Nicolas Dufour

[Tobacco Act, June 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my Liberal Party colleague's knowledge of the issue. So far, his questions have been very precise. I can see that he wants to crack down on contraband. Unfortunately, I do not know his riding very well; perhaps he will have a chance to show me around someday. I do not know if he has problems with cigarette smugglers. I would also like to thank him for differentiating between provincial and municipal levels and aboriginal reserves.

With respect to smugglers, key public safety players absolutely have to work together. In Quebec, a number of operations have been undertaken involving collaboration between Peacekeepers on reserves and the SQ or the RCMP, and sometimes even the Carcajou squad, which used to focus on drugs and sometimes infiltrated smuggling networks. In many cases, cigarette smugglers are not just smuggling cigarettes. We have to face the fact that they sometimes traffic in other drugs, and that is much more dangerous.

We need our police forces to work together to improve communication, which does not happen often enough. We have to respect jurisdiction, but sometimes on reserves, where there are lot of cigarette smugglers, Peacekeepers have a role to play because they know the community. All the same, they have to have good communication with the SQ and the RCMP to carry out coordinated raids to break up these networks.

[Tobacco Act, June 3rd, 2009]

Rather, a paltry $5,000. We want to increase it to $5 million. I believe $5 million should be the minimum. Perhaps we could make it more than that.

This is impossible if all the stakeholders work independently. The federal government absolutely must coordinate the effort of the various organizations and departments because only one concerted effort will be able to address all the different aspects of tobacco addiction: prevention, education or even repressive measures against suppliers of contraband.

As I have said, there must be an overall approach to smoking. We cannot just go after the tobacco smugglers or raise the price of cigarettes. We really must have a concerted overall approach to all stakeholders to ensure that there are prevention activities in the schools, to go after the smugglers, and to use even more vigorous advertising to discourage young people from starting to smoke.

Mainly, we must try to discourage these manufacturers of harmful, dangerous products from advertising them with attractive campaigns to woo young smokers. They encourage young people to “try it, just a little”. They smoke a cigarillo or two, and the next thing they know they are smokers for life.

Finally, the Bloc Québécois believes that all measures focused on contraband cigarettes and cigarette smuggling on the reserves must be taken in conjunction with the aboriginal authorities. Cooperation in this area is vital, in order to identify and target the criminal organizations.

The purpose of Bill C-32 is a praiseworthy one: to discourage young people from smoking by limiting the availability of tobacco products and reducing the types of products available. The bill is also intended to correct some of the present shortcomings of the Tobacco Act, particularly the exception that permits tobacco advertising in publications with an adult readership of not less than 85%. This has led to the situation of such ads being placed in free newspapers or magazines that are readily accessible to young people.

To draw a parallel with what I was just saying a few minutes ago—and I will be brief because I am getting the one minute sign—I want to address the fact that young people are allowed to smoke in the school yard. So there are really some major shortcomings in the Tobacco Act and a concerted effort is needed to try and reduce smoking among young people. That is why the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-32, despite the presence of certain points that perhaps need looking at in committee. We—my colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes, who has done an excellent job on the Standing Committee on Health, and I—will make it our duty to try to wipe out tobacco addiction among young people.

[Tobacco Act, June 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, before anything else, I would like to congratulate my colleague from the Liberal Party on his fine speech.

I will pick up on his final comment, that indeed any campaign against smoking encompasses not just a battle against cigarettes but also an overall approach to the causes of tobacco addiction. A large part of this will involve education. Major advances have already been made on the educational level to raise public awareness, among young people in particular, in order to make sure they do not start smoking at that age, and then be stuck with it for the rest of their lives. There is therefore far more to be done than just to take concrete actions on today's smokers or the tobacco companies. There is also the whole educational approach to the diet and physical fitness of our young people, long before any direct attack on cigarettes.

The Bloc Québécois is in principle in favour of Bill C-32, although it is not of great use to Quebec, where the Government of Quebec has already enacted stricter control over cigarillos. I would like to take just a minute to show you that, once again, Quebec has been proactive rather than reactive like the federal government. Quebec has had an anti-smoking strategy for ages. For about three years now, there has been legislation in place banning smoking in bars and restaurants. Before that, there were segregated areas. but now smoking in public places is completely banned.

I must admit that this measure has made considerable strides toward reducing smoking, because smokers really have nowhere left to smoke except at home and outside. Even outside, it has to be nine metres away from a building. So it can be seen that Quebec has already taken great steps toward reducing smoking. Now too, corner stores have to store cigarettes in a closed cabinet so that young people who come into the store are not attracted by the packages of cigarettes.

I would like to come back to cigarillos. There is a problem: young people are smoking more and more, and start with cigarillos before gradually making the move to cigarettes. As my colleague said earlier, although tobacco companies are legitimate—we have nothing against the companies themselves—I have a problem with their ethics when they launch a vigorous marketing campaign targeted at young people and the most vulnerable people in society.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Health, I have heard from a huge number of representatives from anti-tobacco lobbies, including Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, which the Liberal member is very familiar with. This group showed us the new packaging and tobacco products. I must admit that it is very scary. I am not afraid of the box itself, but of the way things are being done. There are advertisements with bright colours targeted directly at young people. Tobacco companies are trying to make it attractive and get young people interested in smoking. Everyone knows that the products in cigarettes and cigarillos are extremely toxic and addictive. They will make young people want to smoke. That is what is so great about their strategy. I am being sarcastic, of course.

Young people start with a little cigarette or cigarillo. The companies try to encourage them to buy just one or two. They make small packages of five cigarillos so that young people buy only a package, and thus do not consider themselves real smokers. Unfortunately, they start with a small package of five cigarillos, which gradually leads them to cigarettes, and maybe even worse. We can see that these companies have a marketing strategy to find young people on high school grounds or in CEGEPs, so that they gradually develop a dependence on cigarettes or cigarillos, and eventually become smokers—heavy smokers at that.

In spite of everything, the number of smokers has gone down over the years. My colleague to my left stopped smoking three months ago, and I want to congratulate him, because it is a very brave thing to do. He deserves a round of applause. He has tried to stop smoking for three months, and I encourage him to keep at it.

The number of smokers is going down from one year to the next. We have come a long way since the 1950s, when physicians said that cigarettes were good for your health and had studies to back their claims. I do not know whether hon. members remember this. Unfortunately, I had not yet been born in 1950, but the cigarette companies, with the help of the medical profession, sold their products without too much difficulty. People still did not know about all the problems cigarettes caused. Education has played a prominent role in the decrease in the smoking rate.

It is therefore important to raise awareness, especially among children. Public awareness of the harmful effects of cigarette smoking has caused this huge decrease from one year to the next. Certainly, there is still a lot of work to be done, but the bill is a step in the right direction and a way to continue bringing down the number of smokers.

Needless to say, there are some things missing from the bill. First, it should have more teeth, particularly to combat contraband cigarettes. I will come back to this. Bill C-32 lacks teeth, but it is a step in the right direction, and we will be able to study it in the Standing Committee on Health, which is what I am going to do, and do thoroughly, have no fear.

Reworking this bill in committee will give us the chance to make certain amendments so that the bill has more teeth. Of course, we will have to consult groups such as Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada to find out what sort of amendments they would like to see made to this bill.

The Bloc Québécois believes that cigarillos and all other tobacco products should be subject to the same prohibitions as cigarettes. Efforts to reduce the visibility and consumption of cigarettes must not be thwarted by the emergence of other equally harmful products.

The Bloc Québécois is asking that, as for cigarettes, it be prohibited to advertise tobacco products to children under 18, that all products display warnings about the dangers of smoking and that these products be hidden from public view.

As I was rereading my notes to prepare for the debate on Bill C-32, I got to thinking about the little labels on cigarette packages that show pictures of gingivitis and say that smoking too many cigarettes can cause impotence. Those messages turn young people off of smoking. Of course, we still have a lot to do.

It would be unfortunate if some young people began to ignore these messages because they have seen them over and over. We will have to work hard to educate them. We also have to make sure that cigarillo packages carry the same messages as cigarette packages. That is extremely important. We have to show young people that cigarillos are just as dangerous as cigarettes.

Unfortunately, young people tend to replace one with the other, and it would be really unfortunate if cigarillo packaging did not have to follow the same rules as cigarette packaging. That is covered in part in Bill C-32.

Nevertheless, it is clear that Bill C-32 will not put an end to tobacco use among minors, as I said earlier, and that tougher measures, particularly with respect to contraband cigarettes, will have to be enforced to minimize minors' access to illegal tobacco products.

Not so very long ago, I was in high school and at CEGEP. At the time, I was not a smoker. I was stunned to see 15 and 16 year olds smoking on high school property without a care in the world. On the one hand, we prohibit the sale of tobacco products to minors, but on the other, we let them smoke on public property in full view of everyone else. That was a major contradiction. But it is not the only contradiction we will ever see. As I was saying earlier to my colleagues, democracy is all about managing contradictions.

The Bloc Québécois is calling on the federal government to use every legal means possible to put an end to the explosion of smuggling, including for example, seizing smugglers' vehicles. Quebec has had many problems with cigarette smuggling. Many of the cigarettes sold to our young people, and some not so young, do not come from legal sources, but rather are smuggled. If we raise taxes on cigarettes, the sale of legal cigarettes will go down and smuggling activities will increase. Since smuggled cigarettes will be cheaper, there will be much greater demand for them. That is the law of supply and demand. So if we raise the taxes on packs of cigarettes too much and do nothing else, this will have a completely negative effect, since smuggling will increase.

The government must take decisive action and ensure that cigarette smuggling is eradicated in very specific regions of Quebec and Canada. That is the problem, since we know where the smugglers are. We know who they are, but unfortunately, it seems as though there is some sort of political fear around taking steps to limit cigarette smuggling. Until something is done, there will always be problems with tobacco. We can do all the publicity campaigns and educating we like, but if one day we reach the critical point at which we cannot get the rate of smokers below 20%, then we will have to implement other strategies, such as eradicating smuggling rings, as I was saying earlier.

At the same time, we believe that although police action is crucial, certain regulations must also be amended in order to discourage smugglers. That is key. Eliminating the source, the supplier, is still the best way to prevent smuggling.

My very honourable colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, a former minister of public safety, did extraordinary work with respect to both cigarette and drug smuggling. At the time, the Parti Québécois government—which was not afraid to assume its responsibilities—took concrete action to eliminate these smugglers. He sent the police and enacted extraordinary measures in an attempt to eliminate networks of cigarette smugglers that were often criminal organizations. To tell the truth, they are all criminal organizations.

The following are some of the measures that should be implemented: prohibit unlicensed manufacturers from purchasing raw materials and equipment used to manufacture cigarettes; revoke tobacco licences from manufacturers who break the law; establish an effective marking system for cigarette packages—a marking and tracing system—that would allow for close monitoring of tobacco deliveries; and lobby the U.S. government to shut down illegal manufacturers located on the American side of the border. This is not just a Canadian problem.

We can pass the best laws in Canada to prevent the sale of cigarettes and cigarillos to youth and to attempt to prevent cigarette smuggling but it will still be futile if the American government does not help us out with our tobacco control strategy. It is extremely difficult to wage this war against these criminals all by oneself. I am not afraid to call them that because they are poisoning our youth.

We would like to see the fee for a federal licence to manufacture tobacco products raised to a minimum of $5 million, rather than the paltry $5,000 required today.

Madam Speaker, do you not think it is ridiculous that licences are only $5,000? Some colleagues are telling me that they are convinced that you believe it is ridiculous that these licences cost only $5,000.

Any one of us here and perhaps even most of those watching on television could afford it. Between you and me, this amount is a pittance for tobacco companies, which make billions of dollars in profit every year. It is a paltry $5 million.

[Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading System for North America, May 29th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech about Motion No. 287 introduced by my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry, I would like to go back to what the last Conservative speaker just said, which is quite horrendous, in my opinion. The government says it is changing its policies to try to bring them in line with those of the United States, but as we can see, it is not harmonizing its policies, but kowtowing to the Americans.

Canada could have become an international environmental leader after signing the Kyoto protocol. It has not done so, and I find that regrettable, because Quebec has already taken the necessary steps to become an environmental leader. The problem is that every time Quebec speaks up and tries to state its position, it is lumped in with the rest of Canada, which tarnishes our record, destroys what we are trying to do and cuts our funding every time we try to carry out an environmental project.

I would also like to go back to what the member for Madawaska—Restigouche said in this House a few minutes ago about young people and the environment. As a young person, I want to say that my generation is extremely concerned about the environment. It is already an important issue, but in the coming years, it will become increasingly important to all people. People are starting to be very active in protecting the environment and are becoming more and more interested in this issue.

My generation will remember what the Conservative government did when, in a few years' time, our rivers are polluted and our farmland is no longer arable. We will remember that the Conservatives were primarily to blame for our environmental failure. The Liberals were no better. Our generation will also remember what they did after 1993. They were in power for nearly 15 years, yet they were unable to do anything about the environment. They did sign the Kyoto protocol, but they did not comply with it. Like the Conservatives, the Liberals have a dismal environmental record. Quebeckers, particularly my generation, will remember this, especially when the next election takes place.

I want to come back to the Conservatives. I find it interesting to see the behaviour of these people who claim to be right-wing and in favour of the free market and Adam Smith's invisible hand. I am referring to what my colleague from Trois-Rivières said earlier about this right-wing idea of the invisible hand and the free market. The Conservatives are opposed to one of the finest free-market initiatives: the carbon exchange. Would this not be a way to encourage companies to be increasingly environmentally friendly and to make an ongoing effort to be socially responsible? I find it odd that this government, which is constantly boasting about being right-wing and in favour of tax cuts and the invisible hand, sadly drops the ball and makes mistakes at the first opportunity it has to try to do the right thing.

It is unfortunate that we have a great plan but, because of an ideological, stubborn and even dogmatic government, we are going to miss our chance to carry it out. We had a wonderful opportunity to have a very good motion passed, which could have encouraged the government to do more for the environment. Unfortunately, the motion is going to die in the government's hands.

I am not surprised to see the popularity of Conservatives in Quebec declining in pre-election polls. They are so adamantly against the environment that it is bordering on being completely ridiculous. Quebeckers care about the environment.

A number of environmental plans and initiatives have been implemented. I am thinking of hydroelectricity in particular. Quebec is a world leader in hydroelectricity, a clean and renewable energy. Unfortunately, when we look at the rest of Canada's energy plan, it is rather frightening. There are the oil sands, a little, a lot even, of hydroelectricity in Ontario, and nuclear energy. In Quebec, our primary energy sources are hydroelectricity and wind energy.

I would like to relate this to Quebec sovereignty. My NDP, Conservative and Liberal colleagues in Quebec will understand that if Quebec were an independent country, we could have made choices that were different from the rest of Canada.

We are not against Canada, but our choices and values are different. Instead of spending massive amounts of money or making tax cuts that directly benefit the oil industry, we would have preferred to invest in plans for the future of Quebec, in environmental projects. We would have invested in hydroelectricity and wind energy projects. We would have invested in projects to help us reduce our dependence on oil and nuclear energy.

The Bloc Québécois has been raising the issue of the environment for years, through its outstanding environment critic from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. The Bloc is the only party to have brought that debate to the House of Commons. It is the only one to serve as a watchdog for Quebeckers in Ottawa, to force the federal government, be it Liberal or Conservative, to honour its international commitments with respect to the environment and the Kyoto protocol that it signed. I must say that it hardly surprises me that the Conservatives, like the Liberals, continue to renege on promises they have made and international treaties they have signed. They are unable to honour their own signatures. When it comes to issues like the environment, I am absolutely staggered to see the government not take them more seriously. It does not even have the courage, the presence of mind or the will to honour its own signature on such treaties.

Coming back to Motion No. 287, I find it very ironic when I think of a carbon market compatible with international markets. I have here a list of seven American states in the northeast and along the Atlantic—namely, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Vermont—which have launched a regional initiative to fight greenhouse gases. The Conservatives laughed at us when we put that motion forward. Now, I am the one laughing because, all of a sudden, they are having an environmental awakening. They had no plan, but now they suddenly want to put one forward. Unfortunately, this is another improvised plan, as usual. In addition, there is a woeful lack of leadership on the part of the government where environmental policies are concerned. The funny thing is that, since Barack Obama was elected, it has suddenly tried to paint itself green, but a very light shade of green.

The Bloc Québécois is proposing absolute greenhouse gas emission targets, a cap-and-trade market commonly known as a carbon exchange, using 1990 as the base year from which to assess progress, and recognizing the efforts made by businesses.

Members from Quebec, including those from the Bloc, the Liberal Party and the NDP, are aware that a number of Quebec companies have made very impressive efforts. Our paper mills, aluminum smelters and forestry companies have done extraordinary work to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and set reduction targets based on the most up-to-date scientific knowledge.

That is why the Bloc Québécois supports Motion No. 287.

[Roger Miron, May 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to one of Quebec's country music legends, Roger Miron, who is celebrating his 80th birthday this week.

Mr. Miron developed a love for the guitar at a young age. He started his career in country western singing in 1950. Two years later, he started his own band, which he sang with across Quebec, Canada, the United States, and even France. 1956 marked the release of one of his most well-known songs, À qui l'p'tit coeur après neuf heures.

In celebration of the famous Troubadour Tyrolien, some thirty well-known artists are participating in a show at the Centre Léo-Chaussé in Saint-Sulpice. Fans from across Quebec, New Brunswick and Ontario will be there to pay tribute to him. Not only is Mr. Miron a multi-talented performer, but he has also opened the door to country music for a number of musicians.

As member of Parliament for Repentigny, I would like to congratulate Mr. Miron on his career, and I salute his dedication to promoting country music in Quebec.

[Electronic Commerce Protection Act, May 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent question. I too am looking for an apartment in Ottawa.

She talked about spam from certain, shall we say, naughty, sites, and we sure do not want our children—not my children because I do not have any, but the children of other parliamentarians—to see these things. We have to block access to those sites. That is one of the reasons that we want to send Bill C-27 to committee so that we can figure out how to fight spam.

Earlier, I was talking about good, old-fashioned, handwritten letters. People get desensitized when they get so much spam sent indiscriminately. When these messages are sent to pretty much everyone, it is just not personal and it has no meaning. As a parliamentarian, I still love receiving handwritten letters from my fellow citizens. I can tell that they took the time to share something important.

[Electronic Commerce Protection Act, May 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

It is well timed, because I just had a conversation about this yesterday with my brother—I do have a brother; in fact, I have two brothers, but one of them works on the Hill—and we were saying that, sometimes, sending something by email can play down the importance of it or at least take away a sense of responsibility to some extent.

As my colleague was saying, with a simple click of the mouse, people can messages to the entire planet concerning, for instance—I am picking a topic at random, thinking of my colleague from the Gaspé—the seal hunt. With one click, we can send our position regarding the seal hunt, whether we support it or not, to every single member of the House.

As I was saying earlier, a few years ago, before the advent of the Internet, we took the time to write out letters by hand and send them with stamps. We took the time to buy stamps, write out letters, address them to the members and send them. That still happens, but it is becoming complicated, and it seems that the Conservatives might want to deregulate Canada Post, but that is another matter.

However, I must admit, when a citizen took the time to write a handwritten letter to a parliamentarian to complain about an issue, we might have paid more attention to that complaint in the past than we do now when it is sent in a single click to everyone.

[Electronic Commerce Protection Act, May 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

This is one of the reasons we want to send the bill to be examined in committee. We want to examine all the possibilities and avenues very carefully. It could turn out to be expensive. The Internet is a tricky thing. It is international and quite spread out. We can block a computer that is sending out spam, but then we get some from a different computer. It can become incredibly difficult to block all spam. This battle could be an expensive one, but it is a matter of national interest, because it affects many citizens, all parliamentarians and me as well. We will have to examine the costs in committee, but all costs aside, this bill could be passed with no problem.

[Electronic Commerce Protection Act, May 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the NDP members' speeches in particular, and I think they are quite right. I very much appreciated one of the points raised by one of my NDP colleagues, who said that the Liberals first introduced the idea for such a bill, the predecessor to Bill C-27, but we saw no progress on the matter. Sure, there were consultations, but there was never any implementation or procedure. This would suggest that the Liberal member was perhaps not able to convince his Liberal Party colleagues, although, quite often, the Liberals' good ideas are unfortunately not contagious and do not get passed on to others. Sometimes a single member of the Liberal caucus might have a good idea, while the others might not understand its essence.

It is even worse among the Conservatives, since they rarely have any good ideas. They have had a few; I do not wish to make a complete generalization. Nonetheless, I am sometimes surprised by some of their ideas. They have finally had a good one with Bill C-27. Let us hope that it will be studied and passed.

[Electronic Commerce Protection Act, May 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, When I was asked to speak about Bill C-27, I have to admit that I was very excited as a young person who knows that anything that has to do with the Internet is increasingly popular among young people in particular, but mainly as a parliamentarian. In 2009, we all use the Internet a great deal to keep in touch with the people in our ridings. I have only to think about how we as parliamentarians have used email every day for years now and about the new Internet technologies, such as Facebook, of which I am a member and where I have a huge number of friends and supporters. I would like to take this opportunity to invite all Quebeckers to add me to their list of friends. Using the Internet, we can keep in touch with people in the field and know what they are thinking.

We used to use the telephone and send letters through the mail, but today we have much greater access with the Internet. Some of my colleagues still write letters by hand. It may be that they see this as a romantic notion, but today the Internet is the vehicle of choice for interacting with others. There are still some people who put pen to paper, but today everything is on the Net.

Bill C-27 is part of this trend. Unfortunately, the Internet is not all good. As with anything, there will be people who misuse it, as is the case with spam. As an avid Internet user, I have received a lot of spam. I agree that it is frustrating. It is annoying to see our inboxes filled with hundreds of mass emails on topics we want nothing to do with.

Bill C-27 attempts to address part of the problem. That is one reason why the Bloc Québécois supports this bill. We are in favour of the principle, but some parts of the bill, which I will talk about later, can be considered biased. They will have to be examined in committee, and we will have to take the time to analyze every single comma, to protect not only consumers and Internet users, but also businesses that are using the Internet and email more and more. We must find some common ground for both parties.

Bill C-27 is a new bill that specifically targets unsolicited commercial electronic messages. Citizens have been demanding such a bill for some time, and it is sorely needed. Governments, service providers, network operators and consumers are all affected by spam, as I just mentioned. We must create safeguards for legitimate electronic commerce, and we must do so now. Not only are commercial emails—sent with the prior consent of the recipient—important to electronic commerce, but they are also essential to the development of the online economy.

The Bloc Québécois is pleased to see that Bill C-27 takes into account most of the recommendations in the final report of the task force on spam. However, we are upset that the legislative process has taken four long years. The government says that it has acted quickly. The Conservatives have been in power for three years, and it took four long years—there was also one year with the Liberals, who are just as slow, I must say—for us to finally get to the point of examining Bill C-27.

As I said, computer technology is evolving at astonishing speeds, and spammers, those who send spam, keep finding new ways to achieve their goal. Therefore, committee consideration of the bill should give many industry stakeholders and consumer protection groups an opportunity to express their views on the new electronic commerce protection legislation.

This being a constantly evolving issue, the task force on spam was struck in 2004 to look into this problem and find ways of dealing with it. It brought together Internet service providers and representatives, electronic marketing experts, and government and consumer representatives.

I will note, as an aside, that electronic marketing is increasingly popular, even in political circles, as was seen during Barack Obama's recent campaign in the United States. His team made massive use of the Internet, with great success.

That having been said, more than 60 groups from the sectors concerned took part in the discussions, contributing their views on topics such as legislation and enforcement, international cooperation and raising public awareness.

In addition to the Stop Spam Here campaign launched on the Internet to raise awareness and provide users with tips on how to limit and control the amount of spam they receive, on May 17, 2005, the task force on spam presented its final report to the Minister of Industry.

This report, entitled “Stopping Spam: Creating a Stronger, Safer Internet”, recommends new, targeted legislation and more vigorous enforcement of current laws to reinforce the legal and regulatory arsenal Canada could use in the global fight against spam.

The report also promotes the establishment of a focal point or centre within government to coordinate the actions taken against spamming activity and related issues, such as spyware.

The main recommendations contained in this report were: the proposed legislation and more vigorous enforcement; the drafting of legislation prohibiting spamming; protection of personal information and privacy and protection of computers, emails and networks.

The proposed legislation is designed to allow individuals and companies to sue spammers and hold any businesses whose products and services are promoted using these means partially responsible for spamming activity. In addition, new and existing resources of the organizations responsible for the administration and enforcement of anti-spam laws should be strengthened.

The task force also talked about a centre of expertise on spam. The task force recommended creating a centre to coordinate the government's anti-spam initiatives. The centre would coordinate policy and education campaigns, and support law enforcement efforts. It would also receive complaints and compile statistics on spam.

To curb the volume of spam reaching users, the task force developed a series of industry best practices for ISPs, network operators and email marketers.

Examples include allowing ISPs and other network operators to block email file attachments known to carry viruses and to stop emails with deceptive subject lines.

As well, email marketers would be required to obtain informed consent from recipients to receive emails; provide an opting-out mechanism for further emails; and create a complaints system. The report recommends that these groups voluntarily adopt, regularly review and enhance the best practices.

We will also need an education campaign. Talking, passing legislation and finding ways to stop spam is one thing, but we also have to raise awareness and warn people about emails that may appear to promise things.

For example, North Americans are receiving more and more emails from young African women. These emails say that the sender is having some problems at the moment, and if the recipient sends a cheque or provides a bank account number, she will give him or her $1 million in exchange. We have to warn people that these emails are actually spam. In most cases, the senders plan to get funds from the recipients under false, dishonest pretenses. We have to make sure that people are aware of this. How many times have I heard from people who naively believed these emails requesting a bank account number in exchange for cash. People have to be so careful. I myself have begun an awareness campaign by sending an email warning people to be careful because the consequences could be disastrous.

We have to start a public education campaign. To help change people's online behaviour, the task force created an online public education campaign called “Stop Spam Here”. Launched in 2004, the website offers consumers, voluntary organizations and businesses practical tips for protecting their personal information, computers and email addresses. The task force recommends that all partners continue to enhance the site's content.

International cooperation is also needed in order to put an end to spam. I mentioned emails that come from Africa, for instance. The problem of spam is not limited to Canada. It is happening around the world. The Internet created the global village, and the world has become a small town. Anything can be sent at lightning speed. Anyone can send spam to Canada or anywhere else in the world. This file will therefore require considerable international cooperation.

Since most of the spam reaching Canadians comes from outside the country, international measures to stem spam are vital. Therefore, the task force proposed that the government continue its efforts to harmonize anti-spam policies and to improve cooperation in enforcing anti-spam laws among different countries.

Four years later, on April 24, 2009, the Government of Canada finally introduced new legislation to protect electronic commerce, namely, Bill C-27. It took four years, which, I must say, was a little long.

Inspired primarily by the final report of the task force on spam, Bill C-27 establishes a framework to protect electronic commerce. To achieve that, the bill would enact the new electronic commerce protection act, as I mentioned earlier. Basically, this act would set limits on the sending of spam. First of all, we must define spam. Spam can be defined as any electronic commercial message sent without the express consent of the recipient. It can be any electronic commercial message, any text, audio, voice or visual message sent by any means of telecommunication, whether by email, cellular phone text messaging or instant messaging.

It is important to make a distinction. Spam affects not only emails, but also what are known as SMSs, that is, messages sent directly from one cellular phone to another, and we sometimes forget that. This can become a bit of a sham. People sometimes sign up for a business's mailing list and they receive SMSs. Yet they do not realize that, at 15¢ per message, it can become quite expensive by the end of the month. People who send spam by SMS get the benefits, but since they send so many, it is very costly for users. Therefore, it is also important to stop spam sent by SMS.

Having regard to the content of the message, it would be reasonable to conclude its purpose is to encourage participation in a commercial activity, including an electronic message that offers to purchase, sell, barter or lease a product, goods, a service, land or an interest or right in land, or a business, investment or gaming opportunity.

Note that the following types of commercial messages are not considered as spam: messages sent by an individual to another individual with whom they have a personal or family relationship; messages sent to a person who is engaged in a commercial activity and consist solely of an inquiry or application related to that activity; messages that are, in whole or in part, an interactive two-way voice communication between individuals; messages that are sent by means of a facsimile to a telephone account; messages that are a voice recording sent to a telephone account; and messages that are of a class, or are sent in circumstances, specified in the regulations.

This means that, under this legislation, sending spam to an electronic address—email, messenger, telephone or any other similar account—would be prohibited. The only circumstances under which it would be allowed is when the person to whom the message is sent has consented to receiving it, whether the consent is express or implied, hence the importance of raising public awareness as I said earlier.

Sometimes, in good faith, people subscribe to mailing lists or SMS distribution lists without necessarily knowing what they are getting themselves into and without understanding the fine print and the problems that can arise. It is therefore important to raise awareness. We cannot say it often enough: it is extremely important that Internet users and people who use their cell phones to send text messages be careful and make sure that they do not fall into a trap.

In addition to being in a form that conforms to the prescribed requirements, the message will have to make it possible to identify and contact the sender. Lastly, the message must include an unsubscribe mechanism, with an email address or hyperlink, so that the recipient can indicate that he or she does not want to receive any further commercial electronic messages from the sender.

Earlier, I mentioned how users can get caught in a trap. Companies that send SMS messages, for example, do not tell recipients how to unsubscribe. And that becomes very problematic, because the individual receiving the messages is billed for them. The recipient has to pay, but does not necessarily have the knowledge or the means to unsubscribe. The charges start to add up. At 10¢ a message, SMS can be very expensive.

The bill would also prohibit altering the transmission data in an electronic message so that it is delivered to destinations other than that specified by the initial sender. In addition, the bill would prohibit installing a computer program on another person's computer and sending an electronic message from that computer without the owner's consent.

I see that I have only a minute left. I would just like to say that the Bloc Québécois would like this bill to be referred to committee. I said at the beginning of my speech that we support the bill in principle, but there are some things that will have to be checked.

The Internet is increasingly a global phenomenon, and we will have to fight spam with our international partners.