Pierre Brien

[Mosel Vitelic, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Montreal is competing with cities in Ireland and Germany for a new Mosel Vitelic plant.

Investments of over $3 billion and the creation of 1,500 direct jobs are involved.

As the decision is to be made within the next two weeks in Taiwan, could the Minister of Industry confirm for us that he is 100% behind the project and that he will soon announce his government's contribution?

[Banking Services, April 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is planning to introduce a bill in the near future that will allow bank mergers, among other things.

Is satisfying the major Canadian banks the minister's sole objective, or will he also be taking advantage of the opportunity to ensure that consumers have access to affordable banking services?

[Banking Services, April 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the public is scandalized by the billions of dollars in profit being made by the banks every year.

Despite banking fee packages, the six major banks in the country have recorded a $140 million increase in their revenue from service charges in 1999. Yesterday, the Royal Bank announced a 30% hike in certain charges, and this is likely to affect people with small amounts of savings in particular.

My question is a very simple one, directed to the Minister of Industry. When will the government be sending a clear message to the banks that these practices are totally unacceptable to consumers?

[Competition Act, April 5th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-276, in Clause 1, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 2 the following:

“(2.1) Subsection (1) does not apply in the province of Quebec to an enterprise that provides or sells a new service in Quebec.”

Madam Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-276 on negative option marketing. This refers to the fact that, when there are new television channels, consumers are charged for them, and if they do not wish to receive the new channels, they must say so, otherwise they will have to pay for the service.

Its objective is, in principle, a most praiseworthy one, but we have a number of problems with it, which is why we have proposed the amendment. In Quebec, we have the Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits this kind of practice.

It is not as widespread a practice as some might think. It was used mainly when new specialty channels were introduced to promote a greater penetration rate. There was some public outcry around that.

Obviously, when we indicate we no longer want to receive these channels, the subscription fee is very different from what it would be if we wanted the service.

When new channels are introduced, for cultural reasons, to help French channels achieve greater penetration, it may happen that these channels be part of a package. This kind of approach is helpful to reduce costs and increase penetration.

A lot of people have criticized this kind of approach, arguing that banks do it, among others, but we must dispel the myth. Some people, and I am thinking of a number of Liberal members, are saying that certain practices will no longer be allowed with this bill, but it is not so.

For example, banks sometimes have a promotion. One can get free life insurance or any type of insurance for three months. Anyone who signs a loan contract or any other document also gets that other service, whatever it is. It is free for three months. The initial contract says that charges will start to apply after three months unless the company is notified. That is not negative option billing.

The bill will not prevent this kind of practice because consent was given in the initial contract. Therefore, it must be clearly understood that the bill will not solve this kind of problem. The negative option marketing cases we have seen were mostly in relation to the introduction of new channels.

The other aspect is that there is still a possible exemption procedure, but the decision would be left in the hands of political officials instead of the CRTC. The Minister of Canadian Heritage will now have the authority to allow licensed services to use that practice. Very strong political pressure from the minister will be brought to bear on the CRTC, which we would like to be much more independent.

For all kinds of reasons, we do not support that and our amendment is designed to exempt Quebec. It is not because we want Quebec consumers to be protected against that practice generally, but because they are already under the Consumer Protection Act. We do not want another piece of legislation that will introduce different definitions and different recourses.

At present, we have the Consumer Protection Bureau. In Quebec, anyone who feels he has been wronged may call on the Consumer Protection Bureau. This bill will give powers to the Competition Bureau, which is governed by a different act and has a different approach. The offence leads to different sanctions, whether it is an offence against the Quebec act or against this new federal legislation, if passed.

It must be remembered that issues related to contracts, local trade and consumer protection are provincial jurisdictions under section 92.13 of the constitution. It is under this section that Quebec passed its consumer protection act, which prohibits negative billing in paragraph 230( a ), which reads as follows: a ) No merchant, manufacturer or advertiser may, through any means, demand any money for a product or service provided or sold to a consumer without the latter having asked for it.

Thus, the consumer protection act makes it very clear that this kind of practice is prohibited. Some people will say yes, but this bill applies to federal institutions, banks, telecommunications and so on. For those who might say this does not apply to federal institutions, I will quote some court decisions, such as the one in Attorney General of Quebec v Kellogg, which says in part:

The Kelloggs are not exempt from the application of restrictions on advertising practices because they chose an advertising instrument under federal control.

An individual who discloses defamatory material is not exonerated under provincial law because the publication instrument is under federal control. Moreover, this individual could be prohibited from publishing any new material.

I believe that the Kelloggs are in a similar situation regarding these regulations. They cannot justify a behaviour which has become illegal by saying that they are using television.

Provincial legislation is not about television but about consumers, trade and advertising. We are applying the terms of the act.

We believe the same thing applies in this case. The supreme court decided, in Attorney General of Quebec v Irwin Toy Limited, that, and I quote in part:

There is no doubt that television advertising is a vital part of the operation of a television broadcast undertaking. The advertising services of these undertakings therefore fall within exclusive federal legislative jurisdiction. It is well established that such jurisdiction extends to the content of broadcasting and advertising forms a part of such content.

However, ss. 248 and 249 of the Consumer Protection Act do not purport to apply to television broadcast undertakings. Read together with s.252, it is clear that ss. 248 and 249 apply to the acts of an advertiser, not tothe acts of a broadcaster.

Cable television companies themselves have acknowledged that they were under the jurisdiction of Quebec legislation. It is precisely for that reason that some companies recently undertook to abide by the decision of the Consumer Protection Bureau regarding the establishment of new specialised channels.

We believe that this new federal legislation will complicate measures available to consumers to obtain redress complicate determination of what really applies to protect them, especially since no one in committee was able to give a definition of new service prescribed in the bill. Everyone had his own interpretation and a different definition of what a new service is. The bill purports to prevent those areas from applying to new services.

Some people, including representatives of the Canadian Bar Association and others, said “You are going about this in the right way to achieve your goal. We already have a Bank Act, a Broadcasting Act and a Telecommunications Act. These acts already include means to prevent this type of practice and they would be much more appropriate”.

Even those who would like to see federal legislation are saying “Start by using the existing legislation, do not create new legislation that will only complicate the process and the capacity to implement it”. It is all very nice to make a show, to make believe that we are doing something for Canadian consumers, but if, at the end of the day, these people are not better protected than they were before, we have not achieved much.

There is one last issue that I want to raise because I know that time is flying. We are extremely concerned about the politicization of the exceptions that could be given to the bill. Each of the ministers in his or her own area of jurisdiction, be it finance, industry or heritage, will be in a position to grant exemptions by virtue of an order in council. This means that it would not be an organization like the CRTC, independent from the government, that would evaluate this anymore.

Those who are not satisfied with the decisions made by the CRTC have legal remedy. They can submit their case to the Federal Court for example. From now on, the decisions will be political and they will or will not include exceptions. We are very concerned, especially about the heritage minister, because we know that she is very good at politicizing everything. As a matter of fact, the situation is the same with the other two ministers, because they will both be replaced eventually.

While the intention may be laudable, this is not done at the right level. As far as Quebec is concerned, we do not think it will make it easier to achieve the objective, because consumers are already protected.

In order to engage in negative option billing in Quebec, a notice or an authorization from the Consumer Protection Bureau is required. This is hardly ever done, the only exception being the introduction of new television channels, which comes under the CRTC with a whole different set of objectives.

I hope I dealt with the core of the issue. We will vote against this bill for the reasons that I explained, but we do have one hope. It may be that the other provinces want the federal government to look after their affairs. If the rest of Canada is happy to have the federal government look after that, let them give up their jurisdiction, but Quebec will not. If the amendment to exclude Quebec is adopted and it is recognized that Quebec's Consumer Protection Act takes precedence, under those circumstances, we might support the bill.

We were elected to protect Quebec's interests in this place and that is what we intend to do. We are proposing an amendment and we will see if this government, which claims to be very flexible toward Quebec and apparently recognized the Quebec society as a distinct society in a motion—we are anxious to see the real weight of that motion—will go so far as to support the amendment that would exclude Quebec from the application of the act, since Quebec consumers are already protected.

[Gasoline Pricing, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is not shy about bulldozing the provinces when it suits it to do so, but when it can act by itself in its own area of jurisdiction by lowering the tax and dealing with the matter of competition, it does nothing.

Why this double standard?

[Gasoline Pricing, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we realize that the higher gasoline price provides the federal government with more tax revenue, when it is already collecting over $5 billion annually, not counting the income tax paid by the major oil companies.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Can he who is using the provinces as the excuse for his inaction tell us what concrete action he plans to take in order to help consumers?

[Gasoline Pricing, March 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the effect of an increase in world oil production would not only be modest but might not be felt for a few months, maybe several.

Does the government not think it would be justified in giving consumers a break right now by lifting the excise tax of 10 cents a litre?

[Gasoline Pricing, March 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the present hike in gas prices, we see that, oil producers aside, there are two big winners, the Government of Alberta and the federal government, which are pocketing additional tax revenue thanks to the profits of oil companies.

Can the minister tell us whether this is not the real reason for the federal government's failure to take action in the present crisis?

[Gasoline Pricing, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, to our great surprise, the Minister of Industry announced in this House that the provincial governments are the ones who can do something about gasoline prices.

If the gasoline pricing issue is a provincial matter, can the minister tell us why the federal government has commissioned a $600,000 study, which will be of no use in the end?

[Gasoline Pricing, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that it was his own colleagues that concluded, after an in-depth study, that part of the reason for high gas prices was the absence of real competition in the petroleum industry?

Why is he hiding behind the Conference Board study in an attempt to buy time unless he is trying to protect the petroleum industry and continue to rake in tax revenues from industry profits?