Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this important initiative on the part of the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.
He is to be congratulated for bringing to the attention of the House a marketing practice many Canadians find offensive and for giving the House the opportunity to express our concern and support for the rights of Canadian consumers.
Many if not most Canadians dislike aggressive marketing tactics. We dislike pushy sales techniques. It makes us uncomfortable to have to hang up the phone on a telemarketer or to slam the door in a salesman's face.
Aggressive sales tactics often succeed precisely because they exploit our better nature.
The marketing practice dealt with in Bill C-393, negative option marketing, may be a little bit more subtle than the tanned salesman who shows up at your door, but it is just as aggressive and intrusive. Negative option marketing means that a company will send the consumer an offer saying that he must refuse it, otherwise it will consider that he has accepted the offer. It will then send him a bill or, if he are already a customer, add the extra costs to his monthly bill.
Naturally many Canadians find this sales strategy more than a little annoying. There they are sitting at home quietly minding their own business and they are not safely out of reach of businesses pushing products and services they do not need, do not want and maybe cannot afford.
Why should Canadians be required to be eternally vigilant against unsolicited sales?
There are negative option billing arrangements that satisfy both the consumer and the business, for example in certain book or record clubs, but generally these are contractual agreements in which the rights and obligations of both parties are clearly set out and where the consumer has all the information and knows what to expect.
I hope this discussion finds support and solutions from the House.