Madam Speaker, I am quite pleased to take part in this debate. Members of the Standing Committee on Industry have discussed this bill, and today, the arguments put forward in committee have been summarized for us.
I would like to acknowledge the persistence of the hon. member, even though I do not share his view, because this is the fourth time he has tried do convince the House of the merits of this private member's bill.
The objections of the Bloc Quebecois are in the same line as the motion presented by the hon. member for Témiscamingue to exempt Quebec from this bill.
I find it passing strange that a sovereignist member like me should explain the Canadian constitution to federalist members of various parties in the House. Our objections are based on the constitution.
Some may wonder how that can be. Section 92.13 grants to the provinces the powers over questions of property and civil law. This is especially true for Quebec, because our civil code is different from the legal system in the other provinces. The civil code comes from the Code Napoléon, and it was accepted when Quebec joined confederation. Its inspiration and implementation differ from common law, which applies elsewhere in Canada.
We constantly have to remind federalist members, who should be more mindful of the Canadian constitution, of this. And it is the Bloc Quebecois members, sovereignist members, who have to do this.
Earlier, the member for Témiscamingue referred to two specific cases where section 92.13 of the constitution was used, as well as paragraph 230( a ). These cases went all the way to the supreme court, they are the attorney general of Quebec v Kellogg's and the attorney general of Quebec v Irwin Toys.
In both cases, the arguments put forward by the attorney general of Quebec were accepted. Cable companies themselves recognized that they were subject to Quebec's legislation, because legislation exists, which established the Consumer Protection Bureau and which, in section 230, prohibits negative option marketing.
After meeting with officials of the Consumer Protection Bureau, Vidéotron, Cogeco, Star Choice and ExpressVu all promised to abide by the bureau's directive that they may not use negative option marketing to sell their new package, as of January 1 of this year. Therefore, the new package is offered on a positive option marketing basis.
A lot of people do not want to hear about the constitution any more but the constitution is about the rules that govern a country, in this case the Canadian federation. If those rules are not respected, what is the use of having them?
My colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party and the Canadian Alliance who spoke before me used the same arguments than those used by the Liberal Party with regard to the Bloc Quebecois' objection, saying that there is nothing wrong with the federal government interfering in provincial jurisdictions.
There is something that many surveys and studies have shown and that those involved in teaching political science often talk about. For Canadians outside Quebec, the main government is the federal government. When it offers money or proposes measures they find interesting, the objections raised by their provincial government are regarded as secondary.
In Quebec, whether one is a federalist or a sovereignist, the exact opposite is true. This has always been the case, because the first government they think of is the Government of Quebec. This is also clear from voter turnout. Turnout in provincial elections in Quebec is always higher. In general, although there are exceptions, the opposite is true in the other provinces.
During my first term of office, I sat on the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. This committee travelled across Canada and Quebec, and I was particularly struck by one thing. When it was a question of postsecondary education, the other provinces wanted the federal government to step in and had no problem with national education standards. Yet this is clearly a provincial jurisdiction.
The same is true for health. A debate is now going on in the House of Commons and, during oral question period, the NDP kept coming back to the charge, practically goading the federal government to step in with certain governments, such as Alberta, which wants to limit certain health criteria set by the federal government.
This important difference in perception has been noticed by many, and the motion brought forward by the member for Témiscamingue is very respectful of this reality. There are two mentalities and two cultures in this country that even honest federalists should respect until such time as Quebec becomes sovereign. We are different because we have a different past, culture, language and civil code. These are arguments that do not seem to interest the members opposite or those of other parties.
It upsets me even more coming from the New Democratic Party. I was an observer at their last convention. They were the first federal political party to recognize the existence of a Quebec people.
At the same time, it pointed out that Quebec had the right to self determination. We saw what happened with Bill C-20. At the first opportunity, the NDP changed its approach. They were in fact taken to task by their members in Quebec and those of their national executive who resigned.
People say it is always the members of the Bloc Quebecois who raise this argument. The only consumer group appearing before the committee came from Quebec, the Action Réseau Consommateur. I would like to recall the remarks of the representatives of this group. They said that the bill was a matter of provincial jurisdiction.
The group asked:
That, if this bill is pursued, it not include in it the concept of prior consent, which contravenes the spirit of the law and takes away its meaning, to all intents and purposes.
It also asked:
—for an amendment of clause 1(3), in order to prevent banks and broadcasting and television undertakings from replacing a service with another if no additional cost is charged, without the consent of the consumer.
What will happen if the bank replaces a paper service with an electronic service, when the client does not want the electronic service?
It also asked:
That for all transactions, consumers be given a hard copy contract.
None of these recommendations was heeded.
To conclude, I would like to say that, in addition to invading areas of provincial jurisdiction, this bill serves no purpose, in our opinion, since the legislative provisions already exist, especially in Quebec, and protect the consumer in this regard.