CANADA VOLUME 134 S NUMBER 072 S 2nd SESSION S 35th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Monday, September 23, 1996 Speaker: The Honourable Gilbert Parent CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) The House of Commons Debates are also available on the Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 4529 HOUSE OF COMMONS Monday, September 23, 1996 The House met at 11 a.m. He goes on to say very specifically: I congratulate the hon. member for his initiative. _______________ To suggest that statement was somewhat less than genuine might Prayers be best put if I read what he went on to say. He said: _______________ This bill would, unintentionally, restrict Canada’s capacity to guarantee Canadian content and the availability of French programming outside of Quebec. As a francophone from outside Quebec, I believe that access by the regions outside Quebec to French programs is essential— PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS It would be impossible for me to support such a bill that would take away the flexibility of the Canadian government. That would also go for Canadian content. It would also go for the rural regions. It would have a negative impact right across [English] Canada. It is clear the MPs are against negative optioning. The new president of the CRTC BROADCASTING ACT has indicated that she prefers the positive option. The cable companies have indicated that they are against and they do not intend to use it. The House resumed from September 16 consideration of Bill C-216, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act (broadcasting policy), Why do we have laws? With due respect to the shareholders and as reported (with an amendment) from the committee. the management of the cable companies, I suggest that when they Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when this went ahead and used negative option billing and received a bill first came to the House, I referred to it as being a band-aid or a resounding rebuke from the people of Canada should be enough of small piece of trim on a far larger problem. My opinion remains the a warning to us as members of Parliament that we should be taking same. steps to protect the members of the Canadian public from such activity as was undertaken by the cable companies. I suggest that Our problem is that government after government, Liberal or this was totally disingenuous on the part of the parliamentary Conservative, keep on moving forward and never really solve the secretary, who after all was speaking for the heritage minister and real problems with respect to Canadian content, with respect to the the heritage department when he said: ‘‘I congratulate this member CRTC, with respect to the CBC. I therefore recommended to my on his wonderful bill but I am not going to support it’’. It was colleagues in the Reform Party that we begrudgingly support the significantly disingenuous. bill. D (1105) It was rather interesting that the result of the vote on the bill at second reading was that 147 of the members of the House voted in Then we read in the Globe and Mail over the weekend about favour of it and only 25 voted against it. some of the background that has now become public. I listened with interest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Mr. Bureau argues that passage of the bill would effectively kill the chances for Minister of Canadian Heritage and I quote from his speech of last success of any new French-language speciality service. week. Astral has a stake in two speciality channels that were approved this month by the —I am pleased to rise today to speak on the hon. member’s bill, and would like to CRTC: the Comedy Network and Teletoon, an animation station that will be take advantage of the same opportunity to congratulate him on the effort he has put broadcast in English and French— into it. ‘‘To put it simply, new French services just won’t be able to survive.’’ I, and I believe most of the other members of this House, share the objective sought by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambtom in introducing this bill. We all The bill has other opponents, including the CRTC and heritage minister Sheila agree that Canadians must be able to fully express their opinion on the programs Copps, who say it could hamper the commission’s ability to require cable they receive in their homes. We all wish to ensure that that Canadian consumers distributors to offer services that it feels should be available to all in the national receive the programs they want at a reasonable price. interest. 4530 COMMONS DEBATES September 23, 1996 Private Members’ Business The front benches of the government have suddenly woken up D (1110 ) to the fact that as opposed to the steps that they have consistently taken time and time again to bring in their own vision of what This bill has been something of a sleeper. I commend the Canada is all about, this bill will give Canadian consumers member who brought it to the House. I sincerely commend him freedom and opportunity which the government would prefer they because he took action on behalf of the people in his constituency, not have. In other words, those 23 speciality channels which the on behalf of the people in Ontario and indeed, by extension, on CRTC just licensed, without a form of negative option billing, behalf of all people who receive cable in their homes. He brought probably will never make it to air or certainly some of them will forward this bill that is going to stand in the way of the kind of not. manipulation that there has been, not only by the cable companies but indeed by the heritage ministry, of what is good and what is not good, what is Canadian and what is not. The most blatant form of negative option billing was the one that was undertaken in January of last year. Members will recall that new channels were tacked on and a bill arrived in the mail box of This Canadiana idea and keeping it under control I suggest is the the householder. This was rather sneaky because when many core of what is behind the front bench going against this. people receive a bill they simply pay it. Many people would have taken a look at that bill and because there was only $1, $2 or $3 I ask Liberal members: When we had a vote in this House of added to the bill, would have ignored the extra charges and paid it. Commons of 147 to 25, how in the world can any of them even contemplate changing their vote? This is truly going to be a time of I do not believe that any cable company, either in Quebec, counting, a time when we are going to see those who have the Ontario or any other province, would have the audacity to do that backbone to stand up to the front bench. kind of blatant negative option billing. Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-216 and specifically What I believe could happen and I know this is the reason why to address the motions put to this House by the hon. member for the heritage department and the heritage minister is so opposed to Richmond—Wolfe and the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton who this is that the cable companies could be offering different pack- is the sponsoring member. ages. With new technology they can now come up with different bundles or groups of offerings of channels. The hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe has introduced a motion which would defeat Bill C-216. I cannot in good conscience If I want to receive a particular channel then along with it comes support this motion. all of this other material. If these channels are so good why are they not prepared to stand on their own? Why will cable companies not I was pleased to speak in support of Bill C-216 in the House on say it will cost you 75 cents to see French cartoons? Why would April 26 of this year. Those of us who have supported this they not say it will cost you 50 cents to see speciality programming legislation from the beginning are very pleased with the progress it whatever the speciality programming is? has made. It is a testament to the quality of this legislation that it has made it this far. I suggest the reason for that is because there is money involved and where money is involved there is influence. I am rather My comments during that first debate focused on consumer interested in the number of people who have been working the rights. I argued that this legislation is in the best interest of Liberal backbenches on this one. The list of lobbyists who have Canadian consumers. worked opposing the bill reads like a who’s who in the Liberal Party. As members of Parliament, I believe it is our duty to protect those interests. Often when our constituents call us they forget that before we were elected and again after we are finished we were For example, the former minister of communications, Francis consumers, we are consumers, we are taxpayers and we will Fox, Liberal strategist, Michael Robinson who appears Thursday continue to be. It is not an issue that we are devoid and separated morning on CTV, the former CRTC guru, André Bureau, who I just from.