Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to address the matter currently before the House. I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to the member for Sarnia—Lambton for his continuing work and long term interest with respect to this matter.
Bill C-393 embodies a very simple premise. That premise is that the consumer should have the right to say no. In short, only I have the right to accept goods and services and only I have the right to share my personal information with others. No one else should presume to have that authority without my express permission. Negative option marketing endangers this. In plain language, self-protection is what we are debating here today.
It seems simple enough. If I wish to sell a person a product or a service I must first convince them that they require the item and then get their delivery approval and eventually their payment.
This simple formula has been the basis of our capitalist system for centuries. With this in mind it might surprise many of my constituents and indeed Canadians in general to discover that although this formula is used frequently, it is no longer used universally.
Before I continue it should be noted that first British and now Canadian common law in simple terms states that anything that is not specifically prohibited is permitted.
We need to clarify the current legislative regime with respect to this matter to account for this. Some of our provinces have already taken appropriate steps to rectify this.
I strongly feel that it is time for the federal government to standardize this protection right across Canada and Bill C-393 would do exactly that.
It is also a popular misconception that a signature is required to validate an agreement. This concept is brought into question when one applies the notion of the negative option billing or approval process.
We should all be familiar with the mail order tape and video clubs. One of my staff members is involved with one of the more popular Canadian compact disc clubs. He tells me that every month he is issued a card that names a specific music selection referred to by the club as the selection of the month. He is given approximately 20 days in which to respond to the mailing. Should he fail to reply, the item and the bill is shipped to him. In short, the said company considers his lack of response to be a purchase agreement.
At a glance this does not seem to be a bad arrangement. However, suppose the mailing was delivered to the wrong address or even lost. My employee would receive the compact disc and the invoice without ever having the option to refuse.
Another such example would be the cable TV package. As we will all remember, not too long ago some of the major cable providers utilized the negative option billing concept to sell unsuspecting viewers a new programming package. As I recall, public outcry was so substantial in this instance that the cable providers had to backtrack on this plan.
It has become clear that the public is demanding change. Again, I would suggest that this bill advocates that type of change.
The list of examples seems to go on endlessly. I was recently reading a publication released by the Toronto Dominion Bank entitled Your Information and Your Privacy: See How TD Protects Your Privacy . This document assured me as a consumer that the protection of my personal information was of paramount concern for the bank. The document even went so far as to say that the bank would never sell customer lists or my information to other groups or individuals. I cannot tell hon. members how pleased I was to read this. I cannot stress enough how upsetting it can be to discover that personal and confidential information had been released by an individual, group or institution that I trusted to sources that I would not have invested with that trust.
We can all name many examples of this type of information pillaging. Many Ontarians will remember how, in the not too distant past, the Ontario Ministry of Finance sold a list compiled from information contained on private tax rolls to outside interests. I remember the angry callers who approached both my constituency office and myself asking if I could do anything to help them. Today, by supporting this bill, I am attempting to ensure that this never happens again.
Getting back to the TD publication, after assuring me that the bank would not violate my trust, the document went on to say “For your convenience, if we do not hear from you by October 31, 1997, we will proceed with sharing your information within the TD group and may contact you occasionally with offers of products and services we believe will be of interest to you”.
In essence, this brochure tells me that the bank will throw itself on the tracks to protect my confidence, but it also tells me that it intends to release my information to others for alternative marketing purposes. That is wrong.
I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that consumers should not be given a full range of options. I simply believe that they should be required to provide express consent before incurring the expense or before the personal information is used for purposes other than the one that it was originally secured for.
I would respectfully encourage my colleagues to add their support for this bill to that of groups such as the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the Public Interest and Advocacy Centre and the Consumers Association of Canada. It is the right thing to do and as legislators the negative option is not available to us. No response when this vote is called will mean no sale for Bill C-393.
