Madam Speaker, I compliment the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for taking the courageous step in dealing with this bill.
This is an issue that many of us in the House have had to deal with among our constituents. Our constituents have been very mad and angry that they have had to be subjected to this bullying by certain companies.
I draw to the attention of the House the issue of the cable companies and the banks that tried through the back door to force individuals, members of the public, to purchase goods and services they were not interested in purchasing.
As the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton so eloquently mentions, the adoption of Bill C-393 will mean that if a person does not respond it means no purchase. I repeat, if a person does not respond to what a company is trying to sell it means no purchase, contrary to the situation we have now where consumers are simply not protected.
The fact that this has never been dealt with before is absolutely tragic. Given the actions by some large companies, cable companies, telephone companies and banks in recent memory, it is all the more important that this issue be dealt with as soon as possible and that Bill C-393 gets expeditious passage through the House of Commons for all the consumers who are not protected by this consumer bullying that has potentially been taking place.
Negative option billing means that if something is offered to a person and they do not respond, they have bought it. Many people do not know this. Sometimes they see their bill and all of a sudden they are paying for things they never asked for. That is the reason negative option billing has to be outlawed. That is why our colleague from Sarnia—Lambton has put forth this extremely important bill that should get expeditious passage through the House of Commons and into law as soon as possible.
I am sure the Minister of Industry will look at this bill very carefully and give it his full support not only in the House but in public.
Negative option billing is also known by other names such as tied selling, automatic renewal contract, all euphemisms for the same thing. One can argue that tied selling actually violates the Competition Act.
Section 52 of the Competition Act says that anyone who promotes a product or business interest through representation to the public that is false or misleading in any material respect is guilty of an offence punishable by fine or imprisonment.
Section 52(4) specifically states that the general impression conveyed by a representation, not just the literal meaning, shall be taken into account in determining whether the representation is false or misleading.
That is why Bill C-393 falls within the realm of the laws we have today. That is why it is a reasonable law to be supported and passed by the House expeditiously.
Bill C-393 also would not apply to companies across the country. It would apply specifically to federally regulated businesses, such as banks, cable companies and telephone companies, companies that have been engaging in or trying to engage in negative option billing for quite some time. I will give some examples.
In 1997 the Toronto Dominion Bank employed a negative option technique to deprive bank customers of their privacy. The National Bank has reportedly used a similar scheme to sell travellers' health insurance to existing customers by debiting their accounts $9.95 a month.
We all know the action that was taken by the cable companies. They told their customers that if they did not hear from them over a certain period of time they were going to be forced to pay for certain services. That was completely outrageous and should never have been tolerated.
Bill C-393 addresses this important issue of the protection of consumers across the country. Industry should not be afraid of this. It should actually be applauding it because it would improve competition. Without Bill C-393, negative option billing allows companies, particularly large companies, to bully their customers. Power is centralized in the hands of those companies. In other words, negative option billing enables the large companies to have greater power over their smaller counterparts. That is not competition. That is called monopolization. And in this country monopolization is outlawed.
Bill C-393 has a number of benefits. It would liberalize trade in this country. It would provide protection for small businesses, not unfairly. It would level the playing field between small and large businesses. Above all else, it would protect the public from being bullied by large companies that seek to add profits to their coffers by virtue of trying to force their customers, through surreptitious means, to purchase goods which they are not interested in purchasing.
Again I would like to compliment the member for Sarnia—Lambton for his leadership on this issue. He is going to get a lot of support from this House. I am sure the Minister of Industry is going to applaud this member for his leadership and work with him to make sure this bill becomes a reality in the very near future for Canadians everywhere.