Mr. Speaker, first of all, speaking on behalf of the official opposition and all fellow members of the Bloc Quebecois, now we are all gathered here at the beginning of this session, I would like to express our sympathy and solidarity with all the people in Quebec, in the Saguenay, on the North Shore and in the Eastern Townships, who went through such difficult times as a result of the natural disasters that struck this summer.
Our sympathy and solidarity are also with those who went through much the same experience in Nova Scotia and St. John's, Newfoundland, as a result of this hurricane.
I think it is important to show our solidarity with our fellow citizens, and that is what I wanted to do.
There were also some very serious incidents in Quebec this summer, including the killing of a number of women in Quebec. We are witnessing an increase in violence in our society, and the official opposition urges this government to provide for greater justice in our society so that our fellow citizens will not find themselves in these desperate and tragic situations.
The official opposition extends its sympathy to all the victims.
The following concerns Bill C-216 introduced by the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton, which would prohibit negative option billing by cable distributors, a practice that leaves it up to the consumer to specify whether he wants to keep the service for which he is billed by the company.
Unless subscribers send a notice of refusal, the company goes ahead and bills them. This is called negative option billing. Our
colleague from Sarnia is focussing on a real foundation of our society, which is that companies must not have business practices that harm consumers. In this regard, the bill put forward by our colleague from Sarnia is aimed at protecting consumers.
Beyond that, however, there is a problem because this bill meddles in provincial areas of jurisdiction over marketing.
Second, this bill as tabled will make it more difficult to provide services to francophone communities in Quebec and elsewhere. Since the market is smaller in Quebec, business practices will have to be clearly identified, as services must be much more widespread to become profitable. Third, this bill is totally inconsistent with the structure of cable distributors.
Before getting back to these aspects, I would like to put this bill into context. We must keep in mind that this bill results from a consumers' revolt in English Canada, especially in the Vancouver region-and, as my colleague rightly points out, in the Toronto region-that occurred in January 1995 against the new bundling of programming services by the Rogers cable company.
Rogers took this opportunity to modify its service packages and offer subscribers packages completely different from those they had before, at a higher price, placing the onus on them to cancel service, otherwise they were billed extra after a while.
Making the consumers responsible for notifying the cable distributor they did not intend to subscribe to these new channels amounted to negative option billing, which has already been banned in Quebec and in a few other provinces under the Consumer Protection Act.
Take Quebec for example. How was it done there? Vidéotron for instance did not offer multi-level packages or modify its service packages. It just added the new channels to its basic service package at no extra cost. As for Cogeco and CF Cable, they came to an agreement with the consumer protection bureau. They demonstrated the need and merit of penetrating the francophone market to ensure that the services offered were cost-effective. It was all done through negotiation and within the law in Quebec.
I should point out it was not so everywhere and this has led to protest, particularly in English Canada, where there was no consumer protection legislation in force. How are the provinces affected within their own jurisdiction? To set the debate in context, let me quote section 92 of the British North America Act, in which the business relationship between a consumer and a service provider is defined as follows:
In each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next herein-after enumerated; that is to say-property and civil rights.
Hence the business practice whereby a contract exists between the person who offers the service and the person who buys it. This section of the Constitution applies to all undertakings, including those under federal jurisdiction.
While the CRTC has the authority to grant licences to broadcasting undertakings, the Quebec government, as any provincial government, has the authority to make legislation respecting the business relations between these companies and the consumers.
In fact, this exclusive jurisdiction for Quebec and the other provinces was recognized by former heritage minister Dupuy, in January 1995. But, for greater certainty, we should refer to a Supreme Court decision.
Quebec's Consumer Protection Act prohibits negative option billing, which can be defined as follows: no merchant, manufacturer or advertiser can, in any way, demand any money for goods or services provided to a consumer, when the consumer has not agreed to receive such goods or services.
The Consumer Protection Act even applies to a business which comes under federal jurisdiction, since it deals with a business practice, namely a contract. In the Kellogg's Company of Canada ruling, Justice Martland wrote something very important to define jurisdictions:
Kellogg is not excluded from the application of the restrictions imposed on advertising practices because it chooses an advertising medium which comes under federal jurisdiction.
I already told the hon. member and the committee about this issue, because a federal bill such as this one reactivates the whole debate on federal-provincial jurisdictions and the issue of business practices. Kellogg's tried.
It is easy to see that companies would try to challenge Quebec's Consumer Protection Act by asking the Supreme Court to determine who has jurisdiction. In the Kellogg's Company ruling, it is stated that "the advertising regulations passed under the authority of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act seek to protect children from the adverse effects of certain advertisements. The province can regulate advertising from a commercial business within its boundaries, even if such advertising comes under federal jurisdiction. So, Kellogg's should not be excluded from the application of the restrictions imposed on advertising practices because it chooses an advertising medium which comes under federal jurisdiction".
This is very clear. This is a provincial jurisdiction and the province is the one that regulates the issue of business practices.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, since you are about to tell me my time is up, I would like to say that the Bloc Quebecois has opposed this bill, first, because of jurisdiction, and second, because of the great difficulty that will be experienced by the new services in French to be offered everywhere, since this bill states that a company must obtain the consent of all its subscribers in order to offer a new service.
Where the francophone community is in the minority in a province, I have a lot of trouble seeing how it will obtain services in French. We have seen this in the past. This becomes a very great danger for francophones generally. Third, for penetration of a service to be cost-effective in Quebec, the percentage has to be very high, 80 to 85 per cent. But this bill prevents cable distributors from doing their work and offering services in French in Quebec.
The Bloc Quebecois is therefore putting this amendment forward to have the bill withdrawn.
