House of Commons Hansard #98 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was allocation.

Topics

Division No. 1318Government Orders

6:30 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Division No. 1318Government Orders

6:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

It being 6.35 p.m., the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from April 5 consideration of Bill C-276, an act to amend the Competition Act, 1998 (negative option marketing), as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and on Motion No. 1.

Competition ActPrivate Members' Business

May 16th, 2000 / 6:35 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Kilger Liberal Stormont—Dundas, ON

Madam Speaker, I would ask the indulgence of the House for a moment on a point of order. Earlier today the House unanimously adopted a deferral of the private member's bill, of course with the approval of the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

With the day having run slightly longer than anticipated, I have not had time, respectfully to all my colleagues on both sides of the House, to do the normal negotiations. I submit, in the spirit of co-operation, especially since it is Private Members' Business, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House that the vote be deemed requested and deferred, so that members who have other obligations will have the ability to do so with the agreement of the House.

Competition ActPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Is there unanimous agreement to proceed in such a fashion?

Competition ActPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Competition ActPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

NDP

Dennis Gruending NDP Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise at report stage and speak to Bill C-276. This is the latest incarnation of the member for Sarnia—Lambton's longstanding effort to severely curtail the practice of negative option marketing in areas of federal jurisdiction.

Negative option billing happens when companies we are already buying a service from unilaterally change the terms of our agreement with them. In effect, they start to sell us something more or something different on the assumption that if we did not want it, we would have told them so.

The cable companies learned the hard way a few years back that Canadians do not appreciate this. Most people are busy and have better things to do with their time than to pour over the fine print of every piece of junk mail that comes through the slot. We in the NDP believe they should not have to pour over that fine print. The NDP government in British Columbia moved to curb this practice after that cable fiasco in 1995. I note that the Government of Quebec has put similar legislation into effect.

We are talking today about a proposed amendment by the Bloc Quebecois which would carve out Quebec from the applications of the current bill. The Bloc believes that the regulation of commerce is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction and that businesses falling under federal jurisdiction in Quebec currently observe and comply with the Quebec law on this matter.

We have two issues here, one factual and one political, although they run together. First, let us talk about the factual.

Evidence presented by the Quebec consumer groups at the committee hearings suggested that this was not an exclusively provincial jurisdiction. In fact, the Action Réseau Consommateur reiterated just yesterday in an e-mail sent to all members of parliament just how necessary it believes this bill to be in the province of Quebec.

The other issue is political and it is one on which I am afraid we in the NDP cannot agree with our colleagues in the Bloc. The federal government does have the right to regulate industries falling within its areas of jurisdiction. Once it does, the same rules must apply all across the country.

The bill before us today moves farther than the member's first attempt to respond to negative option billing by the cable companies back in 1995. At that time he sought to amend the Broadcasting Act to prevent cable distributors from repeating such business practices in the future.

While that bill enjoyed the support of the House in all three stages, it then moved on to the Senate where it got bogged down in a series of complex legal and cultural arguments. It died on the order paper when the election was called in 1997.

The current version of this bill extends its application to other industries under federal jurisdiction. I am talking here notably about the banks and telephone companies, as well as the holders of so-called broadcast distribution undertakings, that is to say the cable companies. The member broadens this definition by amending the Competition Act instead of the Broadcasting Act.

The member for Sarnia—Lambton presented numerous examples at committee of how the banks and telephone companies have used negative option marketing. They have done so in much the same way that the cable companies did back in 1995 when they started charging everyone for cable channels if they were not cancelled within 30 days.

I remember when this happened to me. I called the cable company to tell it that I did not want the service. It told me that I would obviously keep the service because I needed it. As I recall, I was treated as if I were unintelligent because I was not going to take all of the television channels. I assured the company that I had enough television channels and that I could not understand why it was pursuing this negative option plan. I felt it was unfair to me and to other consumers.

As we know, there was a great deal of outrage among consumers at the time about the negative option being practised by the cable companies. That was the reason the hon. member brought forward his bill at that time.

The banks, the telephone companies and the cable companies, which we are now talking about, are among the largest companies in Canada. Although they have recently been opened up to competition in varying ways, they have all had a substantial head start over their competitors, thanks to an assured place in the market in the past.

Historically in Canada, because we needed to provide telephone service, banking and entertainment in a diverse country, we chose the route of giving a few large Canadian companies the right to develop and sell services without foreign competition. This was a social contract. In return, they promised to be fair to consumers and accountable to government regulators.

Although there was clearly some difference in how this principle was translated into the different methods of regulating the three industries under discussion today, I believe that it fairly characterizes the philosophical approach that was adopted.

Today technology is changing our economy and our society in many ways. These changes should offer the promise of allowing consumers more choice and more control over the services they buy from banks, telephone companies and cable companies. These technological changes make the provision of legislation such as this even more necessary, just as it makes it more possible for the companies to provide us with more choice.

Companies will no longer be able to argue that it is too expensive to write three letters to every consumer or to obtain consent prior to every transaction. In fact, they are going to find that they may lose business unless they accord us this respect.

What is important for legislators to keep in focus and in balance during these changing times are three principles. First, we must ensure that services and infrastructure are available to all our citizens in this large and geographically diverse country.

Second, we must promote Canadian providers of these services wherever possible.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we must put the interests of consumers, both their short term and long term interests, at the centre of our efforts.

I believe the hon. member's bill takes an important step in these directions and follows these principles. I am pleased to support his bill for that reason.

Competition ActPrivate Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

Reform

Eric C. Lowther Reform Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton's private member's bill, Bill C-276, which seeks to amend the Competition Act to ensure that Canadian consumers are not unwillingly participants of negative option billing.

Negative option marketing is the practice of offering products or services while placing the onus on the customer to expressly decline or opt out of whatever is offered. If the consumer does not do that or does not know about it, then the consumer is on the hook to pay for the product or service even though he or she has not consented to the purchase.

The members of the House and many Canadians know the work that the member for Sarnia—Lambton has done with respect to negative option marketing. I wish to acknowledge his good work to protect senior citizens, those on fixed incomes and others, and all consumers who may not be aware of the consequences of negative option marketing until it affects them. We thank him for his efforts to date.

Bill C-272 is designed to prohibit the practice by federally regulated businesses such as banks, cable and telephone companies of implied consent billing. It would require the consumers' explicit consent before they could be billed for a product or service, thus putting an end to the practice of negative option billing.

Consumers across Canada demonstrated their intense frustration when cable providers attempted to automatically charge for new programs unless the service was expressly rejected. It is clear that in a monopoly market such as telephone and cable services consumers cannot easily switch to a service provider who does not engage in this sneaky marketing tactic. That is why the people of Quebec should not be denied the benefits of this legislative proposal.

The amendment we are discussing today is from the Bloc which is insisting that Quebec be exempt. I believe that Quebecers deserve to be protected by the laws of Canada and an exemption for federally regulated industries in Quebec is unworkable and unfair to the Quebec consumer. Personally I like the principle that businesses should obtain consumer consent before charging for new services.

However, the inclusion of the banks in Bill C-272 makes me wonder if the consent requirement is practical for all industries. For example, the banks tell us that only about 30% of their customers currently receive bank statements. The financial review group of the Department of Finance told the industry committee that the complaints they receive tend to be general complaints about the cost of bank service charges rather than changes to service charge packages. This reflects my experience with my constituents. I received hardly any complaints regarding negative option billing with respect to the banks. More important, there is competition in the banking industry and choices are available to the consumer.

The provincially regulated credit unions and others will not have the same obligation so there would not be a level playing field. Perhaps this issue would be better examined during a review of the Bank Act planned for this summer.

Competition laws and regulation can profoundly restrict economic freedom and market efficiency. A general move toward strengthening these laws should be approached with caution. The federal government must strive to ensure that our competition laws do not become overly intrusive and generate a muddled business environment. Competition law must balance the rights of the consumer and the aspirations of companies striving to expand their market share. We must act vigilantly to create competition through deregulation in the interest of every Canadian consumer.

Negative option billing is a practice common to federally regulated industries that enjoy market protection inasmuch as they can restrict or limit a customer's ability to seek out alternative providers of a product or service. Therefore, the deregulation of federally regulated industries would be the first step to eliminate negative option billing and other practices that do not properly serve consumers.

I would much rather have an initiative that worked to limit government regulation and increase competition. The Canadian Alliance supports limited government but recognizes the important role of government in creating an economic environment with fair and transparent rules which protect both consumers and businesses.

We differ from the Liberals in that we believe that markets serve consumers well as long as competition is permitted. This bill in a sense is a band-aid solution made necessary by the Liberals who maintain protectionist policies and regional monopolies in federally regulated industries such as cable and telecommunications, despite the fact that these policies hurt consumers. The drive for profits in a competitive and deregulated industry will give more power to the consumer to seek the most favourable terms for them. It is the invisible hand of capitalism or the market at work.

To conclude, it is clear that the Liberal mismanagement of federally regulated industries has created an economic environment in which consumers suffer the ill effects of limited competition.

I give our qualified support until such time as these industries can be further deregulated. After this deregulation, competition will ferret out those businesses that conduct their affairs in a manner inconsistent with consumer interest.

Competition ActPrivate Members' Business

6:50 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Scott Brison Progressive Conservative Kings—Hants, NS

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure today that I rise to speak to Bill C-276, the legislation that addresses the issue of negative option billing.

It is important when we are developing solutions to complex problems that we do not use solutions which are overly simplistic and may not in fact address the actual complexities of the problem. H. L. Menkin, the American humorist, once said that for every complex problem there is a neat, plausible solution that is wrong.

I have some concerns as a member about the legislation. That being the case, I recognize the position of the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton in bringing forward the legislation and support the ends he is trying to achieve. I am just questioning whether or not this may be the most effective means to achieve those ends.

Every industry that may use negative option billing is different and operates within different parameters. For instance, cable companies are clearly different from industries within the financial services sector or the banks. In an effort to reduce negative option billing or to address the issue of negative option billing, we have to be careful that we do not create an onerous level of regulation in one industry where it is more prevalent and impose the same level of regulation on another industry that in fact is not utilizing negative option billing as much.

This may lead to greater costs for consumers with a complicated process where effectively participants in that given industry, for instance the financial services sector, may find that it creates a competitiveness disadvantage relative to industries in other areas.

One issue that needs to be addressed is the fact that in mailings from banks or financial institutions to customers there is only a 5% return rate currently. As such, it would create an immense amount of administration within a financial services institution or a bank to actually try to eliminate completely any level of negative option billing.

If negative option billing is being used, for instance to bundle or to package services in ways where a customer may in fact benefit in some way or that would actually reduce the costs to the customer, there is no negative to the customer. That is the case for some of our financial institutions.

It is also important to realize that we heard from the Minister of Finance last June with a response to the MacKay task force of the Government of Canada. Those measures have not yet been implemented. I believe they should have been implemented earlier.

The government is in fact stalling on implementing its response to the report on the financial services sector. The legislative enabling of that response should have taken place by now but it has not. When the Senate looks at the legislation it should ensure that it somehow fits within this private member's bill and that any recommendation would fit within the parameters of the government's white paper response to the MacKay task force.

The issue of the competitiveness of our banks and our financial institutions is paramount right now.

Currently we are seeing around the world immense changes in the financial services sector relative to information technology. Effectively the forces of technology and globalization are transforming the financial services sector.

We have to be very careful in Canada. For instance, this type of legislation does not exist in the U.S. There is nothing like it relative to negative option billing in the U.S. As we increase levels of competition or access to Canadian markets by foreign banks, there is a risk that if we handcuff Canadian financial institutions with this type of legislation we in fact may be imperilling Canadian banks and creating a deleterious impact on them and their shareholders, which in fact include 7.5 million Canadians who actually own bank shares in Canada.

We have to ensure that legislation that is designed on one hand to help Canadian consumers does not on the other hand hurt the 7.5 million Canadians who directly or indirectly depend on their investments in our chartered banks for part of their retirement income or in many cases in most portfolios a significant part of their retirement.

The issue of addressing the differences between industries is paramount. If we create some type of regulatory body or vehicle and focus on protecting people from one industry which affects a broad range of industries, clearly it may have a lot of unforeseen and unintended consequences. We have to be awfully careful of that.

We are supportive of the ends of this legislation, in that negative option billing may be something that is more common in Canada and have a more negative impact on Canada than members of the House are aware. We are studying and discussing as a caucus our position on this matter currently.

When we are crafting public policy in the House we have to be sure that we are crafting it around realities as opposed to perceptions. It is very easy sometimes to develop public policy around perceptions in the current environment of poll driven policy as opposed to policies that reflect the realities of what is going on in Canada.

I would prefer to see a greater level of competition in all these sectors, including the financial services sector. I would like to see the government truly address issues of competitiveness, including greater opportunities for smaller financial institutions to compete fully with the banks in Canada, and thus enable both on the consumer side and on the lending side Canadians to have a greater range of services from a greater variety of financial institutions in Canada.

It is important that we address the basic fundamental issues of competition and do not treat these issues with a less holistic approach. It is important to recognize that effectively we should try to ensure that our regulatory burden in Canada is not grossly different from that which exists in countries with which our Canadian companies need to compete.

Clearly the issue the hon. member from Sarnia raises is a very important one. We have to ensure that the means by which he is proposing we address it are the most appropriate means.

Competition ActPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-276 sponsored by the member for Sarnia—Lambton who has been quite active on the whole question of negative option billing or marketing.

Canadians will recall the national event involving a cable company which tried to introduce additional services. These services were going to be charged automatically unless the customer let it be known that they did not want the services. This is the whole concept of negative option billing. As members will recall, the consequence was the uprising of consumers who said that this was unfair, this was not right. The cable company withdrew its proposal and the consumer won.

This bill is about consumer protection. There is a very good reason why it should be characterized as that and why it should be before the House. In my experience in business, as a member of parliament and as an observant consumer, it is my view that consumers need help.

How many times have we seen people go to an automatic teller machine to withdraw $20? How many times have we seen someone go to McDonald's and use a debit card to buy a Big Mac? People do not realize the cost of a transaction. It is pervasive.

How many times have people received in the mail a credit card that was unsolicited? How many times have we seen someone at the till look at the onion sheets of bad credit cards? Why would all of these unsolicited cards be given if there was not, as there is in gambling, a winner? Considering the number of cards that are now issued in the credit card industry, this business is very profitable, despite the fact that many accounts go bad and losses are incurred.

The fact is that consumers need protection because they are not alert. Consumers are distracted by life, by their own interests, and they have been conditioned to assume that everything will take care of itself. Many people do not pay their full Visa balance or Mastercard balance and they are charged interest. It is only a few dollars. It is not a big deal. But with millions of consumers all having the same lazy consumer habits, the sponsors of the credit cards receive a tremendous profit, even though there are losses.

If an individual does not have a special arrangement with their bank, they could be paying anywhere from 30 cents to 75 cents every time they use their debit card. People think that the debit card is convenient because they do not require cash in their pocket. The card is pushed into a machine, a number is keyed in and the machine pays exactly the amount owing. Individuals do not have to worry about cash. Consumers think that is convenient.

A cashier at a large grocery store told me that the smallest purchase made at the store by a customer using a debit card was the purchase of a newspaper. It was 50 cents for the newspaper, but there was a 75 cent charge for the use of the debit card. It makes absolutely no sense.

Consumers need to be educated. They have to be educated about the tied value of money. They have to be educated about the fact that there is a transactional cost no matter what we do, whether we are using debit card machines, green machines or any other electronic device. The costs have to be recovered somehow. We know what a computer costs. We could imagine what this equipment would cost.

This bill really is a proxy for all the frustrations felt by consumers. Consumers need protection, not because they are incapable of working this out for themselves, but because they are busy people. It is not that they are lazy; they have families and jobs and they assume things.

Every now and then the cable company, the telephone company, a bank, almost anyone will do something and it is very subtle. We do not think it is a great deal even if we see something, although there is an additional five cents or three cents charged on an additional withdrawal in this account.

It is not enough for one individual to get excited about, but when that additional increase is spread over millions and millions of transactions, then we are talking about a significant amount of money taken out of the consumers' pockets on the basis of marketing strategies.

Who came up with the concept of negative option billing? Was it consumers? Did they say that business should do this because it is going to help them? Of course not. Negative option billing or marketing is a concept of business. It is a concept of consumer transactions within which the consumer perhaps might not win, but they surely can lose in certain circumstances.

If we go back to the credit card analogy, everyone knows that we get a period of 20 days or so between when the bill is received and when it is due. There is a grace period between when the money was spent or the purchase was made and when the cash has to be disbursed. In a perfect world, if we took that cash we would have otherwise used to pay for the purchase and put it in a bank account, and always left in the bank account all the moneys that we charged, at the end of a certain period, if it was an interest bearing account, we would accumulate a fair bit of money. We could accumulate a fair bit of money over a period of several years and still meet all of our obligations with regard to the banks.

Why do people not do that? The reason is quite simple. It takes time. We have to keep track of things. If we miss just once, all the work done over a couple of weeks could be gone by missing one transaction or one day. People are not in the business of trying to make nickels and dimes on odd amounts.

I liked this bill conceptually when we went through the first round in the last parliament. Now we are into an amendment to the Competition Act. Quite frankly, negative option billing or marketing has been described as a deceptive marketing practice. That is a harsh description or characterization, but it is accurate and I would like to make that clear. The reason it is deceptive is because if we do not do something, then something is going to happen to us. What if I am busy or away? What if I do not quite understand or have misread something? What if I am an elderly person and cannot read very well any more? What if I am just so tired that I cannot do it? What if someone misses because they just happen to be a human being? Chances are they will lose.

This is a high risk area for those who are maybe less able or less capable than some to protect their own interests. That is why, generally, all consumers should say that in principle we do have to protect the consumer population because within our group there are some who really are vulnerable. The stories we hear about abuse of the elderly, as a simple example, is certainly one reason alone that we just cannot be soft on high pressure, scientifically proven, financially viable marketing strategies that have been very successful. With the velocity of transactions that are taking place through Internet banking, et cetera, things are happening very quickly, Madam Speaker, so please do not blink, as you might miss part of my speech.

I wanted to make the point that the velocity of information is changing. The options are there. There are so many things that we can do. Quite frankly, we are in transition as a society.

People have to have a comfort level that they are going to be protected, especially when others want to change the nature of the environment in which they are going to do their consumer transactions.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton. He has been a champion for the consumer in this place. I believe that all hon. members respect him for his hard work. I hear that he has again reached report stage of a very important bill, and I know he is very much looking forward to having this accepted by the House so that he can go back to entertain his friends, the senators.

Competition ActPrivate Members' Business

7:10 p.m.

Winnipeg South Manitoba

Liberal

Reg Alcock LiberalParliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak to this bill.

I am here partly at the request of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, as well as the Minister of Industry, who want to add their support to the very hard work that has been done by the member for Sarnia—Lambton.

This is the House of Commons. This is the place in Canada where we who represent people from all parts of this country give voice to their concerns, and through that I think establish a body of rights for them. They do not have lots of lobbyists running around the Hill trying to influence various bits of legislation. They do not have people who are paid to come in and watch what is going on here all the time and try to influence things on their behalf. They have us, the members. It is our job.

What this hon. member has done is picked up on an issue that offended a very large number of Canadians. He has worked hard to get it past all of the resistance, to get it past all of those people who did not want to see their ability to impose things upon citizens affected in any way. He has done that.

I shall not go through all of the problems the hon. member has had along the way to this point, but he has never given up. He fought the bill through the House and he earned the respect and the support of members of the House. He fought the bill in the other place and he has brought it back to the House with the support of the departments.

I want to share with the House some of the things that other people are saying about the member. This is a quote from an article which appeared on December 17 in the National Post :

Bank mergers were squelched last summer because of concerns over how the super-banks would treat customers. So why would Ottawa want to make it easier for the banks to sell Canadians services they don't want? Mr. Gallaway's bill should pass as is.

The competition commissioner stated:

I don't see how negative optioning could ever be pro-competitive. The basic, underlying concept of a competitive market is that consumers have a choice and exercise that choice, and they exercise it knowingly. If you have a negative option, you don't even know this has happened. You never get a choice.

That is taken from testimony before the Standing Committee on Industry in November and it comes from Konrad von Finckenstein, the Commissioner of the Competition Bureau of Canada. The commissioner is recognizing on behalf of Canadians the problem that exists, the problem that the member is trying to solve.

Let us continue with the testimony before the committee:

The Bureau feels that negative option marketing cannot be seen as a competitive technique that would be good for consumers. The Bureau believes that consumers should have the opportunity to make an informed choice when buying new services. We have never had and we do not yet have any objection to Mr. Gallaway's bill, which would apply to banks, the cable industry and broadcasting.

That statement was made by Johanne D'Auray, the Deputy Commissioner of the Competition Bureau of Canada, in testimony before the Standing Committee on Industry on February 17 of this year.

What does the consumers' association have to say? In testimony in December 1999 the Consumers' Association of Canada said that it believed support for Bill C-276 is a vote to restore to Canadian consumers the right to choose. That came from Mrs. Gail Lacombe, the president and chief executive officer of the Consumers' Association of Canada.

It is that right, the right to choose the services that we want, the right to choose the things that we will purchase, that is embodied in the bill. It is sad in a way that we even have to have this sort of legislation. It is sad that we would ever question a person's right to make an informed choice about the kind of purchases they will make and their right to know what kind of charges will be imposed upon them before they agree to it. It is astounding in a way.

It is interesting, but I do not think that some of the negative option marketing has been a stunning success. Representatives of Rogers Cable indicated that before the committee. In their testimony they indicated that they would never again do it because they have had such a negative reaction from consumers.

It is astounding to me that in the past we have never had protection to prevent companies, particularly companies that had monthly billing practices, from altering the amount of money we were being charged without our ever knowing what it was for unless we took the time to look at it. They did not ask us as to whether we wanted to purchase those new services or not.

This bill represents the kind of work all of us like to see done in the House. It started with a member having a concern brought to his attention by people who lived in his riding. He came back and met with other members from all sides of the House. This bill has had support from all sides because they shared the concern. He worked diligently to produce a piece of legislation that would provide the protection that consumers were requesting.

Madam Speaker, perhaps you could give me a bit of advice. I understand there is a desire for the mover of the bill to have the right of reply.

Competition ActPrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

There is no right of reply tonight. About two minutes are left in debate.

Competition ActPrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

Reg Alcock Liberal Winnipeg South, MB

Madam Speaker, there has been a lot said on this bill, on the need for it and what it will do for consumers. I will spend the last bit of time reflecting on the responsibilities all of us have in the House to protect and work on behalf of the people we represent.

The member has acted in the finest traditions of the House to bring forward a grievance that a great many Canadians have. He has not just raised the question, he has gone beyond that and devised a solution to the problem, a solution that all members of the House can support. It is a great credit to the member and it is a great credit to the members of this institution that we were able to take a stand together on behalf of the consumers.

Competition ActPrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Pursuant to the order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion are deemed to have been put, and a recorded division is deemed to have been requested and deferred until Wednesday, May 17, 2000, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Competition ActAdjournment Proceedings

7:15 p.m.

NDP

Dennis Gruending NDP Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK

Madam Speaker, last month Canadians were outraged when they learned that 90,000 tonnes of toxic waste from an American military base in Japan was bound for Canada.

A shipment of PCBs, toxins that have been linked to birth defects and illnesses including Parkinson's disease and cancer, were on a boat bound for the port of Vancouver. From there this toxic waste was going to be shipped all the way across the country to northern Ontario where it was going to be concentrated and then shipped back across the country once again to Alberta where it was destined to be burned. That is right. Toxic waste was going to be shipped from one end of the country and back again, toxic waste that was not even produced in Canada.

As we might expect, Canadians were shocked to learn that their health was going to be put at risk to do the U.S. military a favour, while making a fast buck for an American company that had set up shop in northern Ontario to get around U.S. environmental laws. Imagine an American company setting up shop in Canada to get around environmental laws. Americans used to be afraid of losing jobs to Mexico because of the combination of low environmental standards and people's dire need for work.

Members of the House and many Canadians will remember one of the great fears people had during the NAFTA negotiations. It was that Mexico's so-called trade advantage vis-à-vis employment, health and environmental standards would result in a race to the bottom in our country. We would have to do that in order to prevent job losses to Mexico. Well, things have switched. It now appears that Canada and not Mexico is the environmental patsy in North America.

We are looking at a law for example to protect endangered species. If it is passed without amendment it is going to be the weakest on the continent.

On another matter, officials from our own environment ministry are leading the charge to muzzle the Centre for Environmental Cooperation. That is the NAFTA watchdog that holds our governments accountable when they fail to enforce environmental laws.

Yesterday in the House I urged the environment minister to instruct his officials to stop undermining the work of the centre. He said at the time that I was talking rubbish. But last night Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is an environmental lawyer in the United States, spoke to a public meeting here in Ottawa. He made exactly the same charge, that is that Canada is leading a movement to undermine the Centre for Environmental Cooperation.

These are serious matters. We have a damning report as well, I might add, from the auditor general leaked only today which says that Canada is incapable of protecting its citizens from the illegal traffic, the improper storage and the wrongful disposal of hazardous waste.

While the Americans have banned the import of PCBs into their country, Canada is prepared to take them. There are tonnes and tonnes of domestically produced PCBs sitting in storage sites in this country waiting to be dealt with and technologies which could dispose of them safely. We do not have to ship them back and forth across the country and burn them.

The promises made by the Liberals during the last two election campaigns and as recently as the throne speech last fall are looking more and more like empty rhetoric. Under them we have slipped to the point where Mexico has stronger laws in place to protect the environment than we do. When it comes to protecting the health of Canadians, the government is failing all of us.

In closing I urge the government to put the health of Canadians before all else when it comes to environmental issues which we confront.

Competition ActAdjournment Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

Etobicoke North Ontario

Liberal

Roy Cullen LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to report that the shipment of waste containing PCBs from U.S. military bases was not off-loaded in Vancouver and is on its way back to Japan.

We are pleased that the U.S. government has taken responsibility to dispose of this cargo outside Canada. Throughout we have maintained that the cargo and its disposal were the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Defense and Trans-Cycle Industries.

As a result of this incident we have asked the U.S. Department of Defense to inform us in advance of any shipments of PCB contaminated waste intended for Canada no matter what the PCB concentrations.

We would ensure that our obligations under the Basel convention and all federal and provincial regulations are complied with before any decision on allowing such a shipment is rendered. Under our regulations Canada ensures that hazardous waste imports and exports are handled in a manner that protects the environment and human health.

The new Canadian Environmental Protection Act provides enhanced authority to control imports and exports of hazardous waste. We will introduce new regulations to implement specific criteria to assess the environmental soundness of proposed imports and will refuse any import if these criteria are not met.

An outright ban on the import of all hazardous waste is neither required nor appropriate. A ban would neither be consistent with Canada's international obligations nor with the policy of sharing facilities with either side of the Canada-U.S. border which under the proximity principle allows both countries to use the nearest approved facilities thereby reducing transportation distances.

Canada intends to continue to honour all of its international obligations and will take steps to continuously improve the standards for hazardous waste whether these wastes are domestic or international in origin.

Competition ActAdjournment Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

NDP

Wendy Lill NDP Dartmouth, NS

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand tonight and speak about the future of CBC regional programming. It seems like a never ending story. On April 6 I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage whether she would commit to intervene with cash to save regional TV news programs if the corporation decided to kill supper hour shows.

That was on April 6. Today coincidentally the president of the CBC came before the heritage committee to talk to us on that very subject. The heritage committee had expressed a great deal of concern about rumours about impending cuts to regional programming. We asked if he would come before the committee to discuss it.

What we heard today from the president of CBC was a confirmation that due to 16 years of Liberal and Conservative cuts, 17 local supper hour shows are to be reduced, quite possibly to one per time zone, each one co-hosted from Toronto. The president made a very glossy presentation, a video of what these new shows would look like. Peter Mansbridge would co-host with a host from each region. The news would be recycled through Toronto, Peter Mansbridge being the mainstay of the program.

I do not think there was much appetite in the room for that kind of treatment of local and regional programming. I think it would be quite fair to say that the committee en masse, both sides of the House, every party, had passionate statements about the importance of regional programming and local programming to Canadian culture, to the survival of people's political knowledge of their area so that they would be able to understand the actual governance of their own region.

The member for Fredericton talked about the fact that there was no other programming that was available other than the CBC. The member from Windsor talked about the fact that Windsor is a tiny little enclave surrounded by American production and was very concerned. The leader of the New Democratic Party came to the heritage committee specifically to talk about the importance of regional programming to the Atlantic region.

We have four local supper hour news shows in Atlantic Canada and all of them have excellent ratings. For example, the percentage audience share for the May 10, 2000 ratings compare the supper hour shows with Hockey Night in Canada , Royal Canadian Air Farce and The National .

The proposed changes which were alluded to by Mr. Rabinovitch and by Mr. Redekopp last Friday while speaking to the regional staff talked about beaming one supper hour show through Toronto with various inserts. This is not something that people in Atlantic Canada want. We want to see our own talent. We want to hear our own stories. We do not need it recycled through Toronto. In every market the supper hour news is more popular than The National . In three out of four markets the 6 p.m. news beats hockey during the height of the playoffs.

Where the New Democratic Party is coming from as always over the years is that it is important to maintain stable and secure funding for the CBC. At this point in time, this quite historic day when the president finally acknowledged the fact that the CBC is underfunded, we ask the Prime Minister to reinvest in our national broadcaster.

Competition ActAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Ottawa—Vanier Ontario

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage

Madam Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to say that I too participated in the meeting to which the member for Dartmouth referred.

It is true that the members who attended took advantage of the opportunity to pass on to the president of the CBC the concerns raised by their constituents.

We had a golden opportunity as members of parliament to convey to the president of the CBC concerns that have been expressed to us about the importance of the regional aspect in CBC Radio Canada's mandate. That has been done. Today the president of CBC committed to the members of that committee to report directly to the board of CBC Radio Canada the concerns that have been voiced by a number of people but also the concerns that were voiced today by members of parliament who were reflecting comments received from constituents from all across the country.

That also points out that a decision has not been made. One can hope that the concerns expressed indeed will be reflected in whatever decision is finally made.

We cannot ignore that CBC gets some of what my hon. colleagues have called stable funding. The funding has been stabilized. This is the third year of a five year stable funding program. It was marginally increased to reflect some cost of living adjustments. It was also increased to absorb one time costs related to the Y2K concerns and so forth.

Proof that some things were working was presented to us today by the president of CBC in that radio is fine and in that French television is fine. Let us not forget Radio Canada International which has also received secure and stable funding.

All told, the focus was on English television. Despite funding problems there were things that the president wanted to do which he might do even if he got more money.

Competition ActAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:30 p.m.)