative option billing.

The president of Rogers Cablesystems stated that without negative option billing subscriber acceptance rates would be cut and new channels would have difficulty surviving. While I have only the best wishes for new speciality channels, this cable company is pinning its survival on successfully deceiving Canadians into make a purchase they otherwise would have refused.

It is time for a new plan. It is not acceptable to implement a billing regime whose purpose is to deceive consumers into making a purchase. The cable industry has admitted this the main appeal and function of negative option billing. In the interests of Canadian consumers it is time we put an end to this practice.

I congratulate the member for Sarnia-Lambton for introducing this much needed legislation.

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

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.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member for Sarnia-Lambton has the right to briefly summarize the debate.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the sponsor of this bill it is my pleasure to be the last speaker.

I will speak very briefly. I hope that all members of this place will support this bill. As many members have stated, people want this bill because they want control over what comes into their homes. People do not want to give control to the CRTC. The CRTC can determine who will be on the airwaves but people want some mode of governance of what they see on their televisions and what they are going to pay for.

This, to me, is not a question of Canadian culture. It is a question of choice for Canadians. That is the reason I brought in this bill and why I am going to ask all members of this place to support it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?