Marc Boulianne

[Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first, in terms of forming the government, we have no intention of doing so. I can assure the member. The Bloc's intentions are very clear. Our goal is sovereignty as quickly as possible and not to govern Canada.

Second, there are formulas for avoiding risk. It involves home evaluations and advances. Some programs are designed this way. Once the evaluation is complete, an advance is made to cover a percentage of the cost of the work. These programs are for people who have difficulty getting their work done. They are not all earning $100,000 or $200,000. Their finances are tight. They have a very difficult time investing $4,000 or $5,000. If the work is very carefully evaluated, a system of advances can be put in place. A number of programs are designed this way.

Third, in terms of profits, I would point out to the member that we pay taxes too. At issue are the taxes paid by the oil companies making the profits. I mentioned earlier that Exxon had made some $10 billion in profits. These surpluses are not taxed. The case is the same for Petro-Canada. The government has been negligent and will have to pay the price at some point.

[Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise and speak in this debate on BillC-66, An Act to authorize payments to provide assistance in relation to energy costs, housing energy consumption and public transit infrastructure, and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts. In regard to energy costs, the government has been slow to take action, even though it was important to do so. There will also be two other measures. The first is the petroleum monitoring agency, which is something that the Bloc Québécois has been requesting for ages in order to lower prices. The second is the Competition Act, a separate act, which will bring about improvements.

First of all, I would like to reiterate the Bloc's position on this bill. We are in favour of it, especially in principle. The Bloc Québécois thinks that the measures in this government plan are quite good. One can hardly be opposed to virtue itself, and this bill provides relief to people who need it in order to reduce our dependence on petroleum. Nevertheless, there are some deficiencies in the bill. As earlier speakers have indicated, the program is incomplete. Some people or groups are not only neglected but completely abandoned.

Think of the budget of a poor family with children. My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé just spoke about seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement. It is a good measure in itself, but $565 million is not enough. Improving the energy efficiency of housing, providing additional funding for public transit and creating a petroleum monitoring agency are all positive principles. On the other hand, the bill lacks teeth.

We have a few more suggestions or remarks. First, the Bloc Québécois wanted $1.5 billion for disadvantaged people. That is three times as much as what the government is providing. Again there are oversights. In his question, my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé mentioned single people and disadvantaged couples. Some single people in rural ridings have to drive a very long way to work. They earn between $8 and $10 an hour and have to pay their fuel costs, but there is nothing in this program for them if they do not have children.

The same is true of taxi drivers and truckers—every speaker has said the same thing but the government seems impervious to it—who represent an incredibly vibrant sector of our economy. They spend a lot on fuel but do not receive any assistance.

We must focus on two sectors in particular: farmers and independent woodlot operators. There the shortfall is particularly devastating. For example, farmers have not only seen an increase in the price of fuel: they will also be hit by increases in the price of a number of items that are essential to any farming operation, such as the fertilizer used by grain growers. These increases will not allow them to offset their losses. According to estimates, Quebec farmers will have to absorb over $40 million dollars in additional energy costs. In Canada, the total is some $250 million. We believe that a refundable tax credit could allow the government to provide help up to this amount. Two hundred and fifty thousand Canadian farms need help with energy costs. Another option would be a refundable credit equivalent to 10% of income, with a ceiling. Those are steps that can be taken in agriculture.

I will take another example, that of maple syrup producers in my riding, who face a different set of problems—there are the burners. Their production is crippled in the absence of action in this industry, just as it is in other types of farming. It is the same thing in the case of the independent forest producers. They depend on the use of fuel to harvest the wood and deliver it to the mills. Once again, nothing is being done to help them.

The Bloc Québécois has proposed that forest producers be allowed to deduct 150% of their fuel costs.

This is a reasonable provision, which would allow independent forest producers to continue to operate and to think of tomorrow. The future of these businesses is at stake. The cost of fuel would be reduced.

Obviously, the same principle would apply to other sectors. For example, I spoke earlier about the bill respecting housing, repairs and work. The Bloc Québécois deplores the fact that families must initially spend large amounts of money without any assurance that they will eventually be reimbursed. This program involves an element of risk, and there are always unpleasant surprises. Someone may think they are eligible for the program, but for a variety of reasons they are not eligible. For example, they do not meet the conditions. There are always things to do and often people have invested large amounts of money.

So in terms of housing energy infrastructure, it is absolutely essential that we have assurances that they will not wait until the work is finished to tell people that they are not eligible for a subsidy for part of the work and they have to pay for it out of their own pocket. That is the reason why what we are proposing in this area is so important.

First of all, the program’s budgets for housing energy efficiency should be doubled. It has become clear to us that there was a certain rigidity in the eligibility criteria. We should maintain and guarantee those criteria but, once again, make them more flexible. Another suggestion could make the bill even more effective. That would be to provide for a specific envelope within the program for conversion to fuel oil and electricity. The situation in these areas is hazy and vague: it is not quite clear where the bill stands in this regard.

Also, on housing, there should continue to be substantial grants to reduce the costs of conversion. This is a subject which has arisen very often in our ridings. Of course, when these programs come up—as the hon. members know—people come to see us, they make inquiries and they try to find out whether they qualify for the programs.

I also said earlier that we would like to change the operating rules, so that home owners can receive the grants at the beginning of the process. My colleague replied to me earlier that this was possible. It is one way of doing things. This is what the government should be asked to do, except that it still does not have the interest of consumers or the regions at heart.

In this bill, it is quite clear that the government is being election-minded and partisan in its advocacy of one important element. It is not necessarily giving priority to consumers or to the regions. This is nothing new to us so far as the regions are concerned. For the Liberal government long ago abandoned the regions, especially those that are very remote. We need only take a look back at the principal bills and motions that have been tabled. When we live in the regions, we are cast aside.

I was speaking earlier of my region, a farming region where one can find the maple syrup and dairy industries. There are currently surpluses—nearly 55 million pounds of maple syrup. Yesterday, with regard to the Pacific gateway, the government was talking to us about consulting the municipalities, the government and the arbitration tribunals. Meanwhile, there are no emergency measures and, in the countryside and the regions, we are faced with certain problems. The same thing is happening with this bill. Farmers and loggers, who are part of the remote, even the very remote regions, are developing the regional economy, and employment as well. Even if we asked the government for something, we would not get it, because that aspect still remains, that central electoral focus in this document.

That is serious in itself, but there is worse still. I refer to the funding of this program. It is paid for by taxpayers only, not by those who have caused and profited from the crisis, the oil companies.

Before the session began, as a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology, I had the opportunity to hear witnesses from the oil industry for a whole day. They were boasting about the fact that the oil companies had made money and huge profits.

Last week Exxon announced $10 billion in profits. Petro-Canada's profits had increased by 38%. The witnesses from these oil companies came to tell us that the companies were making money and that they would continue to do so. The government lacks courage. It is unable to intervene or assume its responsibilities.

It is unacceptable for this program to be funded solely by the taxpayer. That is the major flaw in this program. Furthermore, oil prices will continue to increase.

At some point, obviously, oil prices stopped increasing, but that was just strategy. When these big companies saw that people were talking about this a great deal, that a committee was sitting and that the government was prepared to take action, they eased off on the price of oil. Nonetheless, this will begin anew because the government is in cahoots with the oil industry.

They have some advantages over the mining industries, like the ones in my region, for instance. The mining industry does not receive the same tax benefits as the oil industry. We can see that several members of the government, including the Prime Minister, have interests in oil. It is therefore very risky for them to be assertive.

The Bloc thinks quite clearly that we must call on the oil industry to contribute at least $500 million of their record profits to meet all the needs. As I was saying earlier, the lack of courage is the major flaw in the plan. That is certain.

It was also mentioned earlier that a great deal of people, groups and sectors are not covered, including seniors, disabled people and singles. We could probably cover more sectors with this $500 million. What is more, we could take care of people and regions the best way possible.

The same thing goes for the office of petroleum price information. We can see that in creating this office, the government is still lacking in courage—which is logical and in keeping with their bill. This is of course something that the Bloc Québécois has demanded, not merely suggested, for a long time. We have long called for an independent and transparent body to monitor petroleum prices or at least provide us with explanations. This office ought to be able to carry out investigations, but of course will not be able to. In fact, if certain things were to come out, that might be very embarrassing to the government. It will not have the power to make recommendations to the House of Commons.

The Liberal government—that is, the government of the sponsorship program—is saving face with the creation of this office, but not giving it any real powers. It does not want to give it any. So it has no interest in asking the oil companies to at least cut the losses a bit for consumers.

Clearly, this bill needs improving, if only in the two areas I have mentioned, that is creating a price control office and putting more teeth into the Competition Act. The latter must be done immediately. In Canada, in Quebec in particular, and we have seen this often in Montreal, telemarketing is the hub of all manner of fraud. The sanctions are not stiff enough. I repeat, the Bloc is in favour of beefing up the Competition Act. If there were major penalties, this might bring the oil companies in line as far as prices are concerned. The increasing prices must absolutely be controlled, and both laxness and repeat offences must be stopped. The Competition Act must be made more effective.

In addition, as recommended by the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology , there must be a reverse burden of proof. That is important to the process of determining whether there has been a conspiracy. There may have been damages and the oil companies must be made aware that they will have payments to make.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill, but it needs considerable amendment in order to provide general assistance to all economic sectors, especially those that have been the hardest hit.

I want to talk about truckers again. This is extremely important to them, and to forestry workers, low-income families, seniors and the disabled.

As I mentioned earlier in a question, consumers have concerns about this bill. Quite often, people are convinced that they are eligible for a program. However, as things progress, there are some nasty surprises: they learn that they do not meet the criteria. I gave the example of renovations: an individual may invest $3,000, $5,000 or $10,000 and, ultimately, some bureaucrat may decide that the project is not energy efficient, that the individual is ineligible and that the money must be repaid. These programs are full of surprises. To be honest, there is a huge difference between the program or legislation in theory and in practice. At times, we may be in for a very nasty surprise.

In short, the government's plan is very misleading. It must be improved in a number of areas, including those I mentioned earlier. I want to mention them again. It is unacceptable for taxpayers to fund this program. This makes no sense. We must look to the oil companies to do their part, so that the program has the necessary resources to meet the needs of society, for all organizations and individuals.

In this regard, we have a number of recommendations, as usual. Whenever the government manages to improve its bills, most of the time it is thanks to recommendations and suggestions made by the Bloc Québécois. However, the government goes out of its way to avoid recognizing the Bloc Québécois as the author of such improvements, by saying that it had talked about them two, three or four years ago. However, it is well known that the Bloc Québécois, thanks to its rigour and its suggestions, makes these bills better.

Now, once again, we are asking the government to improve this bill so as to benefit all sectors and all regions.

[Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member. The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill. It is important to say so. However, it contains some fundamental flaws.

I want to come back to a subject he mentioned: making housing more energy efficient. This is good, but there are always problems or surprises when it comes to program eligibility. I think that we must point out one of these problems, and I want to hear what the member has to say about it.

Families must make significant investments up front without knowing if they will qualify for government assistance. Assistance is granted in accordance with the resulting energy efficiency. This means that an individual may undertake extensive renovations without knowing for sure if a refund will be forthcoming.

Would it not be possible to amend the rules so that homeowners can obtain financial assistance from the government when renovations start instead of when they are completed, so there are no nasty surprises?

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the speech made by the hon. member for Essex, particularly where he talked about Chuck Cadman. I was Mr. Cadman's neighbour and we were even seatmates. The hon. member is right. I found it shameful to see what the Liberals did after the vote. Before the vote, they had not talked to him, they had not even saluted him, they had not even seen him when he would come and sit here. But after the vote, they came to see him crawling on all fours. They shook hands with him with a big smile on their faces. What a despicable display of subservience. I saw it, I was there. Mr. Cadman was shaking. They were all happy. Then, we left and it was over. So, the hon. member is right on this. It was shameful on the part of the Liberals.

I want to ask the hon. member if this bill reflects Mr. Cadman's memory, if it reflects the spirit of his legislation.

[Telecommunications Act, October 24th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I must say that I was not part of the committee. Therefore I cannot answer this question. Someone would have to look into it.

[Telecommunications Act, October 24th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse for his question.

When we speak of a registry, there are obviously three points to look at. As has been mentioned, there is the make-up of the administration and the operation of the registry. Also, who is responsible for it, and what are the costs. We are trying to determine how it will operate. A committee will be in charge of operations. The Bloc Québécois and various members of the Committee think that an independent organization is needed to manage this registry.

As for costs, we must also be vigilant and realistic. I spoke earlier of the firearms registry. That is an example which has shown us how big a cost overrun can be. At one point we were talking about millions of dollars, and we ended up at $2 billion. We will have to be very realistic and rigorous in this regard.

I think that the only way to respond to these criteria, that is, administration, operations and costs, is to do so together, including both Parliament and the persons concerned. This will allow us to work toward unanimity on all the regulations by which the registry will function.

[Telecommunications Act, October 24th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act , and thus to participate in the debate on third reading.

I will start, if I may, by congratulating all parties for their unanimity on the amendment:

That Bill C-37, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 26 on page 3 with the following:

“paragraph (c) for an electoral district;

f) made for the sole purpose of collecting information for a survey of members of the public; or

(g) made for the sole purpose of soliciting a subscription for a newspaper of general circulation.”

This amendment has already been referred to by my colleague and vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, Science and Technology, the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup , who was very keen on it. His argument then—and now—is that first of all it is an improvement to the bill and second it reflects the wishes of the public.

There has been much consultation on this subject. Nearly 80% of the Quebec or Canadian population were in favour of this bill. With this amendment, this bill is thus completed. Furthermore, this amendment responds to the desires of the committee. You will recall that there was unanimity on this subject and that the amendment had been abandoned for purely technical reasons. Therefore, once again, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I want to congratulate all of the parties for having agreed to this amendment.

Second, my colleague indicated earlier that the bill would permit the CRTC to administer databases. This is important, particularly with respect to two very specific objectives, namely to prohibit or regulate the use of telecommunications facilities. First, such use must be regulated up to an honest and objective point. Second, any Canadian carrier or any person must be prohibited from engaging in unsolicited telecommunications. That is what we are talking about. This is an extremely important step for the future.

There is a second aspect to this bill: it will provide for penalties. The severity of those penalties should dissuade persons who engage deliberately or fraudulently in unsolicited telecommunications.

My colleague indicated earlier that one of our roles as members of Parliament is to legislate so as to protect the interests of consumers. In that regard, we all know how constantly our fellow citizens are being solicited, mainly by telephone, or by fax. I have received such calls, as I am sure you all have. Families and children under age 18 are also highly solicited—be it for credit cards or pressure buying. The problem exists.

Not only is Parliament responsible for passing legislation in this matter and regulating telecommunications, but it may also prohibit fraudulent telecommunications. This is very difficult. It comes more under the Criminal Code. All the same, we have to send a very clear message that Parliament, Canada, will no longer tolerate these fraudulent telecommunications.

One need only check a few statistics to realize that, at present, Canada is a haven for fraudulent telemarketing. For example, Montreal is the North American hub for unsolicited or fraudulent telemarketing. According to an RCMP investigation, nearly 90% of the premises and facilities for these con artists are to be found in Montreal.

This bill will sound the alarm. After evaluation, however, we will have to be able to take very productive action on this subject. These fraudsters have illicit revenue estimated at $60 million, with individuals easily earning $5,000 a week.

At the moment, the section in the Code allows these criminals to get off with just a very light fine or a short term of imprisonment. So it is difficult in Canada to convict this type of criminal. Furthermore they are very often repeat offenders.

When a bill provides ways of getting around the law, repeat offenders continue to come out on top. They get rich at the expense of those who, unfortunately, are the most vulnerable in our society. Some very honest people are easily fleeced by these professional con artists.

The bill provides for administrative monetary penalties. This is also linked to the authority to investigate, inspect and enforce. We are convinced this will be effective. This is in the bill. Again, this will be instrumental in putting a stop to these crimes.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-37, as is the Canadian Marketing Association. As we have already mentioned, we support this for a number of reasons.

One of our primary concerns is consumer protection, which we feel is essential. There are other reasons. As I was saying earlier, statistics show that the telemarketing industry employed some 270,000 people in Canada in the year 2000, which is quite significant. This industry plays a role in the economy and has done $16 billion worth of business. It therefore has a considerable impact on communities in Canada and Quebec. If a bill is passed that sets out principles of use and possible penalties for such a large industry, then we will have been effective.

The Bloc Québécois and the Canadian Marketing Association are in favour of this bill. We know that the big players are involved in this association, which is currently the largest marketing industry association in Canada. Its member companies contribute to the Canadian economy by essentially providing 480,000 jobs and by making more than $51 billion in annual sales. These companies have also said they are in favour of this bill.

This association is also a powerful lobby for the marketing sector. Like the Bloc Québécois, it has said that it supports Bill C-37, while at the same time having certain concerns regarding the powers given to the CRTC in the area of regulations. This will have to be monitored closely to ensure that the bill remains as realistic in its final form as in its purpose.

As far as committee proceedings are concerned, the Bloc Québécois helped get the bill amended, to include the necessary exemptions for charities and the media for example. For a bill to be significant, it has to cover all that has to be covered, respect freedom of expression and involve everyone concerned.

Like the Canadian Marketing Association, however, the Bloc Québécois also has some reservations. This is fundamental. Obviously, the bill deals with the registration process. The Bloc Québécois would like the mechanism for putting the registry in place and the associated costs to be clearly stated.

When we talk about the registry, of course, this includes the operation, implementation, monitoring and other costs associated with this registry. Hon. members will recall the gun registry. That was not a very pleasant experience. We have seen the money wasted on that. Originally, it was supposed to cost between $2 million and $3 million. Now, estimates are in the billions of dollars.

When administering a registry, one has to beware of costs. Right from the start, the costs have to be planned and established as realistically as possible. The same is true for the registry's operation. It is imperative that the registry be under the responsibility of an independent organization. We are wary in this regard.

Administration of the registry and everything related to the do not call list must be free of any electoral or partisan intent. This is what the Bloc Québécois is concerned about. Even though the Canadian Marketing Association wants to be entrusted with managing the system that will be established to administer this list, that is not necessarily our preference. The institution that will be in charge must demonstrate greater independence. We must avoid falling into the same situation we have in the oil industry. In this case, a private organization has provided the information in good faith. Eventually, one always gets back to certain protected interests or interests that are in these institutions. In the view of Canadians, the institution that will supervise the registry must be above all suspicion in order to be credible. We must not commit the same mistake that was made with the gun registry. We must arrange things so that the organization responsible for establishing this registry is seen as having the necessary independence, its mandate its clear, and it is managed according to ethical principles.

The Bloc Québécois also wants the law to cover as many people as possible and to be administered in a very fair way. It is interesting to see that all the political parties supported this bill and the amendment. We recognized, first, that there was a problem, that Canadian and Quebec consumers had a serious problem in this regard or as consumers. While taking freedom of expression into account, I think that it is just as important to combat harassment and fraud.

We were speaking earlier about consent for this national list, which is at the heart of this bill. The Canadian Marketing Association has shown beyond any doubt, once again on the basis of a survey, that this bill is important to Canadians and Quebeckers. In the Industry Canada background documents on this bill, an Environics poll done in 2004 showed that 79% of the respondents said they were in favour of the national do not call list and 66% said they were likely to subscribe to such a service. That is very revealing. Ninety-seven per cent of Canadians said that they were annoyed by unsolicited telemarketing calls.

When there is a bill as important as this, which covers virtually all areas of consumer protection regarding unsolicited telecommunications, it is important to support it. The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill. We are very happy that there was unanimous support for the proposed amendment. I would also like to ask our colleagues to vote in favour of this bill, which will benefit all Canadians and all Quebeckers.

[Telecommunications Act, October 20th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Sherbrooke for his question.

To put things into context, this amendment was unanimously approved in committee. When it was submitted to the House, the Speaker ruled it out of order for technical reasons. Yesterday, we tried to get the unanimous consent of the House, which would have allowed us to present this amendment. However, the Liberal government changed its mind and refused to give its consent.

In our opinion, as the hon. member for Sherbrooke said, in order to give the newspapers certain latitude, it is essential that this amendment be part of the bill. We are once again seeking the unanimous consent of the House to adopt it.

[Telecommunications Act, October 20th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Obviously, the principle of the bill is very clear. As far as telemarketing is concerned, there will be some very important principles to prevent unsolicited advertising. The bill is very clear on that. Sanctions are provided. They will eliminate such things as credit card calls. There are provisions in the bill on that. This is an improvement. The CRTC, moreover, had already proposed changes and improvements in that area.

As for complaints, the CRTC has already intervened to ensure better follow-up on complaints and to add more powers in this connection. That too is in the bill. Connected with it is an awareness program on all aspects of unsolicited approaches.

[Telecommunications Act, October 20th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on this bill. I want to congratulate my colleague, the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, for his excellent work not only on this issue but also as a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology. Furthermore, I congratulate him on his recent appointment as vice-chair.

I want to come back to Bill C-37 to amend the Telecommunications Act, because it is very important. This enactment will allow the CRTC to regulate or prohibit certain telecommunications practices. The regulations must leave room for freedom of expression. In my opinion, this principle is clearly expressed in the bill and it must be respected. This bill will prohibit or regulate the use by any person of the telecommunications facilities of a Canadian carrier for the provision of unsolicited telecommunications. This is the fundamental principle and basis of the bill.

Quite often, there is a laissez faire approach to telemarketing. But this industry is extremely important to Canada and Quebec and has a large presence.

There is another interesting aspect to the bill: its penalties for the contravention of prohibitions or requirements of the CRTC. As far as sanctions are concerned, we are told that Canada is a paradise for telemarketing scams. Telemarketing is covered by section 380 of the Criminal Code, but Canadian law is far too easy on it. Criminals generally get off with a fine or a really light sentence. It is hard to convict someone of this offence at present in Canada. What is more, the majority of these criminals reoffend. So there is a problem.

The RCMP even tries to get offenders extradited to the United States where the law is far harsher. For example, there an individual found guilty of fraudulent telemarketing involving a person over the age of 55 years is liable to five years imprisonment. This bill must be more rigorous. Any bill, regardless of its topic, must include incentives, of course, but sanctions or penalties as well.

As we indicated in committee—and there was unanimity on this, moreover—the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-37 for a number of reasons. One of our primary concerns is consumer protection, which we feel is essential. There are other reasons. According to the statistics, the telemarketing industry employed some 270,000 people in the year 2000, and did $16 billion worth of business. It therefore has a considerable impact on communities, consumers and Canadians and Quebeckers in general. For a business of that size, there will be major consequences as soon as a bill is passed that sets out principles of use and penalties it will be subject to.

We held consultations leading up to this bill. It is essential because it meets a need the public has expressed. A recent Environics poll reported that 79% of respondents were in favour of a national do-not-call list. This is important. In reality, such a thing is already in existence. The public is prepared to punish wrongdoers and work to achieve a bill that sets out these principles. What is more, 66% of respondents indicated that they already subscribed to such a service.

When we inform and consult with the public before developing a bill like this, which received unanimous support in committee, we know that it will be helpful and useful to the public.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour and has also proposed some amendments. Nonetheless, the Bloc Québécois also has some reservations. First, we want the mechanisms for setting up the registry and the costs involved to be clearly defined. We remember the gun registry. What a waste by the Liberal government. At one point it was supposed to cost $2 million or $3 million and now the cost is in the billions of dollars. That registry was botched. A lot of money was spent.

We are mistrustful when it comes to the registry. We have to be. It is our responsibility to enquire about the basic principles that will govern this registry. It cannot be left once again to a party or a government that has partisan or election-minded intentions. That is the primary concern of the Bloc Québécois. We have to see this bill through with this primary consideration in mind.

There is s second concern, and the Bloc Québécois would like the registry to be managed by someone outside the marketing community and the Canadian market. That is essential. Too often, the people looking into situations are the same ones who created the situations. That is unacceptable, and we have to prevent these forces from systematically distorting the verification process. This will require structures and independent organizations to, again, check how the registry is managed.

I am coming back to this point and I insist on this feature of a registry. The past is often said to be an indication of what the future holds. As I said earlier, we have seen how a registry can be handled by this government.

Another element was viewed as very important by the Bloc Québécois, which has put forward amendments in this respect. We wanted exemptions considered necessary to be included. We cannot have blanket bills, always expecting them to apply systematically.

In a society like ours, flexibility and open-mindedness are in order. Some organizations may not be affected and, if they are, the impact of the bill must at least be mitigated. I am thinking of registered charities for example. While protecting freedom of expression, they have to be allowed to function well within the system.

Under this bill, every new measure that will be put in place is essentially designed to put tighter controls on the telemarketing industry in order to protect consumers. That is what this bill is all about. That is also what the Bloc Québécois has been fighting for. We must always have at heart the interest of Canadians, Quebeckers, and consumers. This bill is testimony to that.

An amendment was put forward in committee concerning a number of exemptions, which was unanimously approved. Unfortunately, we realized yesterday that it was out of order. We even sought the unanimous consent of the House for this amendment. To no avail, because of the Liberal Party's opposition. That is unfortunate because the committee was unanimous. The Bloc Québécois is, once again, seeking the unanimous consent of the House to approve this amendment. We are convinced that it will improve the bill.

Again, the Bloc Québécois believes that this is an important bill. It will protect consumers and improve telemarketing practices.