Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on the hon. member's bill, and would like to take advantage of the same opportunity to congratulate him on the effort he has put into it.
I, and I believe most of the other members of this House, share the objective sought by the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton in introducing this bill. We all agree that Canadians must be able to fully express their opinion on the programs they receive in their homes. We all wish to ensure that Canadian consumers receive the programs they want at a reasonable price. In this respect, I congratulate the hon. member for his initiative.
While supporting the underlying reasons for this bill, I have had the opportunity to discuss and review it with other members, and have reached the conclusion, in light of the questions raised, that this bill would have unexpected and dramatic effects.
This bill would, unintentionally, restrict Canada's capacity to guarantee Canadian content and the availability of French programming outside of Quebec. As a francophone from outside Quebec, I believe that access by the regions outside Quebec to French programs is essential. For example, had the bill being proposed at this time been in effect a few years ago, it is very likely that we would not have Newsworld and RDI today. Despite its intention, which I believe to be an honourable one, I feel that the unexpected consequences of this bill would be devastating.
In tabling this bill, the hon. member's intention was to guarantee all Canadians fair and equitable treatment. Unfortunately, it would hamper the flexibility the CRTC requires to ensure that very fairness and equity.
As such, therefore, while congratulating the hon. member for his intentions in proposing this bill, its unexpected consequences force me to vote against it.
In a nutshell, the intent of the bill is good. In reviewing comments made by members of Parliament from all parties, they agree with the intent of the bill that there should be no negative optioning, that consumers should be protected.
What we are saying here today is that this bill goes beyond that. It takes away a lot of the flexibility of the CRTC. It takes away the flexibility of the government. I can give an example, as I have
mentioned. Had this bill been in effect years ago, we might not have "Newsworld" today or RDI, the French version of "Newsworld". That is what would have happened.
It would be impossible for me to support such a bill that would take away the flexibility of the Canadian government. That would also go for Canadian content. It would also go for the rural regions. It would have a negative impact right across Canada.
It is clear that MPs are against negative optioning. The new president of the CRTC has indicated that she prefers the positive option. The cable companies have indicated that they are against it and they do not intend to use it.
The member must be congratulated for the intent. The member who is quite imaginative, who has grasped the subject quite well, should be able to come up with a new way to propose something to the House at a later date which deals directly with negative option billing.
I suggest to members that they review the legislation before they cast their deciding votes. It could have some very serious implications for their regions, for Canadian content, for the flexibility the CRTC has in distributing programs across Canada.