André Bellavance

[Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act, September 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-28, which has a slightly misleading title because I do not know if we will really be able to eliminate spam. It is called the “fighting Internet and wireless spam act”. I hope we will be able to fight spam and eliminate it, but it will not be easy to completely block fraudsters and dishonest people. These people inundate our email with spam.

We listened to a number of speeches, including that of my illustrious colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, the Bloc Québécois industry critic, who has worked very hard on this file. His speech was very eloquent and provided a good explanation of the multi-faceted manner in which this scourge attacks businesses, offices, service providers and all those in business. I will repeat, it is a real scourge.

I remember very well that when I arrived here on Parliament Hill, not as a member of Parliament, but as an assistant, it was the first time that I had to work so much with computers. My previous job had me working with computers only occasionally. I was shocked by the number of spam messages and how much of our time they took up every day. I imagine that that is still the case for many businesses. Here in the House of Commons, and we must give credit to our tech team, we get far fewer spam messages. I will not go into detail, but we were getting some completely unacceptable emails. In some cases, pop-ups would take over our computers and sometimes cause them to freeze. The computers were frozen, not us. It was a serious problem.

The bill is creating a new electronic commerce protection act to set limits on the sending of spam. Spam can be defined as a commercial electronic message sent without the express consent of the recipient. It can be any commercial electronic message, any text, audio, voice or visual message sent by any means of telecommunication. Email was mentioned earlier, but there is also cellular phone text messaging—which is popular with young people—and instant messaging. Based on the content, it is reasonable to conclude that the purpose of the message is to encourage participation in commercial activity. That is the case, of course, with electronic messages that offer to purchase, sell, barter or lease a product, good, service, land or an interest or right in land, or offer a business, investment or gaming opportunity.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle of Bill C-28. As was mentioned earlier, it is new legislation that specifically targets unsolicited commercial electronic messages. We need this new legislation, and it has long been requested by society as a whole. The members who spoke before me said that it took a ridiculously long time for the government to wake up and put a real policy in place.

This bill is not yet in effect. It must be examined in committee. A task force has been studying the issue since 2004. We would have expected it to be quicker. These kinds of emails are costing us billions of dollars.

Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois is pleased to see that Bill C-28 takes into account most of the recommendations in the final report of the task force on spam. However, we are not pleased that the legislative process took four long years.

Consideration of the bill in committee should give many industry stakeholders and consumer protection groups an opportunity to express their views on the new electronic commerce protection legislation created by Bill C-28.

I would now like to go over how Bill C-28 came about. First of all, 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, as well as electronic marketing experts and government and consumer representatives. Consumers are often the main victims of spam.

I am thinking of fraud spam primarily. For instance, a bank or credit union asks someone to provide all of his or her contact information because of a bogus problem. I will come back to that. I will no doubt have time at a later date.

I am pleased to say that the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill.

[Caseus Selection Awards, September 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, two companies in my riding distinguished themselves in the 12th annual competition for the Sélection Caseus awards, which recognize Quebec’s best fancy cheeses. The Fromagerie du Presbytère in Sainte-Élisabeth-de-Warwick was awarded the gold Caseus for the second time in as many years, this time for its Louis d'Or, an organic raw milk cheese. The Cendré de Lune and Cantonnier made by the Fromagerie 1860 DuVillage in Warwick also won awards in their categories.

Cheese makers from across Quebec outdid themselves. The silver Caseus was awarded to the Laiterie Charlevoix in Baie-Saint-Paul for its Hercule de Charlevoix cheese. The bronze went to the Fromagerie Au gré des champs in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu for Le Monnoir. The judging panel also gave special honours to the Fromagerie Blackburn in Jonquière, in the category of new business established for five years or less, for its Mont-Jacob cheese.

Quebec's cheeses are second to none in the world. The people who produce them do so with no shortage of passion and expertise.

On behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, I extend to them our sincere congratulations and encourage everyone to try their excellent products.

[Canada-Jordan Free Trade Act, September 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear, and I mentioned this in my speech, that we would have liked to see studies that very clearly demonstrate and prove that this type of bilateral agreement is profitable for our industries. I was talking about agriculture, the pulp and paper industry and so on, where we already know there are possibilities of opening the market. However, generally, there is no clear study on this.

The same goes for the various clauses that will determine whether there are disputes between the two countries. In any event, these provisions are always included in every bilateral agreement. I do not necessarily think we are anticipating or that we should anticipate any specific problems with Jordan. However, we see the infamous chapter 11 of NAFTA also being used in other countries. I do not understand why the government keeps making this mistake that causes so much harm.

[Canada-Jordan Free Trade Act, September 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is very familiar with this issue, since he is the Bloc's international trade critic. He has examined this agreement, and he will no doubt do the same for any other agreement.

Indeed, there is a way to civilize international trade. It is simply a matter of drawing upon past experiences. In general, multilateral agreements have always been better at ensuring that human rights are better respected, whether we are talking about labour rights, environmental rights, workers' right to unionize or other rights, because with these multilateral agreements, poor and emerging countries also have a voice; they also have the right to speak up. We as sovereignists are always concerned when agreements are signed and Quebec does not have a place at the negotiating table. That is one of our arguments, because Quebec would be much better off if it were able to sit at the negotiating table.

In any event, today, Brazil and India, for example, as well as all emerging countries, can be much more demanding with multilateral agreements than with bilateral agreements.

[Canada-Jordan Free Trade Act, September 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I began my first speech on this bill on March 29. It feels strange to spend the next 14 minutes talking about an issue that I discussed so long ago. However, I have done my homework, so I remember clearly what was going on with Bill C-8 on the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement.

I will not repeat what I said when I began talking about this on March 29, but I will summarize. I started by saying that the Bloc Québécois supported this bill in principle. I raised a number of important points, including the fact that Jordan is currently modernizing its government and is relying heavily on international trade to support its economic growth. An agreement with Canada could really help this emerging economy.

Canada has already signed a free trade agreement with Jordan's neighbour, Israel. By signing an international trade agreement with Jordan, Canada would demonstrate a degree of balance in our interests in that part of the world, given the strained political relationship between Israel and the rest of the Middle East, of which all hon. members are aware.

Just today, I was reading that the resumption of talks was very tentative. Let us be positive and optimistic about what is happening there. Our thoughts are with the people who are suffering because of the problems arising from the conflicts in the Middle East.

Such an agreement between Canada and Jordan could send a signal to other Middle Eastern countries that would like to expand their economic relations with the west.

On a more technical note, potential trade would be mainly in the agricultural sector. I also mentioned this in the first part of my speech. As the Bloc Québécois agriculture critic, I carefully examined this aspect. As we know, agriculture is not very well developed in Jordan. It does not represent a threat to our agricultural producers. We checked with the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec. Water is scarce in Jordan, and the climate is arid. That is not where most crops are grown. The same goes for livestock. However, we do import some products from Jordan.

It would probably be more beneficial for us, especially in Quebec, to trade with this country. I joked that we will not sell much pork to Jordan. However, we might have some success with sales of other meats, cash crops and fruits and vegetables.

There are also interesting opportunities for Quebec's pulp and paper industry, which has the largest share of exports to Jordan. According to 2008 statistics, Canada's trade with Jordan totalled $92 million, of which Quebec's share was $35 million, with $25 million in pulp and paper exports. This could be good for my riding, which is home to such companies as Domtar and Cascades. In Quebec especially, this industry needs to find new markets. I hope that will be possible.

In Canada, Quebec is Jordan's largest trade partner. According to the most recent statistics, Quebec's share of Canadian exports to Jordan in 2008 was 45% or $35 million. Canada's total trade with Jordan reached $92 million. This is not a free trade agreement on the scale of the one being negotiated with the European Union or NAFTA. Jordan is a small country; however, a free trade agreement could open the door to some Middle Eastern markets.

I spoke about another point that I want to bring up again. Since we will vote to send this bill to committee, there is a chance that it will make it there. So I would like to talk about natural surface water and ground water, whether in a liquid, gaseous or solid state, which are excluded from the agreement by the enabling statute but not mentioned in the text of the agreement itself. That could be dangerous.

I could compare this to the free trade agreement between Canada and the European Union, which is currently under negotiation. For the first time ever, Canada decided to leave the supply management system on the table. With other bilateral agreements, research was done, and Canada always excluded the supply management system from negotiations. That is worrisome, because even if the Conservative government gives us verbal assurances that it will protect the supply management system, the very fact that the system is among the issues on the negotiating table leaves us at the mercy of the European Union's negotiators, who could demand some compromises. I referred to surface and ground water because we would hate to see this resource traded with any country. We have to wonder why it was only included in the implementation bill, when it was not stated in the text of the agreement. That would be something to look into during the study in committee.

Even though we are supposed to study each free trade agreement on its own merits, it is clear that the government has a tendency to drop the multilateral approach, just as it is tempted to do with foreign affairs. The government is negotiating free trade agreements with nearly 30 countries. The WTO agreements and the Doha agreement are not working very well. Multilateral agreements are on hold and there has been no effort on that front whatsoever. Now they are focusing on bilateral agreements.

The Bloc Québécois does not feel that this is the way to go about improving the lot of those countries, particularly the developing ones. Officials in the Department of International Trade, like those in the industry department, have admitted to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology that no studies have been conducted to evaluate whether these agreements will be beneficial to our economy. Not that it matters; ever since these bilateral agreements have been introduced, the Liberal and Conservative members feel that the government must move ahead with them, whether an agreement is beneficial or not.

One example of this is the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. Only the Bloc Québécois and the NDP spoke out against this free trade agreement, simply on the grounds that Colombia does not respect human rights, environmental rights or labour rights.

In a paternalistic manner, we offer to trade with Colombia and help it make money through the free trade agreement and then say that maybe the country should start considering human rights. I do not think this is the right way to go about it. I think such a country needs to know right away that it is unacceptable to treat its population the way it does, and that, as a penalty, we will not be doing business with them until they rectify the situation.

As I said, both the Liberals and Conservatives believe that the government should pursue these bilateral agreements. At least, that is what has come out of the meetings of the Standing Committee on International Trade. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois voted against the report that was passed by the majority of the House committee.

Even worse, the committee also recommended beginning all kinds of other bilateral negotiations, even though no studies have been done to determine whether these agreements will be beneficial for either Canada or Quebec. The committee even contemplated a free trade agreement with China. I would remind the House that in 2005, Canadian imports of Chinese goods totalled $32 billion and generated a $26 billion trade deficit in Canada, or $1,000 per capita. We definitely do not have the upper hand in our trade with China at this time. When trade with any given country generates five times more imports than exports, the top priority should be to make the terms more balanced, rather than more liberal.

The Bloc Québécois will only support future bilateral free trade agreements if it believes they will benefit Quebec's economy.

Furthermore, the Bloc Québécois insists that new free trade agreements must contain clauses requiring that minimum standards on human rights—as I mentioned earlier—labour rights and respect for the environment be met.

As I was saying, in order for trade to be mutually beneficial, it must first be fair. The absence of environmental or labour standards in trade agreements puts a great deal of pressure on our industries, especially our traditional industries. Earlier we were talking about pulp and paper and agriculture. Those are part of that reality. It is very difficult for them to compete with products that are made with no regard for basic social rights.

We have been talking about this for quite some time. Before I was even elected to this House, when I was working for my colleague from Joliette who was the international trade critic, the Bloc Québécois had made many presentations and organized many meetings with citizens in civil society regarding this globalization and how we wanted it to have a human face. That is the terminology used at the time. Here we are in 2010, still referring to something we were talking about in the early 2000s.

The absence of environmental or labour standards in trade agreements puts a great deal of pressure on our industries, as I was saying, our traditional industries in particular. The Bloc Québécois believes that child labour, forced labour and the denial of the fundamental rights of workers is a form of unfair competition, just like export subsidies and dumping.

These examples are often cited in committee, in the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for example, in relation to strong economic powers such as the European Union and the United States, which heavily subsidize their farm productions. An example that springs to mind is the cotton market in certain African countries that has been completely destroyed because the U.S. subsidizes its own cotton so much that African countries no longer produce any cotton, although they can grow it easily, because the market has simply been killed off. We see these examples.

Here in Canada we were victims of dumping in the corn market when the United States simply decided to lower the price of corn and subsidize it heavily. It is this type of example that strikes us. And, obviously, there are other examples where civil rights are not respected in certain emerging countries.

Trade agreements and trade laws do not protect our businesses and our workers from this social dumping. If a country wants to benefit from free trade, in return it has to accept a certain number of basic rules, with regard to civil and social rights in particular. Colombia is a good example.

I am being signalled that my time is running out. I will wrap up by saying that the Bloc Québécois is urging the federal government to revise its positions in trade negotiations in order to ensure that trade agreements include clauses ensuring compliance with international labour standards as well as respect for human rights and the environment. In their current form, side agreements on minimum labour standards and environmental protection lack a binding mechanism that would make them truly effective.

Let us move toward multilateral agreements, which is not to say that we would not be in favour of some bilateral agreements in certain cases, as with Jordan of course. We are in favour of sending this bill to committee.

[Combating Terrorism Act, September 21st, 2010]

Madam Speaker, in such instances, I always reply that we must ask the Liberals themselves why they suddenly reversed their position on the bill.

The bill will be examined in committee, but it is clearly useless. As my colleague said, we have already recognized that these clauses were totally ineffective. We will be wasting our time in committee. I have a feeling that the Liberals are putting up a smokescreen, as I accused the government of doing earlier, in preparation for the next election. They can use this to say they are against terrorism. I believe that all members of this House are against terrorism.

[Combating Terrorism Act, September 21st, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Ahuntsic, for her question. She asked this question of the Minister of Public Safety yesterday. As usual—and despite any assurances to the contrary before the session resumed—she failed to get an answer to her question.

As my colleague stated, these are allegations. However, any door that can be opened and may lead to cases of abuse is outright dangerous. I agree with my colleague on this matter. Moreover, as I said in my speech, why change something that already works well?

If there were urgent requests on the part of police officers and those folks who keep us safe, indicating that they are unable to fight terrorism in Canada and Quebec or—alongside Interpol—elsewhere in the world, then we would need to do something about it. If there were a legal loophole making it impossible for them to prevent people from committing terrorist acts, we would have to look into it. That much is obvious. And that is what we are constantly doing as we are dealing with a moving target.

With these measures, though, as my colleague pointed out—and this might actually occur under the current government—there is the risk that abuses will be committed in the name of ever-sacrosanct security—security that we actually agree with. If, for example, one of your children is arrested while taking part in a peaceful demonstration, you will realize at that point that there may have been an abuse of power under the guise of increased security.

[Combating Terrorism Act, September 21st, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues who have contributed to the debate on Bill C-17. I am not going to say anything the Bloc Québécois has not already said about this bill, but I am going to provide a few examples to illustrate how inappropriate it would be to renew the sunset clauses, as is the government's intention in introducing Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions).

In any bill we debate the Bloc Québécois likes to see a certain balance. In this specific case, in any legislative measure on terrorism such as Bill C-17, there absolutely must be a balance between security and respecting other basic rights.

Earlier, I heard an NDP colleague talk about human rights and civil liberties. Indeed, pushing things too far in one direction or another causes problems. That is where the government needs to step in. For example, if we go in the direction of inappropriate security that violates our civil liberties, we can end up in a situation like the one at the G20 in Toronto. People who had gathered together for a peaceful demonstration were arrested in their dormitory. They had not even started demonstrating.

There may be excessive preventive measures when it comes to security. The same is true in the other direction. If terrorists or potential terrorists can use loopholes to execute their Machiavellian and diabolical plans, then we have to do something about that.

When we look at what has happened since these sunset clauses were established, we realize that they have never been used. That is why the government has come in a few years later with the intention of reinstating these clauses, but there is no evidence to support their usefulness.

Between December 2004 and March 2007, there were several debates and several committees studied this issue. The Bloc Québécois listened to witnesses, read submissions, and questioned experts, representatives of civil society and law enforcement officials. We have all the tools we need, therefore, to determine our position on investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions, the two points being considered in this bill.

Then as now, we in the Bloc Québécois feel that it is better to provide more guidelines on investigative hearings. That is the first point we want to make. It is obvious to us that this exceptional provision should only be used in certain specific cases to prevent actions involving an imminent risk of serious harm, and not in the case of acts that have already been committed. This does not mean that we are opposed to investigative hearings, but they should be confined to specific cases when it is essential to have them.

In regard to recognizance with conditions, we are still opposed to section 83.3 concerning preventive arrest and recognizance with conditions. This is a useless and ineffective process. These clauses have never been used in all the time they have existed. Not only are they ineffective at fighting terrorism, but the uses to which they could be put will always be a sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of people, a clear danger to the rights of honest citizens.

I mentioned the G20 a little while ago. Justice will take its course, but there were clearly some abuses in the arrests that were made following the demonstrations. Some well-known agitators go to demonstrations of this kind, even if they are supposed to be peaceful, in order to create trouble. The police have a duty to arrest these people, and they generally do a good job in order to prevent things from degenerating into a riot.

Sometimes, though, the police get carried away, cross the barricades, and go after people who are there for perfectly legitimate reasons. This is still a democratic country. There are valid reasons, therefore, for going to demonstrations and expressing one’s disapproval of decisions the government has made or even decisions made on a global level. That is why these demonstrations occur. I think there was also a problem with this.

A number of experts testified that dangerous terrorist activities can already be averted effectively—even more effectively—through the normal application of the Criminal Code with none of the harmful consequences that preventive arrest may entail.

So we already have the tools we need. Our job as legislators is to improve the bills that come before us. We are never against that. We are always in favour of doing what we can to improve security, but to do that, we need to change a piece of legislation, amend it or add some clauses to improve and facilitate the work that our police forces do. When there is a lot of talk about these cases, it is because there is a problem.

The Criminal Code has all of the provisions required to implement measures to foil the plans of those who would commit terrorist acts. The mechanism we are talking about was eliminated in February 2007. Obviously, I am talking about the second point.

The investigation process should be reinstated only if major changes are made. Unfortunately, Bill C-17 does not do that. Preventive arrest has no place in our justice system because it can have such a devastating impact on people's reputations and because other effective measures are already in place.

Since yesterday, I have heard some of the government members' speeches, but I have heard no evidence whatsoever that any gaps exist or that the existing Criminal Code does not provide police forces with the means to counter the activities of those who would commit terrorist acts.

What I have heard is the Conservatives make malicious and sensationalist accusations against people who oppose Bill C-17, against those of us in opposition, the Bloc and the NDP. They accuse us of being practically pro-terrorism. Why bring back ineffective measures that have never even been used? There was a reason for the sunset clauses: the measures were made available to the police for a period of time to see whether they could be used effectively. But they were never used at all, so why bring them back in this bill? Furthermore, since sections of the Criminal Code already provide for effective action, why try to muddy the waters by proposing other measures?

Of course, we are always in favour of improving measures to make our streets and public places safer. However, the government is simply putting up a smokescreen, probably because they want people to see how important public safety is to them. We know that yesterday the Prime Minister listed public safety as one of his priorities, but Bill C-17 does not include any truly effective measures. And since these measures were ineffective when they were first introduced, I think it would be inappropriate to reinstate them today.

Since I am being told that I have very little time left, I will conclude by saying that it is always possible to improve our system and our safety, but it requires a balance as well as truly effective measures.

It is because of this analysis that we have decided not to support restoring this measure. Not only do we feel that this measure is of little, if any, use in the fight against terrorism but, more importantly, there is a very real danger of its being used against honest citizens. In addition, a terrorist activity deemed dangerous can be disrupted just as effectively through the current Criminal Code and existing measures.

[David Fournier, June 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to David Fournier, a municipal counsellor for the City of Windsor, who won the title of municipal leader of tomorrow from the Union of Quebec Municipalities.

His remarkable contribution to the community dates back many years. For example, at the tender age of 11, he worked as a volunteer coach with Windsor's minor soccer association. His interests are varied and he takes on more than one cause at a time, which helped earn him the Claude-Masson “youth volunteer” award for the Eastern Townships, presented by the Government of Quebec in 2007.

It is because of passionate and professional people like Mr. Fournier that Windsor is able to offer its best to the public.

On behalf of my Bloc Québécois colleagues, I would like to congratulate David Fournier on investing so much of himself in the well-being of his community.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, June 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business deems AgriStability to be an expensive, complex and unpredictable program. In its report, AgriStability or Aggravation, the CFIB identifies a number of problems such as poor customer service, complex and large volumes of paperwork, timeliness issues and predictability.

Does the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food intend to change the program so that it truly meets farmers' needs?