Debates of March 10th, 1999

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The vote is deferred until 5.15 this afternoon.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that if you were to seek unanimous consent of the House there would be agreement among all parties to suspend the House until 5.15 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The House has heard the suggestion of the chief government whip. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.43 p.m.)

The House resumed at 5.15 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 5.15 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-65.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 335

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed.)

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Competition Act, 1998

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

moved that Bill C-393, an act to amend the Competition Act, 1998 (negative option marketing) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that those who are milling about will want to hear that next week marks the beginning of consumers week in Canada. It is my pleasure to start the debate on Bill C-393 which is a law proposed to change the Competition Act.

This bill has several themes of fairness. These revolve around fairness where there is no protection of consumers, fairness in a marketplace where there is little or no competition, and fairness for consumers against large business interests.

Bill C-393 deals with the business practice known as negative option sales and marketing. It involves receiving a product because a consumer failed to say no to the offering of it and then the consumer is asked to pay for it. This practice known as negative option marketing or sales is a perversion, a twisting of what is generally accepted as being the normal rules of contract or sales, which is that an offer is made, acceptance is given in the affirmative and the delivery of the service and payment for that service are reasonably simultaneous.

Those who use negative option sales reverse that method. An offer is sometimes made, sometimes it is hidden, and sometimes there is no apparent choice at all. Instead of accepting the offer, the consumer is expected to say no, that he or she does not want the service. If a consumer fails to say no, then the service is provided, the consumer is billed for it and is expected to pay for it.

We are certainly one of the few countries in the world which allows federally regulated businesses, or undertakings, as the Competition Act calls businesses, to engage in this type of scurrilous behaviour. It is a sleight of hand type sale of a service. It is often a straightforward case of taking advantage of consumers who have little means to protect themselves.

Negative option sales occur under many guises or disguises. I will give some examples of this technique.

One is in the realm of banking. About a year ago the National Bank in a brochure enclosed in monthly bank statements and sent to people in a certain area of Montreal was advertising health care coverage for those travelling outside Canada. Hidden or buried inside the brochure was an invitation, in fact a requirement, that recipients say no to the offering, failing which their accounts were debited $9.95 a month. Thousands of people did not know they were being charged $9.95 a month for an offer they in fact did not want.

The end result according to the Consumers Association of Canada was that following the start of the debiting of accounts, individual bank branches were receiving between 40 and 50 complaints on any given day. The bank would reverse the offering but there was no way of quantifying how many seniors and other people who did not take the opportunity to check their bank statements were paying for a service which they did not know they were receiving, for which they did not know they were paying $9.95 a month and more important for many of them, for which there was no use or benefit.

Some may think this is preposterous and some may doubt that it happened, yet the Consumers Association of Canada had hundreds of complaints involving this one specific case.

A second example is a couple who applied for a bank mortgage to purchase their first home. Once again, in the mass of paper they were required to sign, there was an offering, a suggestion—and I use that term very loosely—that they would buy through the bank, term life insurance equal to the mortgage amount. When the first mortgage payment was made, the couple realized that they were paying an insurance premium in addition to the principal and interest.

Their omission was their failure to say no to the offering, no that they did not want the term life insurance. There was no requirement to say yes. In brief, failure to say no was by the negative option formula an affirmative, a yes to the insurance policy.

The third example concerns university students at the University of Ottawa moving into town in September. The first thing they do is call Bell Canada to have a phone installed. The phone is installed and they are simultaneously told they will receive two months of call waiting free of charge. Their problem is that at the end of two months the bill starts ticking. At the end of month three, there is an additional charge of $2.70 tacked on to their bill when they had purchased a service they did not know they were buying, they did not know they were paying for it and they never once said “Yes, I know what I am getting. I want it and I know what I am paying for it”.

The fourth example is even more insidious. In the summer of 1997 the Toronto Dominion Bank enclosed an eight page brochure in the bank statements it sent to hundreds of thousands of Ontario residents, including residents of the city of Ottawa.

The flyer was called “You and Your Privacy”. In its eight pages the flyer purported to state that the Toronto Dominion Bank was very concerned about its clients and how it protected and stored information about its clients. And let us face it. Who knows more about an individual than a banker? When people build a relationship with a bank over a period of many years, the bank has all kinds of information about them, their assets and their spending habits.

Page seven of the brochure contained a negative option suggestion. It said that the Toronto Dominion Bank was going to share all this information that it had collected. In the relationship as banker and client, it was going to share that information with its related corporations such as TD Mortgage, TD Green Line and Toronto Dominion Insurance. Unless the clients called the bank and said no, that they did not want the bank to do this, on October 31, 1997 the Toronto Dominion Bank took all of the information it had amassed from hundreds of thousands of people over many years and downloaded it by computer to its subsidiary companies.

Why did this happen? Because it required the consumers to say no, they do not want this to happen. There is an interesting twist on this. A gentleman reported to my office that he had called and said that he did not want this to happen. It was pointed out to him that because he had a joint bank account, his wife in addition must say no.

We see from this that large federally regulated corporations are imposing an onerous and unreasonable burden on people to escape from a situation or to escape a product they do not want and which they are being asked to pay for.

The fifth and final example I will use involved cable companies in this country. If we were to ask any of the eight million cable subscribers who the masters of negative option marketing are, the answer would be very clear. It is the cable companies in Canada.

One can and should ask why we need this bill. The answer is very specific. This bill is designed to apply to federally regulated undertakings or businesses which operate in a marketplace that has little or no competition. This bill is about giving consumers a fair shake in the face of limited or no competition. After all, banking, telecommunications and broadcasting are all areas of business in which there is at best limited competition, if any at all.

I quote from a February 2 editorial in the Hamilton Spectator concerning this very bill: “This bill would change the Competition Act to force federally regulated companies to get the express permission of customers for any new service”. It is not a very revolutionary idea to have the customers say “I know what I am buying. I know what the cost is and what the implications of it might be and yes, I want it”. What could possibly be wrong that? To have federally regulated companies obtain a positive express response of yes before supplying and charging for a service is the way business is done in this country and in most countries of this world. I have to ask why anyone in this place would want to allow it to be otherwise.

This bill constructs a firewall between the consumer and the industry and the consumer and the regulator. This bill recognizes that regulators such as the CRTC have failed to protect consumers from companies which would provide TV services and telephone services which are unwanted.

This bill would not allow the sale of health insurance policies to unsuspecting bank clients. Why would anyone in this place want to be part of a scheme that would allow this to happen? I suggest even further that those who would want this to happen should come forward and say so.

I know there will be those who oppose it on the grounds of the Constitution, that is to say the federal government does not have the power to prohibit this. To those people I would simply note this bill deals only with federally regulated undertakings.

By way of comparison, Bill C-20, currently before parliament, regulates the sale of goods or the questionable sale of goods by telephone. It is certainly difficult to recognize that Bill C-20, a government telemarketing bill, is intra vires while Bill C-393 would be ultra vires because they both deal with federally regulated undertakings.

In addition, there are provincial laws which note the federal powers at the level of telecommunications. For example, the law concerning consumer protection in the province of Quebec, a law which is above all provincial, was written several years ago. In it the rights of consumers are enunciated and it makes very clear that the law of Quebec regarding the protection of consumers does not apply to broadcasting. Why? There is no question that broadcasting is clearly a matter for us in this Chamber to deal with. Banking is also clearly a matter for us in this Chamber to deal with.

This is sadly an area of growth according to an Industry Canada study undertaken recently. After all, what could be easier than to sell a product where there is no need to market it, advertise it or persuade consumers they really want it or need it. Most businesses, in launching a service or product, need to determine there is indeed a want for the product or a public desire for the service and that the consumer is willing to put out the money for it.

What does all this mean in terms of removal of consumer dollars in a situation where choice is eliminated? Let us consider the case of the cable industry in 1996 where cable rates, through negative option techniques, rose about $4 per month per household. The end result was about $400 million being siphoned from the Canadian economy into one sector, cable companies and their program providers, under circumstances where consumers could not say yes.

In return what did we receive? We saw services which were never ordered and quite simply were often not even wanted. This was $400 million of discretionary, after tax dollars, about $50 per household from the eight million cable subscribers in this country. This is $50 of which they no longer had any control; hundreds of millions of dollars to an industry where there is no competition and in which four corporations control more than 90% of the Canadian marketplace.

Let us also consider the situation of the unknown purchase of a life insurance policy to pay off a mortgage in case of death, a mortgage policy which the consumer has acquired unknowingly but after the fact becomes aware of it and is paying for it.

It is good and prudent to buy this insurance. If a purchase is made by negative option that consumer was never given a fair chance to shop the marketplace and get the best possible price. It is a matter of working the marketplace for the best possible deal in terms of service and price. Negative option marketing and sales cuts the legs out from under this.

The office of consumer affairs at Industry Canada in a study of negative option sales and marketing observes: “In general, profits or convenience would appear to be the motivation behind negative option marketing and/or bundling”. Industry Canada, the department responsible for the Competition Act, has recognized the thrust of this business practice. It is all about profits, money and the ease of obtaining it.

In the September 21, 1996 edition of the Ottawa Citizen columnist Tony Atherton asked: “How on earth does a country of barely 30 million souls find itself on the brink of underwriting a total of 51 specialty channels when it can't seem to support one national public broadcaster?”

That is a fair question. The answer which Mr. Atherton supplied himself was: “By now it should be obvious that the usual rules of economics don't apply to the cable industry. Canadian book publishers fold, Canadian magazines tiptoe on the edge of bankruptcy, yet many Canadian cable TV services make money hand over fist”.

He made the insightful observation: “Lack of demand is not an issue because cable channels are not in business to meet demand. They are in business to create it”.

The fact is negative option marketing is selling where there is no market. Negative option techniques allow sales where there is no demand. It is a phenomenon which creates both market and demand where neither exist.

Industry Canada has noted in its discussion paper on this topic: “Government does need to examine its role in influencing and promoting this type of market behaviour in view of users' or taxpayers' expectations”.

This is an appropriate time to raise the spectre of Canadian expectations in terms of marketplace. In a real marketplace where there is demand and open and free competition, consumers can shop for quality, price and choice. When consumers shop for virtually any product they expect an array or a continuum of choices and prices. In the realm of banking, telecommunications and cable there is little to none.

It is interesting to refer to a story published last week, March 6, in the National Post which reported a dispute over market share between Shaw Cable and Look Communications. Look has 6,000 subscribers and Shaw has 1.6 million, a real David and Goliath story. It appears that Shaw is trying to win back those 6,000 subscribers by offering free cable to those who have been given a choice in the marketplace.

It is even more interesting to note that Look has now gone to the CRTC to ask it to step in to mediate the dispute. What could be more ironic, the CRTC mediating a dispute between two corporations when in the past it has talked about this being a market matter, a matter of competition.

Canadians want choice but they also realize that in a large country with a relatively small population choice in certain industries is not always absolute. Having said that, they do want to control the circumstances of exercising that choice. Negative option techniques remove any suggestion of choice. That is why we in this place must move to give consumers that right.

On the verge of consumers week I quote a press release issued today by the Consumers Association of Canada about this bill: “It is timely that private member's Bill C-393 is being debated in parliament this week prior to world consumers rights day. World consumers rights day celebrates eight fundamental consumer rights, of which the right of choice is paramount. A piece of legislation that bans abusive negative option marketing is a positive step in the promotion of consumers' right to choice”.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-393, an act to amend the Competition Act with respect to prohibition of negative option billing. I recognize the work of my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton on this issue.

I know he has worked tirelessly in the interest of consumers and I respect any member who is prepared to champion an issue despite pressures from within their own caucus to be dutiful backbenchers.

This bill is designed to prohibit the practice by federally regulated businesses such as banks, cable and telephone companies of implied consent billing. It would restore the traditional buyer-seller relationship that relies on the consumer's explicit consent before they can be billed for a product or service and would prohibit default billing of consumers who do not expressly decline a product or service. In other words, it would put an end to what is being called negative option billing.

Before making a decision about supporting this legislation, I had spoken to many Canadians about this billing practice. It is clear that this bill has broad support among consumers frustrated by negative option billing. In particular, there is frustration with cable providers that bill for new programs automatically unless the consumer expressly rejects the service.

Consumer groups have cited senior citizens as an example of a group often unaware that they have the choice of opting out of a new service and are consequently billed for programs they do not want or sometimes cannot afford.

While this is just one example let us take a minute to examine our own lives. How many of us are aware of our own dinner plans this evening, never mind the intricate details of our cable bills? The only time we are typically aware of these details is when we expressly order the products or services. We are often just to busy to be careful consumers. This is a source of frustration not simply because of financial costs but because it is deemed to be a violation of an age old relationship between buyers and sellers.

It is clear that consumers are looking for protection from negative option billing. The question is simply how do we provide this protection. Should it come in the form of Bill C-393 or can it be achieved through market based reforms? I think a balance must be struck.

Bill C-393 has its origins as Bill C-288 which would have amended the Broadcasting Act to restrict negative option billing by cable companies. These companies can currently act with relative impunity as they are federally regulated regional monopolies that are free from the normal constraints of a competitive market. This new version of the bill is broader and instead amends competition laws that apply to all federally regulated industries.

The decision by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton to use the Competition Act as a means by which to prohibit negative option billing instead of making changes to the legislation that deals directly with the perpetrators of this practice is troubling for me. Competition laws can profoundly restrict economic freedom and market efficiency, and the general move toward strengthening these laws should be approached with caution.

This bill should not be seen as a mechanism by which to restrict attempts made by companies wishing to expand their market share. We must not allow our competition laws to grow steadily more intrusive. We must act vigilantly to create competition through deregulation of our industries in the interest of every Canadian consumer.

The original purpose of this draft legislation in the form of Bill C-288 was to amend the Broadcasting Act. This dealt much more directly with the source of the problem and would be the preferable course by which to protect consumers against negative option billing.

Negative option billing is a practice common to federally regulated industries that enjoy market protection such that they restrict or limit the consumer's ability to seek out alternative providers of a product or a service. Therefore the deregulation of federally legislated industries should be the first step to eliminating negative option billing and other practices that do not properly serve consumers.

I would much rather have been more supportive of an initiative that worked to limit government in increased consumer choice rather than an initiative that extends the scope of government further into the private sector.

The Reform Party supports limited government and free enterprise, but recognizes the important role of government in creating an economic environment, with fair and transparent rules, that protects both consumers and businesses. However, we differ from the governing party in that we believe that markets serve consumers well as long as competition is permitted.

Bill C-393 is a band-aid solution made necessary by the Liberal resolve to maintain protectionist policies and regional monopolies in federally regulated industries such as cable, telecommunications and banking, despite the fact that these policies hurt consumers. However, sometimes a band-aid solution is needed until the disinfectant can be found.

Before I conclude, I want to provide an example that illustrates the power of competition to end negative option billing, in case my colleagues in the House have their doubts.

I am sure we are all familiar with Columbia House Records. This is a company that made its money through negative option billing. After signing up with the bulk music distributor, consumers are sent cassettes and CDs on a monthly basis. If they do not send the selections back to the company, they are billed for the merchandise.

This is not a pure example of negative option billing because the customer agreed to these billing terms by signing up with the company. However, the point that is relevant is that consumers were so hostile to this form of billing that the Columbia House sales began to decline.

Soon a competitor entered the market and advertised that it would not engage in negative option billing at all. When faced with this competition, Columbia House very quickly revised its negative option billing practices.

In other words, the drive for profits in a competitive and deregulated industry will give more power to consumers to seek favourable terms. It is the invisible hand of capitalism at work.

To conclude, it is clear that the Liberal mismanagement of federally regulated industries has created an economic environment in which consumers suffer the ill effects of limited competition.

While this bill regrettably increases the power and scope of the Competition Act and restricts private sector decision making, it should receive the qualified support of the Reform caucus until such time as these industries can be deregulated.

After this deregulation, competition will ferret out those businesses that conduct their affairs in a manner inconsistent with consumer interests.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I wish to be very clear. We have a great deal of sympathy for the intent of the member for Sarnia—Lambton's bill, which is to ensure that consumers have control over what services businesses supply them with. The Bloc Quebecois will not, however, be in favour of Bill C-393 any more than it was of Bills C-216 and C-288, for the reasons I will now give.

The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton has expanded his bill. Once again, incidentally, I would like to point out that we have considerable sympathy for him in particular, since he was great friends with a woman I considered my friend here in this House. But the Quebec consumer protection legislation, Loi sur la protection des consommateurs or consumer protection act, is clear, and already bans the practice he wishes to ban with his bill.

The relevant section of the act reads as follows “No merchant, manufacturer or advertiser can demand any money for goods or services provided to a consumer, when the consumer has not agreed to receive such goods or services”.

Our stand is that this legislation does not apply merely to businesses classified as coming under provincial jurisdiction. There was, for instance, the case of the supreme court decision on Irwin Toy's appeal of the ban in the consumer protection act on advertising aimed at children. The supreme court agreed that Irwin Toy was not entitled to run ads that went against the consumer protection act.

Commenting on this decision and talking about telecommunications businesses lawyer Pierre Trudel wrote:

—provincial measures that are not as such intended to apply to federal businesses so as to govern their operation may have a certain impact on them. It may therefore legitimately be concluded that provincial legislation will not be ultra vires simply because it may affect business decisions to be taken by those who develop or disseminate advertising—

—provided that these provisions do not result in these laws undermining what rightly constitutes their federal specificity.

I mention in passing that, having the industry critic as the Competition Act was amended, I was on several occasions told that the Competition Act was not consumer protection legislation and that it simply concerned relations between competing businesses. I have a transcription in which Mr. Flaherty himself said: “It is not consumer protection legislation”.

Our second argument, the stronger, which will bring us back to the heart of the argument, is that, for the Bloc Quebecois and I hope for many others in this House, this bill will conflict—if not more—with the CRTC's authority.

I would point out here that the CRTC has a job to do, a mission, including in section 3, that “French language and English language broadcasters, despite a certain communality, differ in terms of operating conditions and in the long run in terms of their needs”.

Need I point out that the operating conditions of broadcasters are not the same in North America and in Canada in English and French. That is why the chair of the CRTC argued before the Senate that it had the power to prevent the use of negative option marketing, which it had not used for consumer protection.

Representatives of the Association des consommateurs québécois told the committee that, although the intention was certainly good, although the grounds for introducing the bill might be noble, and although there would be advantages in English Canada, in French Canada and in Quebec, it was another matter. One of them said:

We are sure that the authors of the bill never examined or understood the disastrous impact of the bill on Canada's francophones. They would surely have wished to take them into account had they understood. In the final analysis, we are relying on their good faith, and we therefore hope that they will see the validity of our position.

The speaker goes on to say:

Need it be repeated that, for consumers in Quebec, choice of programming means not just in English, but obviously in their own language as well?

We believe that the CRTC has long understood this fact and that this is why it has refused to impose a single set of regulations across the country ... instead taking an approach that recognizes that the francophone market has different needs.

I could go on at length. This was Ms. Drolet's testimony.

Parliamentarians must take this extremely important dimension into account. I know that they did not do so when they voted on Bill C-288, but I repeat that, now more than ever, francophone viewers need the continued protection of the CRTC.

In fact, when to our dismay Bill C-216 and then Bill C-288 were passed, Quebec's then Minister of Communications, Mrs. Beaudoin, said how extremely sorry she was that this had happened.

She said “Although the specific purpose of the bill is to prohibit negative option marketing, it has a much greater impact because it prohibits every other marketing method except pay per view television and particularly because it involves such limited distribution that no new French language service will every get off the ground”.

Minister Beaudoin spoke of her concerns about the negative effects this may have on the supply of French-language television services. She said “The French language specialty channels, of vital importance in the current context of open availability, need a critical mass of viewers if they are to be created and to survive. The federal bill will, in fact, deprive any French channels, including the four new ones, of that critical mass”.

This is the first hour of debate. The bill will be debated further, and we would ask the hon. members of other parties, and of the other language in particular, to consider the market conditions in Quebec.

I would conclude by saying that the CRTC did not act on its own authority in deciding on this approach to competition; it was the government's approach, and the French-language media must be allowed to live, not just to merely survive, within that context.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as the New Democratic Party spokesperson for consumer affairs I am pleased to speak to Bill C-393 which was proposed by the member for Sarnia—Lambton.

In the last parliament the NDP caucus supported the member's earlier effort to ban negative option billing through Bill C-216, a private member's bill that was seeking to do the same thing at the federal level as had already been done by the NDP government of British Columbia which amended its consumer legislation to ban negative option billing in that province.

The current bill proposes to amend not the Broadcasting Act, but rather the Competition Act to ensure that negative option billing or negative option selling and marketing is prohibited in all sectors under federal jurisdiction, including telephone services, cable television services, financial services and so on.

Banning negative option billing is a way of telling the providers of those federally regulated services that, where their customers are concerned, yes means yes and no means no. There is no implied consent in silence. If they want to charge customers for a new service, they have to be asked first. Ask them nicely and make the sale by convincing them that they need it or want it. The service has to be sold, not forced down people's throats, who are then charged for it. The rules cannot be changed in the middle of the game without their permission. It is just not fair from the consumer's perspective. That is a principle with which I agree.

There are some members who are concerned that this bill will defeat the licence that was recently approved by the CRTC for the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network. This approval was the creation of the network, APTN, and it requires the cable companies to carry this channel on their basic package. I am assured by members, and in particular the sponsor of this bill, that Bill C-393 will not impact on the CRTC's order to include APTN on cable companies' basic services.

It was a most significant and sad day in the last parliament to see the earlier version of this private member's bill, which achieved the extraordinary step of being approved by the House of Commons, effectively killed by the unaccountable, unelected Senate which made a somewhat pointless amendment and sent the bill back to the House where it died on the order paper when the election was called in April of 1997 for June.

I was a member of the House at that time and I well remember the public outrage in the winter of 1995 when the cable companies introduced new specialty channels and restructured their cable package lineups. Let us face it. Winter is cold in Canada sometimes, except in Saskatchewan where I come from, and people like TV.

The cable companies removed some channels from their basic cable lineups and were expecting their customers to pay extra for them unless they read the fine print and cancelled the services, all this with the approval of the CRTC.

New channels were also introduced into what was a much more hostile environment than the channel originators probably deserved simply because people were so appalled at the negative option billing.

I heard a lot of negative comments about that in my constituency office. No wonder the bill enjoyed support on both sides of the House. Since senators do not have constituency offices, or even constituents to whom they are accountable, it is also no wonder they did not respond to the outrage but responded instead to their friends, the giant cable companies.

In the town of Lumsden, after receiving numerous phone calls from very angry cable subscribers, I personally met with Image Cable Systems and persuaded it to hold public meetings with its customers in Lumsden. Subscribers who attended the meeting said overwhelmingly that they did not support the proposed changes to the cable lineup and Image Cable Systems retracted its initial billing.

What made the customers most angry was simply the fact that they were never asked in the first place what they wanted. I am pleased to see the measure before us in parliament and pleased that the member has seen fit to include other federally regulated industries in its scope. I agree with him that we are also seeing the phone companies and some banks testing the waters with these kinds of marketing schemes. It needs to stop now.

Let us remember that most federally regulated industries are granted certain privileges to conduct business in a protected way for they provide essential services to the economy and the people of Canada.

In return for this privilege, which often means they are guaranteed certain levels of profit as well, they have a higher duty to conduct their business in an ethical way. Because the bill proposes to change the Competition Act, we should have disposed of any concerns that the legislation somehow intrudes into the jurisdiction of the provinces. It is very clear that the federal government is responsible for competition policy and federally regulated industries.

Perhaps it is time for parliament to take some time and undertake a more comprehensive review of competition policy and the Competition Act. Private member's Bill C-384 sponsored by the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, which proposes another change to the Competition Act, ought to be before committee for study in the next few months.

I have had longstanding criticisms of the ability of the Competition Act to deal with pricing in the retail gasoline market, for example. With the changing nature of the international economy, the simultaneous trends of increased mergers and acquisitions, and the growing number of small businesses in our economy we need a much more active competition policy to ensure that the marketplace works well for consumers and for small business owners.

I have raised the concerns of independent gas retailers in Saskatchewan with the Competition Bureau, concerns that affect consumers in my province in particular. The number of independent gas retailers has declined dramatically. I would argue, not coincidentally, that we now have the highest gas prices of any jurisdiction in Canada even though our tax regime is identical to those of British Columbia, Manitoba and Ontario. I understand the Competition Bureau is investigating for the criminal investigations branch.

Also this week the leader of the New Democratic Party, my leader, the member for Halifax, raised very grave concerns about the impact of Sobey's assuming control of 75% of the food wholesale market on the east coast. The takeover of Oshawa Group by Sobey's controlled Empire Ltd. would mean that small family restaurants and corner stores will become price takers from one food wholesaler. That hurts them and it will hurt consumers dramatically. It is a competition issue and it is a consumer issue. It is time we made a comprehensive re-examination of the whole policy area.

I want the government to stand up and fight for ordinary Canadians by establishing a comprehensive consumers protection act. We are the only country that does not have one to protect consumers. Instead we have an act that protects giant multinationals and huge corporations from the people and guarantees them huge profits. That is unacceptable in this day and age.

We do not have one-tenth the amount of competition legislation the United States has. I am not saying that more is better but what we have now is not, as I am told every day, working for anybody but the large corporations and the very wealthy families.

In summary, I support the principle of the member's bill. I hope it receives wide support from the House once again and is not stalled in the unelected, unaccountable, unacceptable Senate of Canada.

[Jim Jones, Progressive Conservative, Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak tonight to second reading of Bill C-393, an act to amend the Competition Act as it deals specifically with negative option billing.

First, I congratulate the member for Sarnia—Lambton for sponsoring the bill. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the member's views on matters as diverse as the Senate, child custody or other topics of debate tonight, in negative option billing one cannot help but admire his determination in pursuing these issues.

We need more members like the member for Sarnia—Lambton in the Liberal caucus. We need more members who challenge the status quo, defy the establishment when need be and stand up for the interests of their constituents.

As others have attested, Bill C-393 had a previous life in the 35th parliament. In that parliament, the member for Sarnia—Lambton introduced Bill C-216 which would have amended the Broadcasting Act. The legislation was sparked by public outrage at the cable companies imposing negative option billing through the addition of specialty channels at the beginning of 1995.

As such, Bill C-216 dealt solely with cable television. Despite opposition from many powerful interests, the member for Sarnia—Lambton persevered, managing to guide the bill through first and second reading as well as committee and report stage before it passed the House.

Unfortunately for the member's efforts Bill C-216 was still under review by the Senate when the prime minister called the 1997 federal election. Bill C-216 was effectively killed by the member's own government which was not under any pressure to go to the polls only 3.5 years into its first mandate.

There may be some, perhaps even the member himself, who would blame the Senate for the death of Bill C-216. This is a misguided view because the Senate was playing its constitutionally mandated role to review legislation from the House.

There have been too many occasions in the past several years when the Senate has undeniably improved legislation, correcting errors not addressed on the House side. The Liberal government's so-called Pearson airport legislation and more recent amendments to the Judges Act are but two recent examples. Until the Senate is either reformed or abolished, we should stop attacking its members for trying to the job to which they were named.

Bill C-216 is history. We are now debating Bill C-393. As previously mentioned, the bill would amend the Competition Act to ban negative option billing in a whole host of sectors: certain financial institutions, broadcasting undertakings, telecommunication firms and insurance companies.

In particular, Bill C-393 protects a basic consumer right, the right to express consent before purchasing a new product or service. What this means in plain language is that consumers cannot be billed for a product or service without their clear consent.

The member for Sarnia—Lambton and organizations such as the Consumers' Association of Canada make a compelling case against negative option marketing practices. I think many of us would agree that this type of marketing reverses the traditional buyer-seller relationship. With negative option billing customers are offered new products or services and are required to opt out or expressly decline these new offerings to avoid being charged for them.

From a legal standpoint negative option billing relies on the concept of implied consent. By not responding to the solicitation the consumer is deemed to have given his or her consent. It is fair to say that negative option schemes rely on market inertia to sell new products or services to an existing client base.

It is therefore a justifiable claim that negative option billing further concentrates market share with the dominant industry players instead of fostering competition in an open marketplace.

Bill C-393 applies to federally regulated businesses such as banks, cable and telephone companies. Under the law select financial, insurance and broadcasting companies would not be allowed to use a lack of consumer response to negative option billing inquiries as consent to buy.

The bill wisely allows provincial governments to prohibit negative option marketing within their jurisdictions. Provinces such as Quebec have already taken steps in this direction, a point that was highlighted by the Bloc in the last parliament and also tonight.

While provincial governments have progressed somewhat in addressing these dubious marketing efforts, there is a noticeable lack of such consumer protection at the federal level. Cable providers are still using negative option billing in regional markets despite previous assurances to the contrary.

Industry Canada's office of consumer affairs has warned that negative option marketing has the potential to be an important tool in the financial services sector. The department's August 1996 discussion paper on this subject stated:

Examples include the sending of unsolicited credit cards and changes in account structure made without consumers' consent.... The new technologies could allow industry to profit by slipping new charges and services past unsuspecting customers.

In 1997 the Toronto-Dominion Bank employed a negative option technique to deprive bank customers of their privacy. The National Bank reportedly used a similar scheme to sell travellers health insurance to existing customers by debiting their accounts for $9.95 per month.

I am pleased that Bill C-393 recognizes that there are situations in which a consumer benefits from a negative option billing arrangement. However, for this to be the case, consumers must be able to make informed decisions and give express consent.

Bill C-393 proposes certain steps to be taken for a negative option scheme to be legal. The bill proposes fines for those who contravene the act. Bill C-393 has received the support of the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and the Insurance Brokers Association of Canada.

Although Bill C-393 is strong on consumer protection I would like to know the views of such organizations as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters Canada, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Canadian Bankers Association, among others. We must always be prudent as parliamentarians not to impose an excessive amount of laws and regulations on the private sector.

We already have the sad example of the federal cost recovery program which was introduced by the Liberal government. While the move to user fees for the private sector was initially welcomed by businesses of all shapes and sizes, the government's chosen structure has proven to be ineffective, disparate, incompatible and costly. As a result this program cost the Canadian economy over $1.3 billion from our GDP and 23,000 jobs.

Let us always be careful in bringing in government intervention no matter how well intentioned it seems at the time. Furthermore, I would like to know how the bill would impact upon the provision of French language broadcasting services.

The chairwoman of the CRTC, Françoise Bertrand, warned the Senate transportation and communications committee that Bill C-216 could result in a lack of marketing flexibility that would hurt the financial sustainability of French language services in Quebec and across the country.

I am sure that all members of the House, especially bilingualism's newest friends in the Reform Party, would want to ensure that Bill C-393 does not similarly threaten French language broadcasting.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada I offer qualified support to Bill C-393 at second reading. The overall intent is extremely positive. The legislation would significantly increase the level of consumer protection. I urge all members of the House to put aside partisan interests and support moving the bill along to the industry committee where it would be given closer scrutiny on issues such as the one I have raised this evening.

Again I applaud the member for Sarnia—Lambton. We need more initiatives from Liberal caucus backbenchers.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to address the matter currently before the House. I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to the member for Sarnia—Lambton for his continuing work and long term interest with respect to this matter.

Bill C-393 embodies a very simple premise. That premise is that the consumer should have the right to say no. In short, only I have the right to accept goods and services and only I have the right to share my personal information with others. No one else should presume to have that authority without my express permission. Negative option marketing endangers this. In plain language, self-protection is what we are debating here today.

It seems simple enough. If I wish to sell a person a product or a service I must first convince them that they require the item and then get their delivery approval and eventually their payment.

This simple formula has been the basis of our capitalist system for centuries. With this in mind it might surprise many of my constituents and indeed Canadians in general to discover that although this formula is used frequently, it is no longer used universally.

Before I continue it should be noted that first British and now Canadian common law in simple terms states that anything that is not specifically prohibited is permitted.

We need to clarify the current legislative regime with respect to this matter to account for this. Some of our provinces have already taken appropriate steps to rectify this.

I strongly feel that it is time for the federal government to standardize this protection right across Canada and Bill C-393 would do exactly that.

It is also a popular misconception that a signature is required to validate an agreement. This concept is brought into question when one applies the notion of the negative option billing or approval process.

We should all be familiar with the mail order tape and video clubs. One of my staff members is involved with one of the more popular Canadian compact disc clubs. He tells me that every month he is issued a card that names a specific music selection referred to by the club as the selection of the month. He is given approximately 20 days in which to respond to the mailing. Should he fail to reply, the item and the bill is shipped to him. In short, the said company considers his lack of response to be a purchase agreement.

At a glance this does not seem to be a bad arrangement. However, suppose the mailing was delivered to the wrong address or even lost. My employee would receive the compact disc and the invoice without ever having the option to refuse.

Another such example would be the cable TV package. As we will all remember, not too long ago some of the major cable providers utilized the negative option billing concept to sell unsuspecting viewers a new programming package. As I recall, public outcry was so substantial in this instance that the cable providers had to backtrack on this plan.

It has become clear that the public is demanding change. Again, I would suggest that this bill advocates that type of change.

The list of examples seems to go on endlessly. I was recently reading a publication released by the Toronto Dominion Bank entitled Your Information and Your Privacy: See How TD Protects Your Privacy . This document assured me as a consumer that the protection of my personal information was of paramount concern for the bank. The document even went so far as to say that the bank would never sell customer lists or my information to other groups or individuals. I cannot tell hon. members how pleased I was to read this. I cannot stress enough how upsetting it can be to discover that personal and confidential information had been released by an individual, group or institution that I trusted to sources that I would not have invested with that trust.

We can all name many examples of this type of information pillaging. Many Ontarians will remember how, in the not too distant past, the Ontario Ministry of Finance sold a list compiled from information contained on private tax rolls to outside interests. I remember the angry callers who approached both my constituency office and myself asking if I could do anything to help them. Today, by supporting this bill, I am attempting to ensure that this never happens again.

Getting back to the TD publication, after assuring me that the bank would not violate my trust, the document went on to say “For your convenience, if we do not hear from you by October 31, 1997, we will proceed with sharing your information within the TD group and may contact you occasionally with offers of products and services we believe will be of interest to you”.

In essence, this brochure tells me that the bank will throw itself on the tracks to protect my confidence, but it also tells me that it intends to release my information to others for alternative marketing purposes. That is wrong.

I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that consumers should not be given a full range of options. I simply believe that they should be required to provide express consent before incurring the expense or before the personal information is used for purposes other than the one that it was originally secured for.

I would respectfully encourage my colleagues to add their support for this bill to that of groups such as the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the Public Interest and Advocacy Centre and the Consumers Association of Canada. It is the right thing to do and as legislators the negative option is not available to us. No response when this vote is called will mean no sale for Bill C-393.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my constituents in Halifax West to raise with this government the issue of the future of the port of Halifax. In response to my question in the House of Commons on November 19, 1998, the Minister of Transport said “We are certainly open to suggestions”. I do have a number of suggestions and a number of questions that I know many people in Halifax would want this government to answer.

Late last month the intergovernmental affairs minister claimed there would be federal cash available for Halifax if it won part of the super port pie. I am concerned about the impact on Halifax's ability to win part of the super port contracts if this federal government is unwilling to show to the industries concerned in more detail the depth of its commitment to this economic development opportunity for Halifax.

This could be a half billion dollar investment in the economic future of Halifax. Estimates suggest that already the port of Halifax supports 7,000 jobs directly and indirectly and generates almost a third of a billion dollars in economic activity annually.

Upgrading the port to handle post-Panamax super ships would do much to help with the economic development of the region. These super ships are too wide to navigate the Panama Canal. One encouraging fact is that Halifax has natural harbours deep enough to accommodate the 50-foot depth that the Maersk and Sealand container companies suggest is needed to handle their super ships. At 45 feet New York hits bedrock.

People in my riding have already raised the issue of the environmental impact of a super port. I want this government to be clear that it will support a complete, fair and thorough environmental impact assessment before it moves one teaspoon of earth should this project go forward. While I join others in looking forward to a major economic boost for the region, it must be done in such a way that protects long term environmental interests. The assessment must be fully open to public participation and the public must easily have all the relevant information available to it. No corner cutting can be allowed if we are to properly ensure that long term economic planning walks abreast of long term environmental planning.

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address some of the concerns that have been with raised with respect to the port advisory committee process in Halifax. These comments are directly related to the comments made by the member from the opposition.

The role of the port advisory committee was to develop a user nomination process in response to the requirement in the Canada Marine Act to consult with users on certain board appointments. This nomination process has been reflected in the letters patent. The purpose of this process was to solicit names for user representatives to Canada port authority boards and to forward nominations to the Minister of Transport for consideration.

Port advisory committee members will not be appointing directors to the Halifax port authority. The authority is an agent of the crown and the majority of directors are appointed by governor in council. In addition, the province and the municipality each appoint a board member.

To ensure the process was inclusive, port managers were asked to contact users and invite them to attend a nomination meeting. In addition, an advertisement was placed in the local newspaper advising of the port advisory committee nomination meeting.

With respect to the composition of the port advisory committee, a broad cross-section of port users was represented, including members of the Halifax Chamber of Commerce and the Halifax Shipping Association. The list provided by the port advisory committee was used by the minister in making his recommendations to the governor in council.

As with the provincial and municipal appointees to the Halifax port authority board, each user representative will serve the board with a view to the needs of the Halifax port authority as a whole. I am sure that at no time will these competent individuals lose sight of some of the concerns mentioned by the hon. member from the opposition.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to follow up on a question I asked on December 7, 1998. It was in relation to the fact that the United Nations committee had made it clear the Friday before that the Canadian government did not take good care of the disadvantaged members of its society, and recommended a reform of employment insurance.

At that time I asked the federal government to reform employment insurance. We are in March now and still waiting for the Minister of Human Resources Development to show us some light at the end of the tunnel.

One cannot be satisfied with the response I was given at the time by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, particularly when he spoke of relief for low income families, that is 400,000 taxpayers, when there are 800,000 people who do not qualify for employment insurance. He mentioned the youth employment strategy, but these are short term, not long term jobs.

Today, I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development what he intends to do about gappers, and the black hole. He answered this question by saying that only 2,000 workers were affected. Does the minister know what is going on in his department?

In my riding alone, there are 3,100 people who could be called gappers, not to mention those in the riding of my colleague, the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac. Does the minister know what is going on? The only reason there are only 2,000 gappers left is that they are being eliminated.

Camille Thériault, the premier of New Brunswick, said that newcomers will not be eligible. This is what is happening in New Brunswick.

I am asking the Minister of Human Resources Development to look at this issue and wake up. There are people who are suffering. These are individuals who contributed to the employment insurance fund. The minister must realize that seasonal workers are suffering.

There is a problem in Atlantic Canada. There is a problem in Saskatchewan, with only 19% of the unemployed qualifying for employment insurance. There is a problem in Ontario, where only 23% qualify for employment insurance. How can the minister rise in this House and say such terrible things? Why is he not able to look after human resources and employment insurance issues, instead of trying to defend himself by saying “There is no problem. We are creating jobs. We are creating this. We are creating that”.

He should come and see the hardship the Liberal Government of Canada has caused. Now, the provincial government is making matters worse.

I will end on that note. I hope the minister will wake up and take a serious look at this issue.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the government understands that some families who are unemployed or living on EI live in difficult situations. We have tried to be sensitive to their circumstances. That is why for example we introduced the family income supplement which tops up the EI benefits of about 220,000 low income claimants with children, two-thirds of whom are women.

I must ask the member opposite to recognize that the overall objective of the EI program is more than just giving the unemployed EI benefits for as long as possible. Instead, it means ensuring that people can have the skills and opportunity to work and can feed their own families. Merely giving people income support and keeping them on the economic sidelines year after year will not improve their lives or enable them to benefit from new opportunities in our economy.

We are trying to help those people get the skills needed to earn a full income because we believe this is the truly compassionate thing to do.

While EI is an essential part of our social safety net, it is not the only solution. Our net is strong and fair because different programs exist to meet different needs.

EI is supported by a number of other programs to help unemployed Canadians get a job. For example, there is the $7 billion the government puts in for low income families through the Canadian child tax benefit. For youth we invest $155 million every year to help young Canadians get on the job experience. For people with disabilities we invest, along with the provinces, $430 million to help them find and keep a job. For those trying to adjust to the new working conditions of the new economy we have set aside $2.1 billion for active measures.

This is how we are showing compassion, by ensuring a comprehensive set of measures exists to meet different needs. The fact that unemployment is at its lowest level in over eight years tells us that our approach is working and we hope the trend will continue.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on November 5, I asked the health minister a question relating to MMT and Ethyl Corporation.

I asked the minister a specific question on when a comprehensive study would begin to determine the health effects on Canadian children. He responded: “As more is known about the health effects of MMT, government policy will reflect those research results”. Four months have passed and the health minister has not announced any effort to determine the possible health effects MMT poses on Canadian children.

In November I was honoured to host a parliamentary breakfast sponsored by the Council of Canadians and the Sierra Club of Canada. Members from all political parties attended this important event. The guest speakers were Dr. Donna Mergler, a nervous system disorder specialist at the University of Quebec in Montreal, and Dr. Herbert Needleman, professor of child psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh's school of medicine.

Dr. Mergler is an expert on the effects of manganese on the human population. Dr. Needleman is recognized internationally as a key figure behind the removal of lead from gasoline in the 1970s to protect the world's children.

These distinguished speakers drew upon their respective histories and expertise to call on this country to act with precaution and to conduct intensive studies in relation to MMT fuel additives. They outlined the potential similarities of lead's adverse health effects on humans that MMT may pose. They urged Canada's leaders not to repeat the mistakes that the repeated delays with lead fuel additives created. Millions of children were unnecessarily exposed and suffered a variety of neurological and physical effects.

The health minister has demonstrated this government's refusal to act proactively or to in any way show leadership, political will or vision. When the need to protect Canada's children requires a precautionary approach this government disappears. For example, the issue of metals and chemicals in children's toys was ignored for a year by the minister until independent lab tests proved the danger and the government was forced to act.

The government has also resumed toxic PCB shipments to Swan Hills contrary to a company official confirming that there will always be fugitive emissions, dioxins and furans spewing throughout the countryside.

The government continues to ignore reality. Sick children are not relocated from beside this country's infamous toxic waste site, the coke ovens and Sydney tar ponds. At a time when the government tells the Canadian public that precautionary principle is policy, we know by its inaction and delay that this is not correct.

Several weeks ago the EPA in the United States initiated a new series of studies into MMT. The majority of European countries and the United States do not use this product. We are guinea pigs for a corporation and a government that have lost direction in the face of trade and profit.

After four months of further government delay to protect Canadian children, what studies have been reviewed by Health Canada, if any? Has the health minister drawn any conclusions from the recent reports from Denmark on the potential health effects to workers from manganese operations? Has the minister looked at the study from British Columbia that may show a marked increase in manganese concentrations in soil collected along thoroughfares since MMT became a fuel additive replacement for lead?

Did the minister bother to read the peer review in the infamous Toronto study relating to MMT that raised serious questions about the report's validity? Will the minister or any other minister in the government today take precautions on MMT for the sake of Canada's children? The government's track record states no.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I start by stating very clearly that the health of Canadians, particularly the health of Canadian children, is a priority for Health Canada.

The government's decision to delist MMT was in response to a ruling by a panel established under the agreement on internal trade. In acting on the panel's recommendations the government also moved to resolve Ethyl's NAFTA claim.

Health Canada conducted a thorough review of the health effects of manganese that could be attributed to the use of the gasoline additive MMT and published those findings in December 1994. The review considered all age groups, including children and the elderly, and concluded that the vast majority of Canadians are exposed to levels of manganese that are well below a level of concern as determined by Health Canada and the World Health Organization. I remind the member that the report is an assessment of the health impact of MMT and not an endorsement of its use.

In developing the conclusions reached in the report, Health Canada reviewed the science contained in over 200 published research papers. Departmental scientists were satisfied that the database was sufficient to achieve and reach valid conclusions on the subject of MMT. As with all scientific issues, gaps exist in our knowledge.

The department is also aware of other studies being planned or already in progress which might provide new information on this subject. We are aware of the studies and of the learned scientists the member referred to in his opening remarks.

I assure the member and all those watching this interesting debate that Health Canada will continue to examine all available studies as an ongoing effort to reassess the 1994 risk assessment. We believe that is appropriate. I assure the House that any health developments will be reflected in the government's policy toward fuel additives.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the health and safety of Canadians are always a priority with Health Canada.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, on March 2, I put a question in the House to the Minister of Human Resources Development on employment insurance.

I pointed out to him that his government had given responsibility for the programs to the province, but without attaching conditions when it transferred the money, which resulted in a great muddle.

Based on the response my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst was given earlier, it is clear that the government understands nothing at all. They might understand something if they came to New Brunswick to see the situation, but we know the minister is afraid of coming. We might ask why he is afraid. He says there are only 2,000 gappers.

I think we ought to define the word “gapper”. Gappers are people whose EI benefits are cut before they start working again. The unfortunate part is that, when the minister called his officials today, they forgot to tell him what a gapper was. I am explaining it to him, and I hope his parliamentary secretary will pass on the definition of gapper, because we have a serious problem.

He said there are 2,000 gappers in the province. I know that in the Moncton and Beauséjour—Petitcodiac ridings there are 12,000, or 11,954 to be exact.

I got these figures from department officials. These are not statistics, they are active files. They do not include maternity leave or sick leave. They are applications for benefits, active applications from people who will run out of benefits before their job starts. It is not hard to understand. There are not just 2,000 in New Brunswick. The minister has to come and see. We know he is afraid.

Today, I presented two petitions. There were 2,700 names of people from my riding, people who are concerned about cuts to employment insurance, people from rural regions that have been included in urban areas. Still the minister refuses to make changes.

In the department, they talk about investment in the regions. They neglected to say how much they had taken out of our regions following the cuts to the employment insurance program. New Brunswick loses $275 million a year. My riding is out $35.8 million a year, and they would have us believe no one is going hungry.

Two weeks ago, I visited a number of food banks. Demand was up sharply in seven out of eight. And what was the major reason for this increase? EI cuts. So, when the minister says there are 2,000 gappers, the other 10,000, or 15,000, or 16,000, or 20,000 are getting their meals from food banks.

I also learned from my visits that, when people turn to the welfare department of Camille Thériault's government for financial assistance, they are given a chit for the food bank. It is truly disgraceful that a provincial government treats people this way.

The federal government is taking these people's last penny away, then the provincial government does the same thing. Both are Liberal governments; one would sometimes think they were in cahoots. Camille says not to worry, that these people should be sent his way because food bank workers are very generous nowadays.

We must congratulate the volunteers and all the families that give food to food banks because, without their support, many people would suffer from hunger, since neither the province nor the federal government is looking after them.

The government says that many women are covered. The fact is they contribute, but they do not qualify for benefits. I am not making that up, I can see what is going on. Women hold part time jobs. Therefore, how can they work the 910 hours required? The minister must come to see the reality in New Brunswick, because he will never understand what is going on until he comes and sees it for himself.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is sensitive to the needs of seasonal workers. Their needs are one of the reasons we changed the employment insurance system to an hours based system in the first place. Today seasonal workers can benefit from having all their long hours of work count under employment insurance.

Another reason we implemented reforms to the EI act was to reduce dependency on EI as a regular income support program and instead give people the tools they need to get back to work. That is why we invested $2.1 billion in active employment measures to help people find jobs.

Now that the labour market development agreement with New Brunswick has been signed, we are providing that province with almost $240 million over three years to help people get back to work. The province is now responsible for the delivery of these programs.

Last year the Department of Human Resources Development made available up to $5 million in transitional assistance to the New Brunswick government to help workers affected by the gap, the so-called gappers of whom the member speaks. In addition, the Government of New Brunswick has announced its own $5 million seasonal workers adjustment initiative.

In 1994 about 7,500 seasonal workers were affected by the gap. Since then this number has been on the decline. Based on the number of participants in the program last year, it is estimated that about 2,000 people were affected by the gap in New Brunswick.

I can understand why the member opposite is disputing this figure because according to her definition a gapper is a person who does not get EI before his or her job starts. I assure the House that no Canadian gets EI before his or her job starts. They get EI when their job ends.

Our general strategy seems to be working because over 35,000 New Brunswickers have been added to the labour force since October 1993. We feel this is a fact to be celebrated.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.13 p.m.)