Mr. Speaker:

I rise today to address the matter currently before this House. Before I begin however, I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to the Member for Sarnia-Lambton for his continuing work and long-term interest with respect to this matter.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-393 embodies a very simple premise. That premise is that the consumer should have the right to say no! In short, only I have the right to accept goods and services, and only I have the right to share my personal information with others. No one else should presume to have that authority without my express permission.

Negative option marketing endangers this. In plain language, self-protection is what we are debating here today.

It seems simple enough. Mr. Speaker, if I wish to sell you a product or a service, I must first convince you that you require the item and then get your delivery approval and eventually your payment. This simple formula has been the basis of our capitalist system for centuries. With this in mind, it might surprise many of my constituents, and indeed Canadians in general, to discover that, although this formula is used frequently, it is no longer used universally.

Before I continue, it should be noted that first British and now Canadian common law, in simple terms, states that anything that is not specifically prohibited in permitted. We need to clarify the current legislative regime, with respect to this matter, to account for this. Some of our provinces have already taken appropriate steps to rectify this. I strongly feel that it is time for the federal government to standardize this protection right across Canada. Bill C-393 does this.

It is also a popular misconception that a signature is required to validate an agreement. This concept is brought into question when one applies the notion of the negative option billing or approval process.

We all should be familiar with the mail order tape and video clubs. One of my staff members is involved with one of the more popular Canadian compact disk clubs. He tells me that every month, he is issued a card that names a specific music selection referred to by the club as the “selection of the month.” He is given approximately 20 days in which to respond to the mailing. Should he fail to reply, the item, and a bill, is shipped to him. In short, the said company considers his lack of response to be a purchase agreement. At a glance, this does not seem to be a bad arrangement however, suppose the mailing was delivered to the wrong address or even lost. My employee would receive the compact disk, and the invoice, without ever having the option to refuse.

Another such example would be the cable TV package. As we will all remember, not too long ago, some of the major cable providers utilized the negative option billing concept to sell unsuspecting viewers a new programming package. As I recall, public outcry was so substantial in this instance that the cable providers had to back-track on this plan. It has become clear that the public is demanding change. Again, I would suggest that this Bill advocates that type of change.

The list of examples seems to go one endlessly.

I was recently reading a publication released by the Toronto Dominion Bank entitled “Your Information and your privacy – See how TD protects your privacy.” This document assured me, as a consumer, that the protection of my personal information was a paramount concern for the bank. The document even went so far as to say that they would never sell customer lists or my information to others groups or individuals. I cannot tell you how pleased I was to read this.

I can’t stress enough how upsetting it can be to discover that personal and confidential information has been released by an individual, group or institution that I trusted, to sources that I would not have invested with the same faith.

We can all name many examples of this type of information pillaging. Many Ontarians will remember how, in the not too distant past, the Ontario Ministry of Finance sold list, compiled from information contained on private tax roles, to outside interests. I remember the angry callers that approached both my constituency office, and myself asking if I could do anything to help them. Today, by supporting this Bill, I am attempting to ensure that this never happens again.

Now, getting back to the TD publication, after assuring me that they would not violate my trust, the document went on to say, and I quote, “For your convenience, if we don’t hear from you by October 31^st, 1997, we will proceed with sharing your information within the TD Group and may contact you occasionally with offers of products and services we believe will be of interest to you.” Mr. Speaker, in essence this brochure tells me that the bank will throw itself on the tracks to protect my confidence, but it also tells me that it intends to release my information to others, for alternative marketing purposes. This is wrong.

We are in an age of instant information. The internet, e-mail, full automation, secret PIN numbers and the like, all pose very real threats to our security if not properly protected. The elimination of negative option marketing and approval would go a long way toward ensuring some degree of privacy and protection.

I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that consumers should no be given a full range of options. I simply believe that they should be required to provide express consent before incurring an expense or before their personal information is used for purposes other that the one that it was originally secured for.

Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully encourage my colleagues to add their support for this Bill to that of groups such as the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the Public Interest Advocacy CENTER and the Consumers Association of Canada. It is the right thing to do and as legislators the negative option is not available to us. No response when this vote is called will means no-sale for Bill C-393.