Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-393, an act to amend the Competition Act, 1998 (negative option marketing).
This bill is aimed at prohibiting negative option marketing, which means billing consumers for products or services without their express consent.
In fact, this bill proposes to amend the Competition Act to prohibit such marketing practices by banks, trust companies, credit unions as well as telecommunications and broadcasting companies.
Should this bill be adopted, anyone who commits an offence under the act would be subject to a fine of up to a maximum of $100,000. The director of the Competition Bureau would be required to submit an annual report on this issue. Moreover, the governor in council may, by regulation, exempt any service that needs to be exempted to remain competitive, for example, French language broadcasting services.
I want to emphasize the fact that Bill C-393 is the member for Sarnia—Lambton's third attempt to prohibit negative option billing by cable companies. However, Bill C-393 differs from the two previous attempts in that it goes beyond cable companies.
I would also like to give a brief overview of the history surrounding the introduction of Bill C-393.
In 1994, the CRTC authorized six new English language and two new French language broadcasting services. In 1995, cable companies in English Canada withdrew certain broadcasting services from the basic service and created an enlarged package consisting of the services previously included with the basic service and the new services they were offering, which had been authorized by the CRTC.
Consumers reacted strongly to this disruption of their package. Their reaction was described as a revolt at the time. They did not appreciate the changes, nor did they appreciate the fact that they had to pay more for services they already had and that they had to pay for new services they did not want.
They also did not appreciate having to make known their wish not to subscribe to this new service, or find themselves subscribing by default.
In 1996, the member for Sarnia—Lambton introduced Bill C-216, the purpose of which was to amend the Broadcasting Act so as to prohibit negative option billing in the broadcasting sector.
I would remind members that the Bloc Quebecois was in agreement with the bill in principle, but that we were still opposed for the following three reasons.
First, Bill C-216 represented interference in commercial relations between businesses and consumers, a field of provincial jurisdiction.
Second, the bill was impossible to enforce, there being no technology for providing television on demand. In addition, Bill C-216 would have required the explicit consent of all subscribers for a new channel to be broadcast, which, to all intents and purposes, would have prevented new channels from starting up.
Third, the bill had a particularly unfortunate effect in Quebec, where negative option billing is needed to ensure the widest possible distribution of a broadcasting service, failing which the service would be too expensive or would never get off the ground.
For the record, Bill C-216 died on the Order Paper when the 1997 general election was called.
When a new parliament reconvened, the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton tried again and introduced Bill C-288 on November 25, 1997. Its goal was similar to that of Bill C-216, and its content was almost identical. Unfortunately for him, the bill was not a votable item.
And now we have Bill C-393, which was introduced on April 23, 1998, and is before the House. It also deals with negative option marketing. But, as I said before, it is different from the two previous bills in that it deals with much more than cable television.
The Bloc Quebecois supports of the hon. member's proposal in theory. Let me remind the House that the Quebec government has passed a law banning negative option billing in Quebec.
But the Bloc Quebecois will oppose Bill C-393 for the three following reasons.
First of all, the bill encroaches on Quebec jurisdiction in matters of trade and contracts. As a matter of fact, the Constitution provides that matters of contract, local trade and consumer protection are under provincial jurisdiction.
The second reason we will vote against this bill is that the CRTC already has the authority to ban negative option billing, if it thinks it is in the public interest to use its authority to do so.
Finally, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill because it will help to reduce the authority of the CRTC and give the Competition Bureau powers that could undermine Canadian broadcasting policy, reduce consumer choice, increase rates and put an end to the development of French broadcasting services throughout Quebec and Canada.
I remind the House that consumers in Quebec made their position about Bill C-216 known to the Senate committee.
In fact, I firmly believe that more than ever French speaking viewers need the protection the CRTC can give them. Members have to understand that Bill C-393 could prohibit every other marketing method except pay per view television and could particularly involve such limited distribution that no new French language service would ever get off the ground.
It could deprive us of any new French channel. But even worse, as my hon. colleague from Mercier put it, the French language media must be allowed to live, not just to merely survive.
For all these good reasons, we will vote against this bill. Still, I want to commend the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for his perseverance, and he can be assured that the Bloc Quebecois will also persevere in its opposition to his bill.