Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, I am pleased to speak in this debate. Bill C-393 is intended to amend the Competition Act, 1998, which concerns industry.
On first examination, the objective of this bill appears to be a praiseworthy one. But we in the Bloc Quebecois see a number of problems in it, particularly the issue of jurisdiction. The bill is intended as an interference in the relationship between commercial operations and consumers, which is clearly an area of provincial jurisdiction.
This bill proposed an amendment to the Competition Act, and is aimed at prohibiting negative option marketing, which means billing consumers for products or services without their express consent.
In fact, it proposes to prohibit such marketing practices by banks, trust companies, credit unions as well as telecommunications and broadcasting companies. When reference is made to credit unions, of course this refers mainly to the caisses populaires, of which there are many in Quebec. Almost all Quebeckers belong to a caisse populaire.
This is the third attempt by the member for Sarnia—Lambton to ban negative option billing. In 1996, the member for Sarnia—Lambton introduced Bill C-216, the purpose of which was to amend the Broadcasting Act.
I would remind members that the Bloc Quebecois was opposed to the bill for three reasons. First, it represented interference in commercial relations between businesses and consumers, a field of provincial jurisdiction. Second, the bill would have required the explicit consent of all subscribers for a new channel to be broadcast. Third, the bill had a particularly unfortunate effect, not only in Quebec, but in our opinion also in other regions with a sizeable francophone population.
The other place was concerned about this, and amended the bill in order to protect francophones. It died on the Order Paper, however, when the election was called.
On November 25, 1997, the hon. member for Sarnia«Lambton introduced Bill C-288. Its goal was similar to that of Bill C-216, and its contents almost identical. But the House did not get to vote on this bill.
He is now coming back with this legislation. We can attest to the tenacity and perseverance of the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton, who insists on presenting a bill, which he feels targets broadcasting companies. But this time, the hon. member does not seek to amend the Broadcasting Act but, rather, the Competition Act. However, the fundamental purpose of the Competition Act is not to regulate relations between consumers and businesses, but to monitor deceptive practices used by competing companies.
As regards deceptive practices, the Bureau of Competition must of course receive complaints. When it is established that a company or a business is resorting to deceptive practices, it can be subject to stiff penalties.
But, in this case, this clearly does not come under the Competition Act. The objective is different, that is to deal with relations between consumers and companies. This, in our opinion, comes under the CRTC, which is accountable to the Minister of Industry, and the issue should be dealt with at that level.
There is a major flaw in that the proposed change is not aimed at the proper act, but at another one, whose objective does not have to do with this type of relations.
In spite of the laudable goal pursued by the hon. member, the Bloc Quebecois will nevertheless oppose this bill, primarily because trade and consumer protection come under the jurisdiction of the provinces.
We believe that this issue should be dealt with by the CRTC, which already has the powers to prohibit negative option marketing if it deems that it is appropriate and in the public interest to do so.
This bill would reduce the powers of the CRTC and give the Bureau of Competition powers that could adversely affect the Canadian broadcasting policy, limit consumers' options, increase their bills and kill the development of French language broadcasting in Quebec and Canada, in regions where francophones are present.
I will stop here and conclude by saying that we will oppose this bill.