House of Commons Hansard #72 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was jury.
The House resumed from September 16 consideration of Bill C-216, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act (broadcasting policy), as reported (with an amendment) from the committee.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC
Mr. Speaker, when this bill first came to the House, I referred to it as being a band-aid or a small piece of trim on a far larger problem. My opinion remains the same.
Our problem is that government after government, Liberal or Conservative, keep on moving forward and never really solve the real problems with respect to Canadian content, with respect to the CRTC, with respect to the CBC. I therefore recommended to my colleagues in the Reform Party that we begrudgingly support the bill.
It was rather interesting that the result of the vote on the bill at second reading was that 147 of the members of the House voted in favour of it and only 25 voted against it.
I listened with interest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and I quote from his speech of last week.
-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-Lambtom 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 that Canadian consumers receive the programs they want at a reasonable price.
He goes on to say very specifically:
I congratulate the hon. member for his initiative.
To suggest that statement was somewhat less than genuine might be best put if I read what he went on to say. He said:
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-
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 the 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 and they do not intend to use it.
Why do we have laws? With due respect to the shareholders and the management of the cable companies, I suggest that when they went ahead and used negative option billing and received a resounding rebuke from the people of Canada should be enough of a warning to us as members of Parliament that we should be taking steps to protect the members of the Canadian public from such activity as was undertaken by the cable companies. I suggest that this was totally disingenuous on the part of the parliamentary secretary, who after all was speaking for the heritage minister and the heritage department when he said: "I congratulate this member on his wonderful bill but I am not going to support it". It was significantly disingenuous.
Then we read in the Globe and Mail over the weekend about some of the background that has now become public.
Mr. Bureau argues that passage of the bill would effectively kill the chances for success of any new French-language speciality service.
Astral has a stake in two speciality channels that were approved this month by the CRTC: the Comedy Network and Teletoon, an animation station that will be broadcast in English and French-
"To put it simply, new French services just won't be able to survive."
The bill has other opponents, including the CRTC and heritage minister Sheila Copps, who say it could hamper the commission's ability to require cable distributors to offer services that it feels should be available to all in the national interest.
The front benches of the government have suddenly woken up to the fact that as opposed to the steps that they have consistently taken time and time again to bring in their own vision of what Canada is all about, this bill will give Canadian consumers freedom and opportunity which the government would prefer they not have. In other words, those 23 speciality channels which the CRTC just licensed, without a form of negative option billing, probably will never make it to air or certainly some of them will not.
The most blatant form of negative option billing was the one that was undertaken in January of last year. Members will recall that new channels were tacked on and a bill arrived in the mail box of the householder. This was rather sneaky because when many people receive a bill they simply pay it. Many people would have taken a look at that bill and because there was only $1, $2 or $3 added to the bill, would have ignored the extra charges and paid it.
I do not believe that any cable company, either in Quebec, Ontario or any other province, would have the audacity to do that kind of blatant negative option billing.
What I believe could happen and I know this is the reason why the heritage department and the heritage minister is so opposed to this is that the cable companies could be offering different packages. With new technology they can now come up with different bundles or groups of offerings of channels.
If I want to receive a particular channel then along with it comes all of this other material. If these channels are so good why are they not prepared to stand on their own? Why will cable companies not say it will cost you 75 cents to see French cartoons? Why would they not say it will cost you 50 cents to see speciality programming whatever the speciality programming is?
I suggest the reason for that is because there is money involved and where money is involved there is influence. I am rather interested in the number of people who have been working the Liberal backbenches on this one. The list of lobbyists who have worked opposing the bill reads like a who's who in the Liberal Party.
For example, the former minister of communications, Francis Fox, Liberal strategist, Michael Robinson who appears Thursday morning on CTV, the former CRTC guru, André Bureau, who I just finished reading, worked on the Liberal MPs to oppose this bill.
I suggest to the backbench Liberals that they might want to give very serious consideration and ask themselves if it is more important that they fall in line with the very encrusted Liberal hierarchy and the front bench, or should they be making representations in this House on behalf of all Canadians?
This bill has been something of a sleeper. I commend the member who brought it to the House. I sincerely commend him because he took action on behalf of the people in his constituency, on behalf of the people in Ontario and indeed, by extension, on behalf of all people who receive cable in their homes. He brought forward this bill that is going to stand in the way of the kind of manipulation that there has been, not only by the cable companies but indeed by the heritage ministry, of what is good and what is not good, what is Canadian and what is not.
This Canadiana idea and keeping it under control I suggest is the core of what is behind the front bench going against this.
I ask Liberal members: When we had a vote in this House of Commons of 147 to 25, how in the world can any of them even contemplate changing their vote? This is truly going to be a time of counting, a time when we are going to see those who have the backbone to stand up to the front bench.
Colleen Beaumier Liberal Brampton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-216 and specifically to address the motions put to this House by the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe and the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton who is the sponsoring member.
The hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe has introduced a motion which would defeat Bill C-216. I cannot in good conscience support this motion.
I was pleased to speak in support of Bill C-216 in the House on April 26 of this year. Those of us who have supported this legislation from the beginning are very pleased with the progress it has made. It is a testament to the quality of this legislation that it has made it this far.
My comments during that first debate focused on consumer rights. I argued that this legislation is in the best interest of Canadian consumers.
As members of Parliament, I believe it is our duty to protect those interests. Often when our constituents call us they forget that before we were elected and again after we are finished we were consumers, we are consumers, we are taxpayers and we will continue to be. It is not an issue that we are devoid and separated from. We do know what their concerns are.
Since the bill was originally introduced a great deal of activity has apparently occurred behind the scenes. If we are to believe newspaper reports, lobbyists have been very active turning this matter into a linguistic issue. Rather than focus on the only issue at hand, the issue of consumer rights, lobbyists have focused the attention of members on a divisive national unity question.
I wonder why they did not raise the same concern when cable operators publicly stated that they will no longer employ negative option billing practices. I wonder why they did not raise their voices when the government rejected the idea of a cable tax to support the CBC, the CBC which was created to be the main instrument to unite Canadians from coast to coast to coast and to keep Canadian culture distinct in North America.
The argument that the demise of negative option billing will have a negative impact on French language programming simply does not make sense. The best way to ensure demand for television services in both official languages is to ensure audiences in both official languages.
Burgeoning second language immersion programs across Canada are a testament to the growing number of bilingual Canadians. These Canadians will be able to enjoy and therefore demand quality entertainment in both official languages. That is the best way to safeguard demand for programming in both official languages.
There is only one issue at the heart of this legislation: consumer rights. Do Canadian consumers have the right to be asked whether they want a product before being charged for it? Do they have the right to choose how they spend their entertainment dollars? The answer is an unequivocal yes. Canadian consumers have the right to choose whether they want a product before paying for it. This is just common sense. If we were dealing with any other industry other than the cable industry, it would not even be an issue. I do not understand why we choose to treat powerful cable operators with kid gloves. Canadians are telling us we have to stop.
I received many calls from my constituents this weekend urging me to support this legislation. In fact my voice mail kept filling up. I returned every call that I received and there was not one call in support of stopping this bill. There is no doubt that my constituents support this legislation. Let there be no doubt in their minds that I am listening and will vote in their best interests. I would urge all of my colleagues to do the same.
It has been said, for those who argue in favour of government, that without government we are merely consumers. In this era of deregulation and government downsizing, it is important that we establish a regulatory framework which is consumer oriented. The passage of this bill would represent a giant leap in this direction.
Certainly, cable operators have taken measures to encourage cable subscription from Canadians, as they should because they are in the business of making money. The various subscription packages available to consumers and the advent of direct payment schemes have proven successful for these operators. Direct payment in particular is a very powerful tool when combined with negative option billing because it gives cable operators direct access to automatic payment from Canadians.
When the cable companies implemented negative option billing a year and a half ago in Ontario, had my constituents not been concerned about this and had my constituents not called me, I probably would not have even realized that I was being billed for a service which I really did not want. Many of us do not even really know how much our cable bill is because we have so many other things that we are dealing with now. That means the cable company had the right to take money from my account even without my knowledge. Depending on one's income bracket, maybe $3 a month is not a lot, but if we add it up across the country, that is $25 million a year taken from the pockets of Canadians without their consent.
Just as cable companies will make every effort to maximize their profits, we as members of Parliament must make every effort to balance the playing field so that consumer interests are protected.
The activities which have apparently occurred behind the scenes raise another issue: the relationship between elected officials and their constituents and that between elected officials and lobbyists. We made a red book commitment to consult with our constituents, not to consult with lobbyists. I say to all hon. members that we must honour this commitment.
The cable companies in my area have been very good to me. They have given me good programming. They have helped me to pass my message on to my constituents. However, if my message to my constituents is that in order to get this hour every two weeks to communicate with them that I have to give in to the wishes of lobbyists, I am not sure that is the message I want to communicate.
I would like to make a comment to the hon. member across the floor who spoke before me. We know who is who in the Liberal Party. Our constituents are who is who in the Liberal Party. We do not need lectures on backbenchers standing up and taking a stand. We do stand up and take a stand. We will continue to take a stand. I could perhaps suggest that the hon. members on the other side of the floor should have followed their own advice when it came to the gun legislation when they took polls in their own ridings.
Colleen Beaumier Liberal Brampton, ON
We are united on this issue. I suppose it is not really the time to be fighting each other but I know who is who in the Liberal Party and I know who we owe in the Liberal Party when we get here: We owe the people who put us here.
With respect to the motion by the sponsoring member, the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton, I would urge all of my colleagues to support Bill C-216. It is an amendment that seeks to clarify the intent of the legislation.
I congratulate the member for Sarnia-Lambton for introducing this much needed legislation.
Werner Schmidt Reform Okanagan Centre, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a privilege to be able to enter the debate this morning, especially on the motion that would have the effect of taking away the essence or the substance of Bill C-216 which was presented to the House by the member for Sarnia-Lambton.
I join my colleagues and also the member opposite in congratulating the member for Sarnia-Lambton for bringing this to the attention of the House and also for providing an opportunity for each of us to express ourselves and to vote on this issue and the motion before us which destroys the essence of the bill.
I am going to oppose that motion and suggest why I want to support the bill and why I must oppose this motion. In the context of making this presentation I will address three questions: What would the benefits be of supporting Bill C-216? Why is the bill being opposed at this time? Why am I supporting the bill?
What would the benefits be of this legislation if it were to be passed by this House? The number one benefit is that the freedom of choice would be given to the consumer. Recently the CRTC approved 23 new channels. The effort and the impact of those 23 new channels is to give to the consumer a wide variety of choices in what they can pick off the air waves or in this case, from the menu that is being offered by the cable companies.
If there is one thing we need in this world today, it is the opportunity to choose with so many different programs available. There will probably be very shortly through direct to home television and various other options some 200 channels available to the consumer. The consumer wants to choose not only what the service is that shall be provided to them but also the quality and the price at which that service or opportunity ought to be given to them.
There are today many many providers of television programs in the world. We can get all kinds of information from cable companies. We can get all kinds of information from the grey market where companies are taking the signal directly off the satellite and beaming it out into the marketplace to the consumer.
One could argue that the grey market is really not a legal market; it is a market which in fact is illegal because there is no legislation covering that issue. People are taking programs, using American addresses or some kind of vehicle that allows them to come into the Canadian area. They are watching these programs. The time has come for us to choose clearly and directly what it is that we want.
There is fierce competition in the cable industry, in the satellite industry, in the whole area. As that competition becomes more aggressive and as that competition becomes more intense, the reason for interference by a commission of government is increasingly bad.
We need to have a place where the consumer ultimately begins to rule what will enter his mind. It is through the mind that we finally determine our actions and the thoughts that take place. Members know that the actions we enter into are first of all thoughts in our minds. It is absolutely imperative that consumers be given the opportunity and the legislative protection to allow them to choose what will come. The cable company or any other group does not have the right to decide for the consumers what they will see and the price they will pay for it.
What happened last January was the suggestion that the cable companies would present new packages and the consumers would pay the new prices. If consumers did not want the new package, then they could write, phone or communicate in some fashion to the cable company to indicate they did not want the service in their homes.
People are busy. People are not always aware of some of the things which are happening around them. There is a habit of using automatic withdrawals from the banking system to pay for these items. Otherwise the consumer looks at the invoice and says: "All right, I will pay it".
More significantly, in this busy world there are certain deadlines. People are given an option. They can say they do not want the new service, but they have to do it by a certain date. If the deadline is not met, the consumer receives an invoice for the new service.
That is not a good idea. Consumers should know exactly what it is they are paying for. They must know exactly when they must make their decision. The point at which that ought to happen is the point at which we make the decision to buy a particular service. It is not the point at which the company says: "This is what you are going to get and it will cost you another $5 per month after this date. The only way to avoid it is to tell us you do not want the service".
There is another thing which comes into play here, that is, there are more and more wireless television transmissions appearing than there are cable. Our cable companies have provided a tremendous service to Canadians. I want to congratulate them. I want to commend them for the quality and for the price at which they deliver the service. It has been excellent. However, a new era is rapidly dawning. We are going to move into the wireless transmission of television programs to an ever increasing degree.
Why is this bill being opposed at this time? Could it be that this bill is being opposed because the current operation actually preserves the monopoly of the cable companies in certain areas? Could it be that it would require the cable companies to become
more aggressive in their marketing? That would cost a little more money than it does now. As a consequence it would reduce their revenue.
Are the cable companies actually afraid of the wireless transmission? Will it make their installations obsolete? Could that be the case? Could it be that it will reduce the power of the CRTC to pick winners and thereby extend certain power to the commission that they would lose if negative option billing were to be outlawed?
We can ask all kinds of questions. One begins to wonder what is the real reason behind this sudden shift in thinking on the front bench.
Could it be that there is a fear that French programming would become uneconomic to transmit and therefore we would have to preserve that facility? Will we now force other people to subsidize that programming? Is there a concern that certain parts of Canada would resent subsidizing the television programs designed for a selective audience?
If the programming is good enough, if the entertainment value is strong enough and if the people feel deeply enough about the issue, they will pay for the programming. We have all kinds of evidence to show that is the case. The issue of forcing people to pay for something that somebody else wants is not in the interests of the consumer generally speaking.
These questions need to be addressed and they have not been addressed.
Why am I supporting the bill? The time has come for us to recognize that the consumers must be able to choose to the greatest degree possible the kind of programming which they desire. It should be my choice. It should be the choice of every individual who has a television set and wants to subscribe to a service as to what it is they will choose. If they need to pay for it, they will pay for it on the basis of what they want.
Second, I am supporting this bill because technological advances increase the number and kind of choices available to consumers. The consumer today has a far greater number of choices available, and should be able to choose them. There should be no legal infringement on his ability to choose among these various kinds of programs. The motion before us will do exactly that.
Monopoly protection also prevents the marketplace from operating and allowing individuals to have a level playing field as consumers and on the industry side as well.
In light of the consumer, in light of a free marketplace and the people of Canada, I suggest we oppose this motion and support Bill C-216.
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-216, the bill to amend the Broadcasting Act, as presented by my colleague from Sarnia-Lambton.
Some members may recall that I voted in favour of this bill at second reading to send it to committee for scrutiny and debate, which is exactly what happened at committee where we started finding out that perhaps there were problems with the bill that had not been self-evident at first reading or second reading. I would like to briefly review some of the effects of the bill.
The purpose of this bill is basically to amend the Broadcasting Act and Canadian broadcasting policy, and more specifically section 3 of the Act. I would like to refer to some of the items in section 3. For instance, in paragraph (b) it says:
The Canadian broadcasting system, operating primarily in the English and French languages-provides-a public service essential to the maintenance and enhancement of national identity and cultural sovereignty.
A little further, in paragraph (c), we read:
English and French language broadcasting, while sharing common aspects, operate under different conditions and may have different requirements.
We also read in paragraph (d), part ( iii ), and I quote:
Through its programming and the employment opportunities arising out of its operations, serve the needs and interests, and reflect the circumstances and aspirations, of Canadian men, women and children, including equal rights, the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society and the special place of aboriginal peoples within that society.
I quote these excerpts from section 3 of the Broadcasting Act because I want to make a connection with another issue, and it is that successive Canadian governments have resisted repeated attempts by our neighbours to the south, during free trade negotiations for the Canada-U.S. agreement and NAFTA, which now includes Mexico, to include all cultural matters in these agreements.
We realize and accept the fact that in Canada, certain elements of our culture, because of their very nature, require special protection. Successive governments have resisted attempts by our neighbours to the south to include culture and did so for very obvious reasons, which we find in section 3 of the Broadcasting Act.
This bill will significantly amend section 3, without allowing for certain nuances and reflecting the fact that differences exist in our country. What we have here is a steamroller approach.
Instead of keeping the flexibility that section 3 of the Broadcasting Act offered to the government and to the CRTC, we are approaching it with perhaps more of a steamroller approach, a one size cookie cutter fits all approach, where we do not accept that
there might be these nuances and differences that are worthy of protection and development.
That is why successive governments resisted including cultural matters in the Canada-U.S. agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement. With this act we are essentially gutting that section or the ability of the CRTC to use it and have our broadcasting facilities and infrastructure in the country evolve.
Good legislation should not have bad side effects. This is exactly the case we have today. We have a very well intentioned piece of legislation which I supported at second reading because I was one of those consumers. I was riled at my cable distributor for daring to do what it was doing at the time.
We have a good intentioned piece of legislation which has some pretty serious side effects. That is what we as legislators have to be aware of.
When the Speaker rises every morning to start the debate he calls upon la Providence, the Lord, to allows to make wise decisions and good laws. I would urge my colleagues from all parties, front and backbencher, to think seriously about approving a bill that has some unnecessary, unwanted and pretty serious side effects.
For example, I often wonder: If the CBC ever decided to insist the Réseau de l'information, RDI, be mandatory, could the CRTC make it so if this bill became law? The answer to that is far from clear, although most of the time the answer given is no, it could not. There would be a lot of problems, and it would not be possible.
I find it somewhat regrettable that my fellow citizens in P.E.I., for instance, cannot get RDI at this time, although it is funded by all Canadian taxpayers, themselves included, because RDI has not yet asked the CRTC to do this. But if RDI did ask, the CRTC would no longer be able to comply. I find this regrettable, and it is one of the serious consequences I referred to earlier.
My colleague, the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton, like all those who were involved in the consumer protests in early 1995, is trying to put an end to the marketing ploy of negative optioning. There is no doubt in my mind that this is a worthwhile objective, as I have said before. I again congratulate him on his efforts in this connection. Yet, in order to be successful in those efforts, my colleague has chosen to take away from the CRTC its power to force cable companies to carry certain stations, in order to comply with the provisions in Canada's broadcasting policy, an unforseen serious secondary effect.
Bill C-216 is a bill of national interest, and one that warrants the most serious examination. Let us take all of the time required to address the questions on which the bill focusses. I will be voting against Bill C-216, not because I support the practice of negative billing, which my colleague would like to see eliminated, but rather because I have the feeling that this bill has the potential to deprive the CRTC of its ability to contribute to the growth of this country's French language minority communities.
Canada is a country peopled by two linguistic communities. We have created institutions with the mandate to reflect this reality and we must therefore ensure that, despite any technical and legislative changes we decide to make to these institutions, this reality is preserved.
If the House decides to reject this bill, I hope that the government will still act swiftly to table a bill that would ban negative billing. There is no doubt in my mind, in light of all the discussions I have had with my colleagues in committee, that the House is almost unanimously in favour of banning negative billing. There is no doubt on this side. But if we go ahead, for goodness' sake let us avoid anything that could be harmful to society. It is with this in mind that I urge all my colleagues, especially backbenchers, to think carefully about the issue, and when they vote, in the next little while or later on, to say no to the negative impacts of Bill C-216.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-216.
I congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton for bringing forward this private member's bill. He did so in response to consumer reaction as a result of the negative billing by cable companies in January 1995.
The bill in its initial stages was widely supported and went to committee and now we have the amended version before us. It seems a lot has happened over the summer and some people are expressing concerns. My colleague for Ottawa-Vanier outlined some of those concerns and I really have to ask why.
First, let us look at some facts. In committee on May 30, 1996 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage moved an amendment to Bill C-216. The amendment was adopted by the committee and the bill was reported back to the House as amended. The bill now includes a reference to cable companies serving 2,000 or more subscribers. This was added to address concerns from certain small time cable operators who claimed that for technical reasons they would be unable to comply with the bill as originally drafted.
The phrase "non-mandatory pay or speciality service" was added to address concerns expressed by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier who argued that the bill as originally drafted would somehow prevent the CRTC from requiring certain special-
ity services to be carried as part of the basic service offered to all cable subscribers.
Finally, a change was made to allow for the substitution or addition of a new channel when there is no change in the price charged to the consumer.
Bill C-216 applies only to non-mandatory pay or speciality TV services. The CRTC will continue to decide if a channel is mandatory or not. This bill does not affect existing channels such as RDI, CBC, CTV, TSN or MuchMusic. Small cable companies of less than 2,000 subscribers, which are mostly in rural areas, have been exempted from this bill. This bill does not prevent cable companies from substituting one channel for another provided the price does not increase. The facts speak for themselves. This bill should be supported.
My colleague for Ottawa-Vanier talked about the side effects, the debate of lots of discussion this weekend, the side effects and the need for flexibility. An article in the Globe and Mail on the weekend talked a considerable bit about what those perceived side effects might be:
Leading the charge against the bill is André Bureau, a former chairman of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and now president of Astral Communications Inc. of Montreal.
Mr. Bureau argues that passage of the bill would effectively kill the chances for success of any new French language speciality service.
Astral has a stake in two speciality channels that were approved this month by the CRTC.
Those comments by Mr. Bureau are not exactly coming from a non-biased observer. That individual has a special interest in terms of maintaining the power they have at the moment.
I want to outline that on that point of flexibility and concern for the speciality channels, especially in the area of language, it is not a concern that I have ruled out of hand. I have thought seriously about it over the weekend. I agree with many others that there is a need for those speciality channels. There is a need for those issues to be cabled into the livingrooms of people so that they can see, listen, debate and learn more from those kinds of channels.
After serious thought I believe that concern can be addressed in other ways. There is still room for flexibility as a result of Bill C-216. I have only thought about it for a couple of days but one such way would be by offering a package inclusive of that speciality channel that may be required by the country. A package could be offered, the package could be priced and that channel could be part of the package. That way that service could be provided.
I am suggesting that the facts speak for themselves. The concern raised by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier in terms of flexibility is not a legitimate concern. I encourage all members of the House to protect the consumers' interests and support Bill C-216.
Broadcasting ActPrivate Members' Business
The Deputy Speaker
The hon. member for Kamloops has three minutes.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Mr. Speaker, I first want to recognize and appreciate the gesture from my friend, the hon. member for Malpeque. It is with considerable enthusiasm that I speak in support of Bill C-216 in the name of the member for Sarnia-Lambton.
It is one of those rare moments that we have in the House of Commons from time to time where members of all parties are asked to decide whose side they are on. Are we on the side of the cable companies and the vested interests associated therewith, or are we on the side of our constituents?
As the member for Kamloops I suspect I am no different from anyone else in having received literally hundreds of letters, as well as petitions and delegations saying we have to rein in these cable companies and make them more sensitive to the consuming public. Thanks to the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton we have been given the opportunity this morning to say whose side we are on as members of Parliament.
I suspect that the lobbyists and the mouthpieces for the cable companies have made their views known. Their case is weak. We here are elected to represent our constituents' best interests when it comes to this matter so that we enable them to make a decision on the kind of programming that is made available in their homes.
I speak with enthusiasm in support of Bill C-216. I look forward to support from private members.
We acknowledge there has been some pressure on members of Parliament. Let us also remember that this is private members' hour. We are voting today as individuals, not as members of political parties, not as members of some vested interest group. We are being asked to stand up in our place as independent members of Parliament, private members. Let us not be swayed by phone calls we have received from certain pressure groups and let us vote in the best interests of our constituents.
Broadcasting ActPrivate Members' Business
The Deputy Speaker
It being 11.45 a.m., the time provided for debate has expired.
Accordingly, the question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Broadcasting ActPrivate Members' Business
The Deputy Speaker
All those in favour will please say yea.
Broadcasting ActPrivate Members' Business
The Deputy Speaker
All those opposed will please say nay.
Broadcasting ActPrivate Members' Business
The Deputy Speaker
In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Broadcasting ActPrivate Members' Business
The Deputy Speaker
Call in the members.
Before the taking of the vote:
Broadcasting ActPrivate Members' Business
The Speaker
The question is on Motion No. 1.
As it is the practice, the division will be taken row by row starting on my left today where the mover would be sitting and then proceeding with those in favour of the motion sitting on the same side of the House as the mover over here. All those who are in favour on this side will rise by row. I will call the rows. Then all those in favour on this side will rise and I will let you know about that.
When we come to those who are opposed we will follow the same procedure. I know you are all anxious to get on with it. All those on my left in favour of the motion will please rise.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)
Broadcasting ActPrivate Members' Business
The Speaker
I declare the amendment defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 2. As is the practice, the mover of the motion will vote first and then everyone in the first row who are in favour of the motion will rise.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Broadcasting ActPrivate Members' Business
The Speaker
Would the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore please clarify for us which way she voted on the motion?
Jean Augustine Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Speaker, I intended to vote as I did prior to the last, which was nay.
Broadcasting ActPrivate Members' Business
The Speaker
Is the hon. member voting in favour of the motion or opposed to the motion?
