Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my Liberal colleague very much.
He is right. The problem with this bill is Schedule 1, which says certain things but does not say others. This schedule is based on the so-called CSA code, which is ultimately set up by private business and based on goodwill.
In other terms, we are put in the awkward position of having a group of businesses deciding what is good or bad for consumers. We are putting the cart before the horse. It is a bit like having the fox in charge of the chicken coop. Chickens do not get a whole lot of protection that way. But consumers should not be compared to chickens. Consumers have rights, they are human beings and citizens, and they deserve a better approach than the one in Schedule 1.
There is another problem with Schedule 1, and it will be the subject of my question to my colleague who kindly asked me to put a question to him.
Section 5.2 says that the word “should”, when used in Schedule 1, indicates a recommendation and does not impose an obligation. That word is all over the place in schedule 1.
As if it were not bad enough to have the fox in charge of the chicken coop, the fox does not even have to abide by the building code. It could do it, but only if it feels like it.
Would my colleague care to comment?