Robert Bouchard

[National Defence, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, a simple yes or no should be easy. Once again, as has been the case all week, we have not received any clear answers that would lead us to believe that Bagotville will be protected. The same ambiguity abounds and the government refuses to make a firm commitment.

Is this not proof that the Conservatives are once again about to break one of their election promises, and that the disbanding of Bagotville's 439 Squadron is no longer a hypothesis, but is becoming a reality?

[National Defence, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question I asked about the closure of the Bagotville base and possible disbanding of 439 Squadron, the Prime Minister said, “We have no intention of making such a decision”. However, an intention is not a firm commitment and we have the right to know the truth.

I am asking a clear question that demands a clear response this time: Will the government reject the hypothesis of disbanding Bagotville's 439 Squadron, yes or no?

[National Defence, May 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as we can see, they do not have the courage.

The Minister of National Defence said yesterday that no decisions had been made concerning Bagotville. Yet we know there is a real possibility that 439 Squadron could disappear. The minister tells us this is just a hypothesis.

My question is simple. Can the minister tell us right now if that hypothesis is wrong, yes or no?

[National Defence, May 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the two ministers from Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean can boast all they like about the influence they have within the Conservative cabinet, but we can see that is simply not true. They made all kinds of promises during the election campaign, but we now know that was nothing but hot air. The reality is that Bagotville could lose 439 Squadron and they are doing nothing to stop it.

Which of the two infamous ministers will have the courage to stand up in this House and admit they are breaking their election promise and their commitment to the people of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean? Which one?

[National Defence, May 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, when questioned about the possibility of moving the Griffons and closing 439 Squadron at CFB Bagotville, the Minister of National Defence first said that this was fiction. The next minute he said that no decision had been made. Therefore the minister’s comments confirm that a move is still a possibility.

Will the Minister of National Defence admit that the Griffons could be moving to Petawawa, thereby breaking the 2006 election promise to increase the number of troops based in Bagotville?

[National Defence, May 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in that same document, the Bagotville option is the least expensive. Yet the Minister of National Defence plans to move the Griffons and close 439 Squadron at the Bagotville military base. That decision could mean the loss of 50 jobs at that base.

If the Bagotville option is the least expensive, can the Minister of National Defence explain to the people of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean why he is getting ready to reject that option in favour of Petawawa?

[Electronic Commerce Protection Act, May 7th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill. It is designed to protect electronic commerce, which is a good thing in and of itself. We also want the committee to hold consultations on the bill in order to make sure that it really meets people's needs.

At this point, we do not necessarily have any changes or proposals to make. We want to hear what businesses and the people concerned have to say about this bill.

We want the bill to benefit the public. We want the Internet to be an efficient system. Currently, because of the huge amount of spam people receive, the Internet has problems and is less efficient, when it should be more efficient. We want to make the Internet more efficient by combatting spam.

[Electronic Commerce Protection Act, May 7th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question.

As I said earlier, some countries have passed legislation to regulate, reduce and perhaps even eliminate spam. It has to be said that Canada is lagging behind a bit on this aspect of protecting electronic commerce.

I believe that this bill is a good initiative, even though it comes a bit late. At first glance, we support the bill in principle, but we think it should be referred to committee for study. That way, comprehensive consultations will be held to make sure that the bill better meets the needs of young people, as I said earlier, and all users.

We also have to recognize that electronic commerce is a very good thing in and of itself, but when it gets bogged down in spam, it becomes much less efficient.

[Electronic Commerce Protection Act, May 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in the House, especially on a matter that affects the vast majority of people.

I am referring to Bill C-27, whose purpose is to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain fraudulent commercial practices that use email. To do this, the bill would amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Competition Act and the Personal Information Protection Act.

With all the modern means of communication at our disposal, we are constantly being solicited. This bill seems at first glance, therefore, to be a good idea. When the House of Commons passed the Telemarketing Act in 2006, a national do not call list was established to reduce telephone solicitation. People who so desire can now put their telephone number on the list, which greatly reduces telephone solicitation.

I say “reduces” because there are still regulations that allow solicitation, although the new act clearly stipulates that if a person asks not to be called any more, the company must immediately stop contacting him. In addition, companies or individuals who want to have the right to contact people must be registered on the list.

Under the act, any person or organization that is not registered or fails to comply with the regulations under the act is liable to a maximum fine of $1,500 for an individual or $15,000 for a corporation.

Initial results show that the list created in September 2008 seems to have had a major effect on solicitation.

There is a simple connection I wanted to draw with the telephone do not call list. All email users are very familiar with spam, that is to say, email sent to sell us products and offer prices and many other annoying things.

In short, I do not know whether other members have noticed, but there seems to have been a considerable increase in the amount of spam over the last few months. It makes me wonder whether companies have not just changed the way they contact consumers.

I do not know specifically whether this Bill C-27 to protect electronic commerce will have the same effect as the telephone do not call list, but it goes without saying that the vast majority of email users I know would greatly appreciate an initiative of this kind.

Bill C-27 has a number of objectives. Its main purpose is to prohibit the sending of commercial electronic messages without the prior consent of the recipient.

Another objective is to protect the integrity of data transmissions by prohibiting other practices related to the unauthorized installation of computer programs. It seems only natural we would want to avoid the use of consumers’ personal information to send spam.

Bill C-27 would therefore prohibit the collection of personal information by means of unauthorized access to computer systems and the unauthorized compiling and distribution of lists of electronic addresses.

It is hard to be against motherhood and apple pie, and we in the Bloc Québécois think that companies that want to email consumers should obtain their consent first.

This bill has some fine objectives therefore. How the act will actually be enforced, though, appears rather complicated. It seems to me upon reading it that three agencies will be involved.

The CRTC must take the necessary steps to take action against the sending of unsolicited commercial electronic messages.

At the same time, the Competition Bureau must address misleading and deceptive practices and representations online, including fraudulent emails from financial institutions.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner must also take measures against the collection of personal information via access to a computer and the unauthorized communication of lists of electronic addresses. Lastly, the Telecommunications Act will be amended by the provisions that provide the framework for this new dimension.

I know the government wants to tackle spam, and I agree that it should. Will this bill successfully prevent an American company, for instance, from sending information by email to electronic companies in Quebec and Canada? That is an important question.

I know that a number of countries have established measures like the ones proposed in Bill C-27, and they seem to be producing positive results. In Australia, the United States and Great Britain, the various pieces of legislation to combat spam seem to be making a real difference.

Those countries probably also have a mechanism to reduce the amount of spam coming from other countries.

At first glance, Bill C-27 deserves to be studied further in committee. Establishing measures that will help prevent as much spam as possible from being sent by people who use false representation, prohibited software or who exchange information about email addresses appears to be a good idea.

Of course, we would like to examine the bill's impact and application more carefully with witnesses. We are in favour of the principle of this bill, but we would like it to go to committee so we can hear from and consult with witnesses, and see if Bill C-27 would really meet needs. We would also like to know if it will properly address the spam that consumers are currently receiving.

The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C-27. It appears to respond to a problem. Unsolicited commercial electronic messages are becoming a serious social and economic problem that undermines the personal and commercial productivity of Quebeckers.

Spam is a real nuisance. It damages computers and networks, contributes to deceptive marketing scams, and invades people's privacy. Spam directly threatens the viability of the Internet as an effective means of communication. The Internet is supposed to be an effective means of communication but clogging it up with spam decreases its effectiveness. It undermines consumer confidence in legitimate e-businesses and hinders electronic transactions.

This is a constantly evolving problem, and the government has finally presented a bill four years after setting up a spam task force. That bill is C-27, the Electronic Commerce Protection Act.

Essentially, this Electronic Commerce Protection Act governs the sending of messages by email, text messaging or instant messaging without consent. Transmission of spam to an electronic mail account, telephone account or other similar account would be prohibited.

The only circumstances under which spam may be sent is when the person to whom the message is sent has consented to receiving it, whether the consent is express or implied.

Here are some of the other prohibitions: No person may alter the transmission data in an electronic message so that the message is delivered to another destination. Nor may they install a computer program on any other person’s computer system or cause an electronic message to be sent from that computer system without the owner's consent.

Bill C-27 suggests a number of administrative recourses, such as a fine of up to $1 million for an individual and $10 million in other cases. The CRTC would be responsible for investigating all complaints and must have the appropriate powers to do so.

Bill C-27 also proposes the provision of a private right of action that would enable companies and individuals to institute proceedings against any wrongdoer, which is similar to a law that has been passed in the U.S. .

Any organization covered by Bill C-27 may, on its own initiative, transmit to the CRTC, the Privacy Commissioner, or the Commissioner of Competition any information in its possession if it deems that information to be related to a violation of the Electronic Commerce Protection Act. These three bodies must also consult each other and may exchange any information in order to fulfill the responsibilities and activities they carry out under their respective statutes. Under certain conditions they may also provide such information to the government of a foreign state or an international organization.

Canada is not the only country to legislate the protection of electronic commerce. As mentioned earlier, other countries have adopted legislation in this regard. I heard one of my colleagues say that Canada is lagging behind in terms of introducing spam legislation.

I also looked at one country among others, France, which introduced a law called “law to support confidence in the digital economy“. This law was adopted in June 2004, and had a six-month transition period. Apart from specific rules set out in the postal and electronic communications code as well as the consumer code, France is required to ensure that solicitations by email, no matter their nature—business, charitable, political, religious, or membership, for example—are subject to personal information protection legislation.

Bill C-27 is not unique when we look at what other countries are doing. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle of this bill. It meets several objectives that I mentioned earlier and that I would like to summarize. It will prohibit unsolicited emails from a business, protect the integrity of data transmitted by prohibiting practices related to the unauthorized installation of computer programs, prohibit the collection of personal information by accessing computers without the consent of the individuals involved and prohibit the unauthorized compiling or distribution of electronic address lists.

I will close my statement by repeating that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle of Bill C-27, which seeks to assign responsibilities to three organizations we are familiar with and which will regulate email in order to have a much more efficient system of Internet communication.

The proposed legislation is interesting. We are prepared to support it, in principle, so that the bill can be studied in committee.

[AbitibiBowater, May 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, AbitibiBowater recently applied for court protection because of its massive debt. We have learned that the former executive chairman, John Weaver, will receive a severance package of US$17.5 million. The company also agreed to pay Mr. Weaver's moving expenses.

That is scandalous and shows a lack of respect for AbitibiBowater workers who, for too long, have been feeling the impact of the forestry crisis and the whims of its greedy executives. Given that thousands of workers paid into a pension fund that is now at risk, it is unthinkable that executives would be compensated for creating the company's financial woes.

The priority in the current restructuring of AbitibiBowater is to safeguard its facilities, jobs and pension funds. The workers and the population have the right to say no to such bonuses.