Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have risen in this House with the name of my new riding, because the name of Mirabel, the former international airport, was added yesterday.
Bill C-393, an act to amend the Competition Act, 1998, negative option marketing, is intended to prohibit this practice, that is invoicing for a good or a service the customer has not expressly approved.
This bill proposes an amendment to the Competition Act and is intended to prohibit this practice in the banking, trust company, co-operative credit association, telecommunications and broadcasting sectors. Contravention of this legislation could result in the charge of no fine to a fine of $100,000.
The director of the competition bureau would be required to report annually on this matter. The governor in council is authorized to make regulations to exempt services that require an exemption to remain competitive, for example, francophone broadcasting services.
This is the background of this bill. C-393 is the third attempt by the member for Sarnia—Lambton to prohibit negative option billing in the cable sector. However, Bill C-393 differs from its two predecessors because it gathers in much more than just cable companies.
In 1994, the CRTC authorized six new English language broadcasting services and only two French language ones.
In 1995, Canada's anglophone cable companies withdrew certain basic broadcast services and expanded the volume to include the services previously distributed on the basic service and the new services offered by the CRTC.
Consumers reacted vigorously to the upheaval in their schedules. Their reaction was described as a revolt, but consumers did not like anyone playing with the schedule, having to pay more for services they had had previously and having to pay for services they did not want.
They did not take kindly to having to refuse the new service, or receive it by default otherwise.
In 1996, the member for Sarnia—Lambton introduced Bill C-216, which was to amend the Broadcasting Act to prohibit negative option billing by cable companies.
Although the Bloc Quebecois agreed with the bill in principle, it was opposed to it for the following reasons: Bill C-216 represented interference in commercial relations between businesses and consumers, a field of provincial jurisdiction; the bill was impossible to enforce, there being no technology for providing television on demand; the member's bill would have required the explicit consent of all subscribers for a new channel to be broadcast, which, to all intents and purposes, prevented new channels from starting up.
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.
The Senate amended the bill in order to protect the francophone market. The bill died on the order paper when the 1997 general election was called.
On November 25, 1997, the member for Sarnia—Lambton very laudably went at it again, this time with Bill C-288. The purpose of this bill was essentially the same as that of Bill C-216 and its objectives were almost identical. At the time, the bill was not made votable.
On April 23, 1998, the member for Sarnia—Lambton stubbornly, and I mean this as a compliment, introduced Bill C-393, another bill on negative option billing.
In the clause defining client, enterprise and service, the member proposes that the bill also apply to banks, trust companies, co-operative associations, broadcasting undertakings, telecommunications undertakings, and insurance companies. The bill says that certain services may be excluded by the governor in council by regulation.
Section 53.1(2) sets out the procedures that will have to be followed by businesses covered under this bill to make sure that the client is fully informed of the nature of the new service, of the date the new service is to begin, of its cost calculated monthly and annually, of the fact that the new service is not mandatory, of the fact that the client may obtain the new service by signing a business reply card, and of any other matter that may be prescribed.
Paragraph ( b ) of this section reads as follows: b ) the enterprise has received the express consent of the client for the purchase or reception of the new service by the client.
Section 53.1(3) says that the prohibition does not apply where the new service replaces another service for which the client has already paid a similar or higher fee, or where the new service is free of charge.
Subsection 53.1(4) deals with offences and punishment. Fines range from $0 to $100,000. This section also provides that officers and directors of a corporation are considered party to and guilty of the offence and liable to the punishment provided for the offence.
Clause 2 gives the Attorney General of Canada the authority to institute prosecutions. It requires the director of the Competition Bureau to report annually concerning the number of complaints received from the public, a description of the complaints and proceedings undertaken under the Act. The report must be tabled in both Houses.
Clause 4 gives the governor in council the authority to make regulations for carrying out section 53, therefore allowing the governor in council to exempt enterprises that would otherwise come under the act, to allow them to remain competitive.
The rest of the bill provides for consequential amendments to harmonize the Competition Act.
I remind the House that, under the Constitution, contracts, local trade and consumer protection are areas of provincial jurisdiction. I must stress this fact.
Under section 93 of the Canadian Constitution, which gives the provinces authority over matters related to property and civil law, contracts, local trade and consumer protection issues come under provincial jurisdiction. These powers enabled the introduction in the Civil Code of Quebec of a provision on contract formulation, attached in part.
The powers given to provinces by the Constitution Act enabled the Government of Quebec to pass the Consumers Protection Act, which prohibits negative option marketing.
I will conclude by recalling the position of the Bloc Quebecois. As I said earlier, our party agrees with the hon. member in theory and points out that the Government of Quebec introduced provisions prohibiting negative option marketing within the boundaries of Quebec.
But the Bloc Quebecois still opposes Bill C-393 as it opposed Bill C-216 and C-288, for the following reasons: this bill intrudes into provincial jurisdiction over trade—