André Bellavance

[Ensuring Safe Vehicles Imported from Mexico for Canadians Act, December 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, some of my colleague's questions might be better answered by the minister of state, who spoke earlier. This is a Conservative government bill, so he should be answering some of her questions.

With respect to garages, of course they want more business inspecting cars. On the other hand, if more used vehicles are coming in from another country, maybe fewer vehicles from here will be sold. There might be some give and take. However, one thing we know for sure is that cars will have to be inspected. In that respect, my colleague is absolutely right. This already applies to heavy vehicles from other provinces and countries. People can even import vehicles from Europe. Those cars just have to comply with our regulations. Obviously, inspections are not performed by government employees in their offices. I mean no disrespect to government employees, but that is not where inspections happen. They happen in garages. So my colleague is right. Still, I do not think that this will create thousands and thousands of jobs.

In answer to her question about why the government is in such a hurry to pass this bill, I should point out that under NAFTA, initially, people were not to start importing used cars 10 years old or older from Mexico until January 1, 2009. So no government dropped the ball, except for the current government, which should have done something about this before 2009. If I am not mistaken, and if I can count, it is now 2010. That is about a year's delay. That is why the government is in such a hurry to pass this legislation.

[Ensuring Safe Vehicles Imported from Mexico for Canadians Act, December 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank the member for his intervention. He has already spoken on this subject a few times since the debate on Bill S-5 began, and I listened carefully to his concerns, which I share, I might add. However, regarding some of the points he raised, this might not be the right forum, because in this case, it is merely a question of complying with NAFTA.

Regarding the used car market, I agree with the member in that I also do not expect our market to be flooded with used vehicles from Mexico. It is extremely important to bear in mind that the government has an obligation in all of this to ensure that strict regulations regarding the general state of repair of these vehicles and their harmful emissions are obeyed—which is what we want and will keep a close eye on.

Beyond that, with respect to winter tires, it is up to consumers to obey the Quebec law. The member mentioned a law in Manitoba. If I understood correctly, his concerns have to do with the immobilizer program, whereby a system is installed in vehicles in order immobilize the vehicle if it is stolen. Clearly, this has more to do with the aftermarket. That is another regulation with which car dealers and used car retailers must comply. In this case, we are talking about complying only with NAFTA, and we have no choice but to comply in order to avoid sanctions.

[Ensuring Safe Vehicles Imported from Mexico for Canadians Act, December 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. There could be a number of hypotheses here. However, as is the case with many bills that the government claims to want to pass through the House quickly, in many instances it was responsible for this because we had prorogations and elections even though the Prime Minister had promised that there would be fixed election dates. This ended up stalling a number of pieces of legislation.

I imagine that this bill was not a priority for the government, except that perhaps someone woke up and realized that we had signed an agreement with Mexico through NAFTA. For almost a year now, Mexico has been entitled to impose sanctions on Canada since we are not currently complying with the provisions of Appendix 300-A.1. The appendix clearly states that Canada must start to accept importations of used vehicles from Mexico.

Now that the government has woken up and realized that sanctions are possible, it wants to hurry up. There is no reason to be against this, but in many cases, with many bills that have been introduced, the Conservatives have no one to blame but themselves.

[Ensuring Safe Vehicles Imported from Mexico for Canadians Act, December 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill S-5. First of all, I will say that this will likely not be my longest speech in the six years that I have been sitting here in the House of Commons, because the Bloc Québécois believes that the bill is merely a formality and that Canada must fulfill its obligations under NAFTA, which was signed by Canada, the United States and Mexico.

So, as I just mentioned, Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, is just a formality. Under NAFTA, we must accept the importation of used vehicles from Mexico. Of course, we must ensure that these used vehicles comply with our environmental and safety standards. Earlier, the minister of state mentioned regulations that will be adopted soon, or as quickly as possible, I hope, before these vehicles cross the border into Canada.

The government says that it has consulted Quebec, the provinces and the territories, which have to be consulted because Quebec and the provinces are responsible for licensing vehicles. Members of the Bloc Québécois have not heard of any particular concerns on the part of the Government of Quebec about this bill because Quebec agrees with NAFTA and agrees that the government should fulfill its obligations. That is what the Government of Canada has to do with Bill S-5. It should have been done before now. This is not the first time the government has taken more time than expected with certain legislation. No doubt this is because it spends more time thinking about elections or proroguing Parliament. Those are definitely the kinds of things that could have ended up delaying the bill before us today.

The minister of state may have been feeling optimistic, or he may even have been wearing his rose-coloured glasses, when he said that this bill would benefit people. That is a bit of an exaggeration. I do not see what is so beneficial about fulfilling our obligations with respect to a free trade agreement. In a way, it may benefit consumers by opening up the used vehicle market. Cars from Mexico—except those near the sea that get corroded because of the salt—have not gone through the harsh winters we have here in Quebec and Canada, or even in the northern United States. That means that some cars, while they may be older, may be rust-free. However, as I said, cars used near the sea may have body rust from the salt.

I am not an expert, but like many people, I have bought cars. Younger people especially tend to buy used cars. Early in my career, when I was just out of university, I, too, drove cars that might be called clunkers, but they were in decent shape and not a public menace.

The first thing that must be done is a proper inspection of the vehicle's engine and body. Although some vehicles may be of interest, I do not really expect that we will be faced with a huge influx of used cars from Mexico. What we must do is ensure that clear and strict environmental regulations are adopted. The general state of these vehicles and their polluting emissions must be very carefully checked so that people do not find themselves with vehicles that are a hazard to health or to the safety of other road users. When I speak of road users, I am referring not only to the driver and passengers of the vehicle in question, but also to the other people sharing the road with them and, of course, pedestrians.

The government therefore has an obligation to ensure that these vehicles meet all the required standards. We must now face the fact that, under the agreement, used vehicles from Mexico can cross our border, just like vehicles from the United States. A free trade agreement goes both ways. If our vehicles can cross the border to be sold, then American and Mexican vehicles must be allowed to cross into Canada for the same purpose.

The Bloc Québécois thus supports Bill S-5, the main purpose of which is to comply with obligations under NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, regarding the importation of used vehicles from Mexico.

Used vehicles imported from Mexico will have to meet Canadian emissions standards and be in generally good condition in order to be brought into Canada. Accordingly, this does not mean reduced standards in Canada. Individuals who wish to sell vehicles here will have to comply with very strict standards and regulations.

The bill also requires compliance with standards regarding harmful emissions and safety. We realize how dangerous it is to have unsafe vehicles on the road. We are enacting more and more regulations in that regard, such as the regulations on winter tires, for instance. In Quebec, it is now mandatory that all vehicles have winter tires as of December 15. That date is fast approaching, so the public should take notice.

Bills concerning harmful emissions are also being studied. Vehicles on the road can become a little older, especially in times of economic crisis. People think twice before getting a new car. There is no problem with having a car that is a little older, as long as it is well maintained and properly equipped in terms of safety.

Given that Canada could face sanctions for prolonged non-compliance with NAFTA obligations, our domestic legislation should reflect those obligations as soon as possible, since Mexico could indeed impose sanctions on Canada. There is some good news, however: the minister of state said earlier that no sanctions have been imposed so far. As my hon. Liberal colleague just said, I think the members of the House have no choice but to support Bill S-5.

The main objective of this bill is to ensure that we comply with a NAFTA provision that is being phased in. Canada is behind by nearly a year, since we were supposed to comply with it by January 1, 2009. Knowing that we have a bill that is very likely to pass and come into force, Mexico might play nicely and decide not to make any trouble for Canada, but it could still impose sanctions.

Until recently, Appendix 300-A.1 of NAFTA allowed Canada to prohibit imports of used Mexican cars, but there was also a provision whereby Canada would eventually have to accept used vehicles from Mexico. This restriction will be phased out, as the wording in the fourth paragraph of the appendix indicates.

According to the wording, Canada must allow imports of used vehicles from Mexico that are at least 10 years old beginning January 1, 2009. Then Canada has to allow imports of newer vehicles—those that are at least eight years old—beginning January 1, 2011, then those that are at least six years old beginning January 1, 2013, and so on until all used vehicles are allowed to be imported beginning January 1, 2019.

Bill S-5 amends the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which both govern the use and importation of used vehicles from the United States, but not from Mexico. We have to amend these acts, which affected only the market for used vehicles from the United States.

In the amendments, Mexican cars have been added and described as “prescribed vehicles” since the phasing in of the NAFTA appendix allows Canada to regulate this import by restricting the age of the cars imported. In all cases, the used American or Mexican cars will have to comply with the requirements set by Canada on emissions and overall state of repair.

Failure to comply with NAFTA could result in economic retaliation by Mexico and therefore it is preferable that we conform to NAFTA quickly.

I will close by giving some details from paragraph 4 of NAFTA Appendix 300-A.1, which I just mentioned. It is very clear. Concerning used vehicles, it says:

4. Canada may adopt or maintain prohibitions or restrictions on imports of used vehicles from the territory of Mexico, except as follows:

(a) beginning January 1, 2009, Canada may not adopt or maintain a prohibition or restriction on imports from the territory of Mexico of originating used vehicles that are at least 10 years old;

(b) beginning January 1, 2011, Canada may not adopt or maintain a prohibition or restriction on imports from the territory of Mexico of originating used vehicles that are at least eight years old;

(c) beginning January 1, 2013, Canada may not adopt or maintain a prohibition or restriction on imports from the territory of Mexico of originating used vehicles that are at least six years old;

(d) beginning January 1, 2015, Canada may not adopt or maintain a prohibition or restriction on imports from the territory of Mexico of originating used vehicles that are at least four years old;

(e) beginning January 1, 2017, Canada may not adopt or maintain a prohibition or restriction on imports from the territory of Mexico of originating used vehicles that are at least two years old; and

(f) beginning January 1, 2019, Canada may not adopt or maintain a prohibition or restriction on imports from the territory of Mexico of originating used vehicles.

So there will no longer be limits regarding the age of the automobile. This bill will allow us to respect the agreement signed with the United States and Mexico. All of these measures were set out in Appendix 300-A.1 of NAFTA.

We want to ensure—and I am repeating this because it is very important—that we are respecting the regulations, which will be very strict. These regulations will apply to vehicles and how well they work, as well as their overall condition so that we do not end up with dangerous vehicles. They will also apply to the vehicles' emissions because these automobiles will be fairly old to begin with: 10 years or older, then 8 years or older, and then 6 years or older.

Consequently, we must ensure that the standards established in Canada for our automobiles and for vehicles coming from the United States are respected, even if these vehicles are imported from Mexico. We must not end up with vehicles that pollute. That would be unfortunate and damaging to our environment.

I ask everyone in the House to vote in favour of Bill S-5 so that we will be complying with NAFTA. The Bloc Québécois will monitor the regulations to ensure that these vehicles comply as they should.

[Agri-food Industry, November 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, everyone involved in the agri-food sector is against the 98% Canadian content standard for the “Product of Canada” label, except for the Minister of Agriculture , who again defended this Conservative measure before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. The Minister of State for Agriculture, who has nevertheless recognized that the standard has had negative repercussions on processing, has failed to convince the real agriculture minister.

Who in this government will stand up and correct the mistake is hurting producers, processors and consumers?

[Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act, November 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, if the member permits, it would be easier for me to speak of international co-operation rather than all the details about the CRTC. The bill affects a number of other acts. The CRTC will have a mandate and a role under this new law.

With respect to international co-operation, the task force gave very clear instructions to the government when it recommended the following, “The federal government should continue to pursue bilateral agreements on anti-spam policies and strategies with foreign governments.”

It also recommended that “the federal government, in consultation, collaboration and partnership with other stakeholders,...should actively promote” actions to stop this kind of unwanted spam.

[Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act, November 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments and question.

Clearly, that is why it is important to refer this kind of bill to committee, since I have never seen a perfect bill. I have been a member in this House for six years, and seeing a bill in which everything has been thought of, everything has be resolved from the beginning and which can be referred directly, without even examining it, now that is rare. I cannot say it has never happened, because sometimes we have had the time to read a bill, only to say that not much really needed to be changed in the end. Generally speaking, however, they need to be examined further in committee to ensure, as the member put it so well, that these kinds of problems are resolved.

Who has not been affected by the kind of messages he mentioned? For instance, a message supposedly sent from a bank or credit union asks for certain personal information and personal identification numbers to resolve an issue with an account, in order to ensure that everything is all right and that there are no problems. Unfortunately, some people are duped by this. Or else there are other kinds of messages from people who claim to be related to very wealthy individuals—for instance, presidents of certain African countries or other countries around the world—who need money. In return, those people will send us even more money. We have all seen these kinds of messages.

Whether Bill C-28 will specifically and completely prevent all fraud of this kind remains to be determined, but we need to conduct an extremely thorough examination of the bill in committee.

[Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act, November 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak again to Bill C-28.

My colleagues may think I have become an expert on spam. I want to reassure them and the people who are watching us that I am not a spam expert and I have certainly never sent any spam. I have received spam, though, as I said in my previous speeches on this issue. People who work in offices today, especially decision makers, receive so much spam that there was a need for legislation on this issue, which is why the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-28, the Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act.

I am not necessarily going to repeat all the criticisms the Bloc Québécois has offered in speeches in the House. But I do want to remind hon. members—and the Conservative member who spoke before me said this himself—that Bill C-27, which preceded Bill C-28 and concerned the same issue, died because the government prorogued Parliament, which is why Canada is so far behind other countries today when it comes to anti-spam legislation.

Better late than never, as I always say, but the damage that has been done is still there. People who have suffered losses, especially financial ones, because of all this spam will never get their money back. It is time to act, and we need to act as quickly as possible. We will see how quickly we can deal with this in committee. We will also see whether the government is willing to listen to people who might have improvements to make to this bill.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-28. We will listen to the relevant testimony in committee. This speech may give me the chance to draw some conclusions, which I had not had time to do. In our speeches, we often get sidetracked and end up not having enough time to say everything we planned to say. As I touched on earlier, over the years, unsolicited commercial electronic messages have turned into a major social and economic problem that undermines the individual productivity of Quebeckers. People all across Canada have the same problem.

Spam is a threat to the growth of legitimate electronic commerce. Clearly, new technologies can be practical. If legal businesses want to communicate by email legitimately, we must not stop them from doing so. However, spam is something else entirely. Fraud is not the only danger. Some companies harass people, which is a huge waste of time for people in offices trying to get rid of these unwanted emails.

Spam accounts for more than 80% of global electronic traffic, which results in considerable expenses for businesses and consumers. In light of this situation, legislation to protect electronic commerce is reasonable and appropriate.

On another note, some clauses of the bill are still problematic. We would like further information about the national do not call list. The current list is doing the job it is supposed to do, and it is used by millions of people. Compliance with the national do not call list required many companies to reorganize their resources and make a large financial outlay. Could we not use the existing list?

I do not know what mechanism might make that possible, but that can be covered in committee. A number of parallels may be drawn between the system proposed for emails and the existing system for telephone calls. For example, I have had my name taken off call lists, but that does not means that marketing companies cannot get in touch with me. There are certain categories of businesses that can do so. Political parties are one example. Since I subscribe to newspapers, they can call me. I am not completely sheltered from receiving calls. However, people who incessantly phone during supper to sell all sorts of things are now breaking the law.

As I said, could we not use this list to cut the cost of creating a whole new list? We will have to wait and see.

It might be worth looking into. Speaking of the do not call list, consumers should understand that registering will reduce but not eliminate all telemarketing calls. There are certain kinds of telemarketing calls that are exempt from the rules. The exemptions include telemarketing calls made by or on behalf of political parties, riding associations and candidates; Canadian registered charities; and newspapers of general circulation for the purpose of soliciting subscriptions.

Telemarketing calls from organizations with whom people have an existing business relationship are also exempt. A person is considered to have an existing business relationship with a telemarketer if they purchased, leased, or rented a product or service in the last 18 months from the telemarketer, have a written contract with the telemarketer for a service that is still in effect or expired within the last eighteen 18 months, or asked a telemarketer about a product or service within the last six months. In those cases, people can expect to receive calls at home.

Telemarketers may also call those who have provided express consent to be called. Express consent includes permission on a written form or an electronic or online form, or verbal permission. The do not call list rules do not apply to telemarketing calls made to businesses.

If you do not want to be called by a telemarketer making an exempt call, you can ask to be put on the telemarketer’s internal do not call list. Every telemarketer is required to maintain such a list and respect wishes not to be called. Organizations conducting market research, surveys, or public opinion polls are not required to keep their own specific do not call lists.

I am explaining all this to say that it is possible to have our telephone numbers taken off telemarketing lists. This list is working well. The very same principle should apply to email. Text messages can also come under this category. I think that Bill C-28 covers text messages as well as email.

I would remind the House that Bill C-28 was inspired by the final report of the task force on spam, which was created in 2004 and did an enormous amount of work. I have already had the opportunity to address some of the 22 recommendations made by the task force. Of course I will not list all of them here in the House, but I have already mentioned a couple of them. I would like to revisit some other, very interesting recommendations. Most of the 22 measures recommended to the government have been accepted and included in Bill C-28.

There are some very interesting recommendations regarding legislation, regulation and enforcement. The federal government was told it should establish in law a clear set of rules to prohibit spam and other emerging threats to the safety and security of the Internet—for example botnets, spyware and keylogging—by enacting new legislation—which will be done when Bill C-28 is passed—and amending existing legislation as required. It is worth noting that this bill also amends a number of other pieces of legislation, including the Competition Act, which I will talk about a little later, if I have the time. Of course this new legislation will affect the Competition Bureau.

It is important for people to know that they will have some recourse when it comes to sending and receiving unwanted emails. This is also covered in the final report of the task force, which was made up of experts, government officials and marketing experts, as well as leading experts in the field of these new technologies.

According to the task force on spam, the following penalties and remedies should be applicable: new offences created should be civil- and strict-liability offences, with criminal liability possible for more egregious or repeated offences. There should be meaningful statutory penalties for all offences listed in the recommendation. They also said that there should be meaningful statutory damages available to persons, both individuals and corporations, and that there should be meaningful statutory damages available to persons who bring civil action. The businesses whose products or services are being promoted by way of spam should also be held responsible for the spamming. Responsibility should also rest with other third-party beneficiaries of spam.

This leads us to the issue of private recourse. People should know that they will have rights once this bill is passed. Bill C-28 provides for the creation of a private right of action that would enable businesses and individuals to initiate civil proceedings against any person who contravenes articles 6 to 9 of the new act; this is found in clause 47 and onward. If the court believes that a person has contravened any of these provisions, it may order them to pay an amount representing either the loss or damage suffered, or the expenses incurred. If the applicant is unable to establish these amounts, the court may order the applicant to be paid a maximum amount of $20 for each contravention, not exceeding $1,000,000. This is found in clause 51.

That may seem a bit high, but in one of my earlier speeches on Bill C-28, I mentioned an individual from Montreal who was found guilty by a California court of hacking into the Facebook social networking site. This individual, who managed to send a slew of spam messages through Facebook, was fined $1 billion. Yves Boisvert wrote about this case in an article in La Presse, which I have quoted here before. The article said that this individual will never be able to pay $1 billion, but it served as a good scare for all those who use websites, social networks and email addresses to defraud or embezzle people and get away with it. These people flood us with unwanted emails or text messages, which are becoming increasingly popular, as I mentioned earlier. We all get them on our telephones. The individual in question in this case will perhaps not pay the fine, but he will certainly not have any desire to start up again.

Bill C-28 also proposes an extension of the co-operation and information exchange powers for anything that has to do with the Competition Act, the Telecommunications Act or the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. Earlier I said that I had some examples about the Competition Bureau. For example, any organization to which part 1 of that act applies may on its own initiative disclose to the CRTC, the Commissioner of Competition or the Privacy Commissioner any information in its possession that it believes relates to a violation of the act. The CRTC, the Commissioner of Competition or the Privacy Commissioner must also consult with each other and share any information necessary to carry out their activities and responsibilities in accordance with their respective acts.

And if agreements are signed to this effect, this information could be given to the government of a foreign state, an international state or government organization or one of their agencies, if the information is useful in ensuring compliance with laws that address conduct substantially similar to conduct prohibited in our laws. It is important that countries continue to consult more often in order to end this scourge of spam or at least reduce it; it will be difficult to eliminate it entirely.

On one hand, agreements must specify that the information can only be used to assist an investigation or proceeding in respect of a contravention of the laws of a foreign state that address conduct that is substantially similar to those I just spoke about. On the other hand, they must ensure that the information will remain confidential and cannot be otherwise shared without the express consent of the person responsible for the communication. These two conditions are fundamental to preserving the privacy rights of those concerned.

I said earlier that it was important to remember why countries enacted such laws, which are becoming increasingly strict. When a new technology comes on the scene, it is not always possible to know exactly how people are going to adjust to it and what powers the courts will have to deal with all the fraud and abuse that can be perpetrated with this new technology. But some countries have reacted much more quickly than we have, and we need to use their experience to help the victims of these unwanted emails. Spam is a real nuisance. It damages computers and networks, contributes to deceptive marketing scams and invades people's privacy. That list alone shows just how serious a problem spam can be.

More generally, spam poses a direct threat to the viability of the Internet as an effective means of communication. It undermines consumer confidence in legitimate electronic commerce and hampers electronic transactions. In the end, everyone loses.

I do not know whether it is because of my age, but when I buy things on the Internet, I am always reluctant to give my credit card number. It always gives me pause. If hon. members are like me, they wonder whether everything is secure or whether someone somewhere is looking at what they are doing on their computers. Maybe I watch too many movies—even though I do not have that much spare time—but I know there are hackers out there who can play around in people's home or office computers. Not only can they create computer problems, but they can also access the personal information of people who are using sites legitimately to purchase items.

In any event, like everyone else I got up to speed and managed to do my banking transactions, my transfers and all that on the Internet. So far, so good. However, before buying anything on the Internet with a credit card number, I check as much as possible to see whether the site is secured. So far, things have worked out well, but I know that everyone knows someone who has been a victim after making this type of transaction. We have to restore public confidence to ensure that those who have a legitimate business can make a living and that consumers can benefit from this properly.

New legislation to regulate unsolicited email has been needed for far too long now. The Bloc Québécois is pleased to see that Bill C-28 addresses most of the recommendations from the final report of the task force on spam.

Since I am being asked to wrap up, the time has come to talk about how we are behind on legislation that has been passed around the world. I am talking about the United States, Australia and Great Britain, for example. We must nonetheless proceed carefully. I invite people to read a very interesting article in La Presse about the Competition Bureau and how it has started to attack social networks. This September 25 article by Isabelle Massé addressed advertising on social networks and the importance of taking action.

I do not have enough time to quote it as much as I had hoped to, but it is worth reading this article that shows that the Competition Bureau has been able to take action. With Bill C-28, other organizations will be able to take even more consistent and concerted action.

As I was saying, it is time to take action.

[Supply Management, November 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Trade said himself that everything was negotiable, including supply management. Canada is scrambling to become part of the trans-Pacific partnership, which includes some well-known opponents of supply management.

Will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food remind his colleagues that they voted in favour of the Bloc Québécois motion and confirm to us that his government will not agree to any compromises that would jeopardize the livelihood of Quebec's dairy, poultry and egg producers?

[Supply Management, November 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government wants to join the trans-Pacific partnership. As it did for the agreement with the European Union, Canada is saying that everything is negotiable, including supply management.

Considering the fact that New Zealand, one of supply management's greatest opponents, is part of that group, can the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food guarantee us that tariff quotas and over-quota tariffs will remain unchanged, as stipulated by the Bloc Québécois motion unanimously passed in 2005?