Denis Coderre

[Competition Act, March 12th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on Bill C-393, an act to amend the Competition Act, 1998, with respect to negative option billing.

Negative option marketing is a deplorable practice, and we should all support the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton in his efforts to end this practice. In the case of broadcast services distribution, this practice gave rise to two attempts to amend the Broadcasting Act.

As a result of amendments in the other House, it was established that negative option marketing should not be allowed, except to facilitate the achievement of the broadcasting policy objectives set out in the Broadcasting Act. We do not find the same provisions and safeguards in this bill.

I appreciate that the member for Sarnia—Lambton introduced this bill amending the Competition Act in order to extend its application to banking and telecommunication services. However, there is a risk. Introducing in the Competition Act new regulatory rules that would also apply to broadcasting services may result in conflicts with the Broadcasting Act, as passed by Parliament in 1991.

The Broadcasting Act provides, and I quote “that the Canadian broadcasting system constitutes a single system and that the objectives of the broadcasting policy can best be achieved by providing for the regulation and supervision of the Canadian broadcasting system by a single independent public authority”, namely the CRTC.

Any attempt to deal with a same matter in two different acts with very different objectives can only lead to confusion and court actions. The bottom line is that consumers are those who might have to pay the price.

The Broadcasting Act provides, and I quote “The Canadian broadcasting system should serve to safeguard, enrich and strengthen cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada”. Bill C-393 deals only with commercial and economic aspects without any consideration for other cultural, political and social aspects.

The practice of negative option marketing is no longer used by the cable companies. People will recall the fuss raised in the English language market. Consumers simply will not accept this practice, and the cable television industry, which is faced with increasing competition from satellites and wireless systems, simply cannot use this any longer without major loss of business.

However, the bill as it stands would prohibit marketing practices that have been used successfully to introduce a broad range of new French language services to the French language market. Without this flexibility, no new French language service could see the light of day, given the small size of the market.

This experience with the French language market demonstrates two things. First that, when properly used, the marketing practices required for the introduction of new services are supported by consumers. Second, the Broadcast Act states:

English and French language broadcasting, while sharing common aspects, operate under different conditions and may have different requirements.

Bill C-393 introduces a new regulatory power of the governor in council in order to remove certain services from its application for competitive reasons. There are concerns that this new power will not be easily reconciled with the CRTC's licensing powers.

Moreover, since the CRTC's licensing decisions can already be appealed to the governor in council, the latter could find himself in the position of having to deal with a single issue under two different acts with very different objectives.

We must make sure we do not create a legislative dead end that would delay or even prevent the introduction of new broadcasting services that Canadians have a right to expect.

A case in point is the recent CRTC decision to grant a licence to a new aboriginal service called The Aboriginal Peoples Television Network. Should Bill C-393 come into effect, I am afraid it might jeopardize the introduction of this service by all cable companies in the country.

The marketing of broadcasting services is an issue that must be dealt with under the Broadcasting Act. This legislation provides all the power and flexibility required to maintain a balance between its objectives and consumer needs.

The bill's previous versions only dealt with discretionary broadcasting services. The current version no longer makes that distinction and could in fact prevent the CRTC from requiring the distribution of broadcasting services under the terms and conditions that it deems appropriate. Incidentally, this provision was the one used by the CRTC to require the distribution of a new aboriginal service, The Aboriginal Peoples Television Network.

I listened to the various arguments put forth so far regarding this bill. I agree that we must find a deterrent to the all the practices that were described. However, having read the bill, I come to the conclusion that, in some cases, it does not address these concerns. For example, I do not see how it could prevent the banks from using the negative option or a tacit reply from its clients to provide personal information to a third party.

However, in other cases, I feel that the bill targets practices that it was not meant to target. I am not sure that the intention was to prevent the compulsory distribution of an aboriginal service. Yet, this could well be the end result.

[Camille Laurin, March 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the man who came to be known as the father of Bill 101, Camille Laurin, has passed away after a long illness.

Mr. Laurin did much to enrich Quebec politics. With him, people knew what the sovereignist movement was all about.

As a kind of socio-linguistic therapist, his desire was to make not only Quebec but all of Canada aware of our special position in North America. He knew how to make political choices and stick to them, and contributed greatly to enhancing the worth of the French language.

We respectfully salute the accomplishments of Dr. Camille Laurin, and offer our most sincere condolences to his family.

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are talking about an organization for parliamentarians. I remind this House that when the incident took place, we postponed the event until a later date, to make sure that the whole thing would be bilingual.

[Aquaculture, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State responsible for Agriculture and Agri-Food and for Fisheries and Oceans.

Could he tell us about the latest developments in aquaculture?

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 15th, 1999]

You are opposed to mobility.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 15th, 1999]

That hurts them because, once again, Quebec is receiving not just its fair share, but more than its fair share. I would like to see it receiving less because, if Quebec received less, it would mean that its economy is in better shape.

The day Quebec receives less in the way of equalization payments under this bill it will be because the economy is improving, not because cuts are being made. This will be settled within three years with a provincial election, when the Parti Quebecois is dumped and we have Jean Charest as the premier of Quebec.

In the meantime, allow me to simply state that this bill is an essential one, because it will make it possible, despite the abominable administrative policies of the provincial government, in the hospitals and in all health services, to look after the interests of the population. We say to the people of Quebec, for as long as there is a Liberal government in Ottawa, and for as long as they have Liberal MPs in Ottawa to represent them, they are in good hands and we are going to look after their problems.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 15th, 1999]

When we hear the members opposite whining, it is obviously because the truth hurts.

Why do over 75% of Quebeckers identify with this beautiful country called Canada? Because they have understood that, since we have introduced social programs and equalization payments, Canadians have enjoyed an exceptionally high standard of living, making Canada the number one place in the world to live. This is because of the system of equalization payments.

They cannot take that away from us. Members should get out and visit the average person. They should get out into the real world once in a while. If they talked to real people, they would realize that it takes action to resolve problems.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 15th, 1999]

The truth hurts, but there is no getting around it. While members opposite are constantly playing to the audience—that is what they are doing—I am going to speak some hard truths. I know that Quebeckers are very proud to be represented by Liberal members, because they know that, instead of whining all the time, we take their problems to the ministers and get things done.

One thing is certain: when the MPs representing Quebec are Liberals, the essentials get looked after, and one of those essentials is equalization payments.

As I said, equalization is a system that has proved its worth, a system based on generosity that protects all Quebeckers and ensures that they have access to services.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 15th, 1999]

Oh, the member for Frontenac—Mégantic is in a state again.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, what a perfect time to reply to several ridiculous statements on the part of the opposition.

When I hear cries of persecution from the Jurassic Park Reform Party, the shirt-rending Bloc Quebecois, or the NDP whited sepulchres, when they know full well that the government has to resolve the situation by March 31 so that the provinces will have the money with which to provide services, I find their egotistical grandstanding very hypocritical.

I am proud to be a member of this party and of this government. Bill C-65 is further evidence of the fact that we care about the public. We want all Canadians, wherever they live, to have access to services. To this end, we have put forward an equalization system that has proven itself year in year out since it was established, in 1957.

When I hear the Bloc Quebecois say—and they do talk a great deal of nonsense, acting persecuted and offended—“We are not getting our fair share”, it makes me feel proud of being not only a Liberal but a Liberal from Quebec because, once again, not only are we going to get our fair share but, with the improvements contained in this bill, Canadians will receive $242 million, 78% of this amount going to Quebec.

Do members want numbers? I feel in great shape. I lost my voice last week, but I got it back.

As we know, Quebec accounts for 24% of Canada's population. Yet, 29% of all equalization payments go to Quebec. That is nearly $1 billion, ladies and gentlemen from Quebec, and then the separatists complain that we are not getting our fair share. Canada is a generous country, so much so that Quebec is getting much more out of the system than it is putting in. This money is coming from all the provinces, and Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta in particular. When we tell the Bloc Quebecois members that, they get upset.

That is probably why the Bloc Quebecois is down to 38%, from 49%, in the polls today. Clearly, the Liberals are taking their responsibilities.

Instead of complaining, the hon. member for Drummond should be listening; it would do her good. In 1996 and 1997, Quebec companies received 39% of all federal government contracts and subsidies to industry for R & D. This is extraordinary. We represent 24% of the total population but Quebec universities received 28% of total subsidies. All the contracts and subsidies to the universities for R & D represent a fair amount.

Again on a regional basis, in science and technology we receive 26%. Truth will out. The separatists are moaning, the Reform Party bunch from Jurassic Park are moaning, while we get on with looking after the interests of the people. This is the first time I have heard dinosaurs speak. I did not realize they could.

The people of Quebec need to be reminded of what the equalization payment system is. It is a system of generosity. It is a system of equity. It is, above all, a system of protection.

Bill C-65 will, whether our separatist friends like it or not, give them an even larger piece of the pie. Not only a bigger piece of the pie, but the province that gets the biggest share among all those receiving equalization payments is Quebec, once again. This is a good reason to stay within the Canadian federation, since it has been demonstrated that not only does this system work, but it is generous to all, from sea to sea.

Once again, this seems not to please the hon. members for Drummond and Témiscamingue. I hear them weeping. The moaning and groaning heard in the background when the truth comes as a shock comes from the other side of the House.

Equalization is important in that it accounts for 10% of the entire budget of Quebec. This means that that we are giving close to $1 billion.

Do not forget that 24% of the population is receiving 29% of the transfer payments. What does all this money represent? Ten per cent of Quebec's budget. That means that, while Bouchard is busy with his little referendum and whines away about Quebec's separation, we are looking out for the people of Quebec, because we say “We are going to give you some money so you can have services”. So while the others rattle on about Quebec's independence, we are providing money to pay for and ensure access to services.

While the other side goes on about “constitutionalitis”, do you know what counts? What counts is that transfer payments are unconditional.

The federal government hands out nearly $10 billion in total. As I said earlier, Bill C-65 provides $242 million to Canadians, 78% of which will go to Quebec. While they go on about “constitutionalitis” on the other side, we recognize one thing: that this federation is showing once again, through its generosity, that we care about the entire population.

Finally, they say “We are stuck with a PQ government in Quebec City”. But one thing is sure: according to the latest polls, support for the people in this government, for the federal Liberals from Quebec, is now 49%—