Bill C-27 (Historical)

Electronic Commerce Protection Act

An Act to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, and to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Competition Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act

This enactment establishes a regulatory framework to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities.
It enacts the Electronic Commerce Protection Act, which prohibits the sending of commercial electronic messages without the prior consent of the recipient and provides rules governing the sending of those types of messages, including a mechanism for the withdrawal of consent. It also prohibits other practices that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, such as those relating to the alteration of data transmissions and the unauthorized installation of computer programs. In addition, that Act provides for the imposition of administrative monetary penalties by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, after taking into account specified factors. It also provides for a private right of action that enables a person affected by an act or omission that constitutes a contravention under that Act to obtain an amount equal to the actual amount of the loss or damage suffered, or expenses incurred, and statutory damages for the contravention.
This enactment amends the Competition Act to prohibit false or misleading commercial representations made electronically.
It also amends the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act to prohibit the collection of personal information by means of unauthorized access to computer systems, and the unauthorized compiling of lists of electronic addresses.
Finally, it makes related amendments to the Competition Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act and the Telecommunications Act.

Electronic Commerce Protection Act

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, when I first introduced legislation back in 2003, I was the first member of Parliament to do so and the first member of Parliament from a Liberal party that took this issue very seriously.

I am glad to see my hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, has joined with us after many years of effort. It was a very tough thing over the years to try and manage 15 or 16 different files. I am very pleased to say that I know the parliamentary secretary is doing due diligence on that committee, a committee on which I am very proud of having worked over the years. Many of the issues that we raised many years ago are now starting to bear fruit.

I am happy to see the government is finally taking action on spam, what all of us will know is unsolicited electronic mail. Many of us who have computers, all know how dangerous and how much of a problem this is for both Canadian consumers and businesses.

In 2003 it was estimated that spam cost the economy over $27 billion worldwide. Since then, the problem has only grown worse. I am sure there is more updated information which the parliamentary secretary and others may be able to illustrate. However, to say the least, we are now looking at a far more serious problem, which hopefully will be corrected by the bill, as it relates to issues such as identity theft, phishing and spyware, all of which give concern to Canadians and to the world. We have to deal with this in legislation both locally and internationally.

In the early 2000s, the Liberal Party recognized the problem that spam created. In 2003 I tabled a private member's bill to make spam illegal. Unfortunately, the bill never made it to second reading. However, on the strength of Bill C-460, introduced in mid-2003 in the 37th Parliament, the minister of industry struck a committee to examine the issue of spam and to report to the minister about how the government could most effectively stop this obvious and serious, growing problem.

That report entitled “Stopping Spam: Creating a Stronger, Safer Internet” was released in May of 2005. The report was created by a committee of 10 experts on information technology and Internet law. The task force also worked with dozens of stakeholders in the technology industry to develop sound proposals and to look at and observe best practices at the time.

The primary recommendations of the task force were that the government legislate prohibitions on the following: the sending of unsolicited email; the use of false or misleading statements that disguise the origin and the true intent of the email; the installing of unauthorized programs such as spyware; and the unauthorized collection of personal information and email addresses, particularly by using fake websites, through the selling of lists where those on the list were not told the list would be sold to another third, unknown party.

The official opposition supports the bill as it follows through on the recommendations of the committee, which was created by the Liberal government. However, much more remains ahead of us and much more needs to be done.

The committee highlighted the need for the government to play a central role in coordinating the actions of both government and the private sector. All actors agree that spam needs to be stopped. Internet service providers, web hosts and online marketing agencies need a set of best practices for email solicitation. The government must work, in coordination with industry partners, to establish a strong code of practice that prevents the proliferation of electronic emails that are unsolicited, unwanted and constitute spam.

These days spam is no longer a problem exclusive to email. In 2004 and 2005, when the committee was writing the report, spam was starting to move to other electronic platforms. Today Canadians must contend with cellphone spam, either by means of text message or by something we may not all be familiar with, robo calling.

It is important that the act recognize the facts and is technologically neutral, encompassing all forms of commercial electronic communication. I believe the legislation must meet that test to ensure there is proper, effective and adaptable application to current, existing and future modalities that may be able to circumvent not only technologies to prevent and to protect consumers in business, but also to remain faithful to the act.

This is why I hope the act can be revisited on a yearly basis as technology evolves. It is something the Liberal Party will look to see the government amend or to look at in committee.

Moreover, the issue of text message spam is being aggravated obviously by yet another announcement of a major cellular service provider over the last year to start charging for received text messages.

There has been plenty of discussion among members of Parliament. It is obvious to everyone that it is unfair, to say the least, that consumers are charged for something they had no choice whatsoever in receiving. Spam is not just a Canadian problem, as I indicated earlier. Given the borderless nature of the Internet, it means that spam can originate from anywhere and be delivered to anywhere.

I strongly point out that the legislation takes measures within Canada. There has to be, obviously, an attempt to work internationally with our other partners so that we can also go after those companies and those organizations that are doing this remotely from other countries that do not have the same level of proposed enforcement or legislation. As a result, because of the international nature of this problem, any government that is serious about combatting spam must be willing to engage other governments around the world in an international strategy to reduce this ongoing problem.

The government's ability to combat spam is not simply about legislation. I am asking, and I am hoping, and my party calls on the government to show its concern by raising this internationally at all international fora and working with other governments to produce a coordinated international anti-spam and anti-counterfeit strategy. The effectiveness of this law will be measured by the government's commitment to enforcement.

I take the comments that have already been raised in the parliamentary secretary's presentation of Bill C-27, that we have to ensure there is adequate support for enforcement of the legislation, which is being complimented and certainly being recommended here.

That is tall order. There is no point in putting forth legislation if there is a reasonable chance that the legislation will not have the intended impact of deterring, stopping, correcting and preventing what is continuously more than just a nuisance, but a very costly one at that.

Of course, policing Internet traffic is incredibly difficult because any Internet crime crosses jurisdictions and borders, both provincial and federal. This is why the attempt to control or to stop spam in the report called on the government to create a central office that would coordinate anti-spam activities. I am looking at the parliamentary secretary, hoping that in fact he will move diligently on that if speedy passage is indeed given to this piece of legislation.

According to the minister, Industry Canada is being designated the official coordinating body. I would like to ask the government what kind of resources Industry Canada is being given to coordinate the three other agencies that the parliamentary secretary has referred to that have responsibilities under this act, those being the Privacy Commissioner, the CRTC and the Competition Bureau, as well as, of course, the RCMP.

What resources can we see coming from the government with respect to these offices so that we can in fact see spam corrected in this country?

I realize that question may come back to me, but it is certainly a question that I would think the government will have to answer time and again here to ensure that we have a correct and appropriate measure.

It is extremely important that, everywhere in Canada, we can have confidence in the legislation proposed by the government. I expect that the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology will deal quickly with the issue before us. We have been waiting for a bill for six years. I had hoped that my bill in 2003 would be adopted. It was deserving; but that was not the case.

Central to this issue, if the government passes legislation and walks away from the issue, all these initiatives that are proposed, well-intended, well-researched and up-to-date, will indeed fall. I believe that legislation, to be correctly brought forward, must also ensure that we have proper resources and effective coordination so that it is understood how this is going to take place. The more rapid response we can have to correct this problem, I think, will ensure that those who see Canada as an opportunity, as a target, will find another place. But we also want to make sure that other place is blocked. We simply want to put an end, where possible, to these practices, which have as their origins and as their sense the undermining of the credibility and integrity of communicating and the effectiveness of legitimate use of the Internet, which belongs to us all.

I was here in 1993 and 1994 when the industry minister at the time, Mr. John Manley, talked about the great opportunities of the Internet as the superhighway, as we used to call it at the time, because it was the wonderful dawning of new age.

Unfortunately, that superhighway has become badly clogged, to the point where I think it is fair to say that there have been serious traffic jams, if not serious accidents, along the way. Therefore, this legislation is timely, it is necessary, and I hope it has a reasonable opportunity to in fact pass.

The government must follow up on the legislation with real action and real enforcement resources. It must actively engage all partners everywhere and industry internationally. It must continue the consultation process and develop longer term opportunities to combat spam. So I ask the government what plans it has, moving forward, to engage industry partners in building strong codes of this practice.

We will have to ensure that it is not just based on a blue-ribbon panel that was struck some years ago but that in fact we have an ongoing ability to ensure that partners, stakeholders and consumers, those who have been tremendously affected by this, will be able to benchmark and give us feedback as to how effective this legislation will be, particularly from the point of enforcement.

What plan does the government have to work with our international partners in building a strong international effort to combat spam? Spam can be incredibly destructive. Besides consuming time and bandwidth, spam is a delivery vehicle for malware, programs that access one's computer without authorization and can do a number of nasty things. Malware includes viruses and spyware, which attack the individual user. However, some of these programs turn the user's computer into a zombie on a botnet, which then can be used to attack major websites on the Internet.

This is something that we could not have contemplated three, four or five years ago, but it is currently taking place. Many consumers and many constituents have talked to me about this and have talked to other members of the House. We need to ensure that we have a pragmatic policy, a pragmatic document that is capable of changing with changing times as Internet and electronic information becomes more sophisticated.

All these attacks have serious economic impacts when websites like eBay or Google are brought down. Even for a few hours, billions of dollars are lost. Spyware can be used for identity theft, which is a constantly growing threat in the Internet age.

I do not need to say that even our own electronic system here in the House of Commons has been subjected to several attacks over the past several months. These have caused enormous difficulty for many of us as we communicate. I notice some members of Parliament sporting a BlackBerry, and others, a computer. It is important that we get the platform, or the framework, of this legislation correct.

I call upon all members to support the bill at second reading so it can go to committee. However, I have serious concerns about the will or the interest of the government in enforcing these rules and to work co-operatively with other stakeholders and with other governments.

Madam Speaker, I will end there but I am eager to hear the comments and questions of my colleagues.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to begin second reading of Bill C-27, the electronic commerce protection act. This is a bill to protect and promote the Canadian economy to allow electronic commerce to reach its full potential and to increase confidence in the e-economy.

We need to take strong steps to protect the integrity of the electronic marketplace by reducing the harmful effects of threats to the online economy. The Internet has emerged as a significant medium for the conduct of commerce and communications, both in Canada and around the world. An efficient and dynamic electronic marketplace can boost the competitiveness of an economy.

In the past decade, online commerce and e-business has continued its rapid growth in Canada and around the world. In fact, Canada has become one of the most connected countries in the world and Canadians are avid users of the Internet, but there are some areas of Internet use where we should not be proud of our distinction. When measured by the percentage of spam that originates in a particular country, Canada stands in fourth place worldwide, behind Russia and just ahead of Brazil. Some 4.7% of the world's spam originates in Canada.

All hon. members are familiar with spam. It is unsolicited electronic commercial messages. Most of us have become accustomed to turning on our computers and finding the in-baskets of our email cluttered with these unwanted messages. Some of them are just a nuisance, but many of them are much more harmful. Some of them are fraudulent such as the Nigerian bank account scam. Some spam is used to invade privacy, including phishing. These are emails that lure recipients into providing personal information.

Spam is used to infect computers with malware, designed to gain control over a computer, communications device, or network. Malware is becoming increasingly sophisticated. Sometimes it connects infected computers so that they become part of a botnet and their processing power and bandwidth are made available to others. Botnets are often used to send out massive amounts of spam.

The issues surrounding spam are more than a simple nuisance. They deter consumers from participating in the online marketplace. Malware represents some of the most harmful aspects of spam. But even in the apparently least harmful, the unsolicited email that gets dumped into our in-baskets urging us to buy mail order drugs, or show up at some New York City nightclub, even these nuisance messages exact a toll on the economy.

Spam represents about 87% of email traffic around the world. It is estimated that last year a total of 62 trillion spam emails were sent.

In June 2007, Ipsos Reid found that Canadians received an average of 130 spam messages each week. This is up 51% from the previous year. In April 2008 an EKOS survey showed 72% of Canadians considered spam a major problem. In spring 2008 Phoenix surveyed Canadian CEOs and senior executives, and found that 80% considered spam to be a problem for their company; 21% considered it to be a big problem. Their greatest concern was wasted time and reduced productivity. More than two-thirds believed that the Government of Canada should bring in anti-spam legislation.

There are ways to combat spam. Most Internet service providers have put up filters to try to screen out spam. The filters tie up their resources and their bandwidth, but spam manages to get through to consumers and businesses nonetheless.

Technology represents part of the solution, but it is not the whole solution. Other countries have found that one of the most effective ways to combat spam is through effective anti-spam legislation. Take the example of Australia. A few years ago, like Canada, it was on the top 10 list of countries where spam originated. After introducing anti-spam legislation in 2003, and with the help of a carefully crafted public awareness campaign, Australia dropped off the top 10 list by 2005. Anti-spam legislation works.

Canada represents the only G8 country and one of only four OECD countries without anti-spam legislation. It is time that we joined with our key global partners, including the U.S., the U.K. and Australia in passing strong domestic laws to combat spam and related threats.

The bill before us will reduce the burden of spam on Canadian businesses and the risks to individual Canadians. Our goal is to ensure continued confidence in electronic commerce by addressing the personal privacy and security concerns that surround Internet spam and related threats.

The foundation of the bill before us is to create laws based on the federal trade and commerce power. The bill proposes a scheme of regulation designed to discourage forms of commercial practices which are detrimental to the economy.

The bill proposes an opt-in approach for all forms of unsolicited commercial electronic messages without a pre-existing business relationship or consent. It would introduce a regime that would follow the money. This would ensure that anyone who benefits commercially from the spam would be held as equally responsible as the person who sent the spam.

At the same time, I want to assure hon. members that businesses that use email to market their products to Canadians would be able to do so within the parameters of the ECPA.

The regime would allow for email marketing based on a consumer opt-in approach long practised by the Canadian Marketing Association and reflected in its code of conduct. Businesses will need to get consent prior to sending commercial emails or have a pre-existing business relationship with the customer.

The bill before us provides two different kinds of remedy to eliminate spam and related online threats. One is a regulatory approach. The other involves actions that can be taken by individuals and businesses. Let me describe each to the House.

On the one hand, we have the regulatory approach in which the enforcement agencies would be the CRTC, the Competition Bureau and the Privacy Commissioner. The CRTC would be able to investigate and take action against the sending of unsolicited commercial electronic messages, installation of computer programs, and the altering of Internet addresses without consent.

The CRTC would be able to take action on these matters in a manner that will be technology neutral. The bill prohibits certain spam-related activities regardless of the network technology employed for its distribution. However, it does not include voice telemarketing as this is already regulated by the CRTC under the do-not-call regime. We see no need to merge the spam and the do-not-call provisions at this time. The Competition Bureau would be responsible for those aspects of spam that relate to unfair and deceptive marketing practices, including false headers and website content.

Under the bill before us, both the CRTC and the Competition Bureau would be able to impose administrative monetary penalties, or AMPs, to those who violate the act. The AMPs would be substantial. This law will have teeth. The amounts of the penalties would not exceed $1 million for individuals and $10 million in all other cases. In other words, the penalties would amount to much more than simply a cost of doing business. They would disrupt the spam business model, making it less profitable to continue their operations in Canada.

The third agency in the regulatory approach is the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, which would address the misuse of personal information. This would include specific provisions added by amendments to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. This would deal with the electronic compiling or supplying of lists of personal electronic addresses without consent.

Here are three regulatory agencies that would use their respective mandates to combat spam and related online threats: the CRTC, the Competition Bureau and the Privacy Commissioner. Just as important, the bill before us would give these bodies the ability to share evidence and information with one another, as well as with counterparts in other countries. This will help us pursue violators beyond our borders.

Consistent with this bill, we would establish a spam reporting centre which would monitor the legislation's effectiveness through trend analysis and metrics. It would also manage the public awareness campaign that would build awareness of the new act and ensure its success.

I have been describing the first of two remedies that this bill would create to help combat spam and related online threats. It would provide tools to government regulatory agencies. The second remedy involves the power of each of us as citizens, consumers and businesses to pursue remedies against spammers.

The bill before us would provide a private right of action that would allow consumers and businesses to take civil action against anyone who violates the act. This remedy has been very effective in the United States and it is one example of how we have taken best practices from around the world and incorporated them into this bill.

Under the private right of action provisions, Internet service providers would be able to take action against spammers who use their networks without the threat of subsequent legal action from the spammers. Spammers should be aware that this bill would provide significant penalties for those who send or benefit from spam. The CRTC will be going after them, the Competition Bureau will be going after them, and the Privacy Commissioner will be going after them. Individual consumers and businesses who have been affected will be going after them and network users and providers will be going after them.

The proposed legislation will not eliminate spam altogether, but very soon there will be no place left in Canada for spammers to hide. That is how we will reduce spam. That is how we will reduce the cost that spam inflicts on individuals, businesses and the economy in general. That is how we will uphold the integrity of the online marketplace and, by the same token, promote the adaptability and flexibility of the Canadian economy.

Anti-spam legislation has been long overdue in our country. It has been four years since the release of the report on the task force on spam. One of the report's recommendations was strong anti-spam legislation.

One of the unforeseen benefits of the delay in bringing forward legislation is that we have been able to design the bill based on best practices in other countries. However, over the years in which we have looked at other countries' experience, several parliamentarians have been outspoken in championing the cause of anti-spam legislation.

There have been private members' bills introduced both in the House of Commons and in the other place. The champions have come from various political parties. No party in this Parliament has a monopoly on the issue of anti-spam and for that reason, I am confident that we will be able to secure swift passage of this bill.

There are two individuals in particular whom I want to acknowledge as performing outstanding service in bringing forward measures to combat spam and related online threats. Both of them have enjoyed very distinguished careers in the other place. One is Senator Donald Oliver, whose proposed bills in the other place helped to set the tone for the creation of the task force on spam. The other is Senator Goldstein, who introduced Bill S-220, an act respecting commercial and electronic messages, in February. This was the third such bill that the senator introduced in the other place. He has been a champion of anti-spam legislation for several years. I want to thank the senator for his co-operation and goodwill and I want to assure him that we will continue to promote the bill as a high priority in our legislative agenda.

Senator Goldstein is set to retire this month. I believe I speak for all members of the House when I thank him for his years of conscientious service to Canada and wish him many happy years of retirement.

It is with the spirit of crusaders, such as Senator Goldstein and Senator Oliver in mind, that I ask all members to join me in supporting quick passage of the bill.

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

moved that Bill C-27, An Act to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, and to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Competition Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to be with you this afternoon and to come to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology to discuss the 2009-10 main estimates.

As you noted, I have my senior officials here with me. To my left is Richard Dicerni, the deputy minister. To my right is Paul Boothe, the senior associate deputy minister, and behind me we have Kevin Lindsey, the chief financial officer, and Ron Parker, the senior assistant deputy minister for the industry sector.

At our meeting in February, I began my address by outlining the rapid deterioration of the global economy. We don't yet know how long the recession will last, but we do know that one day there will a recovery.

The challenge for the industry portfolio is to help ensure that we weather the current economic storm and set policies and programs in place to prepare Canada to be more competitive than ever whenever we return to economic good times.

As we discussed in February, Canada faces the challenges with sure footing on some very solid foundations. We've got the strongest banking sector in the world, we have paid down a significant amount of federal debt in years gone by, our fiscal structure remains sound, we have dramatically reduced taxes in the last four budgets, the private sector enjoys one of the most innovative tax credit systems in the world, and we have set the conditions to make Canada an attractive place to invest.

We've had a long-term strategy in place since 2006. Advantage Canada, as it's known, was designed during a period of economic expansion, to be sure, but it has proven to be a good strategy for the downturn as well. When the Minister of Finance introduced Canada's economic action plan this past February, we built upon these advantages.

They include a fiscal advantage. Let me say that in sharp contrast to many other OECD countries, Canada had been reducing debt and carefully managing spending before the recession hit. This gives us room to put in place measures to support the economy without putting our long-term fiscal position at risk.

We have a tax advantage. Budget 2009 proposes over $20 billion in new tax relief over 2008-09. Since 2006 we have increased total relief for individuals, families, and businesses to about $220 billion over five fiscal years.

We have an infrastructure advantage. Even before the downturn, we had been investing more in infrastructure than at any other time in the past half century. The economic action plan accelerates and expands these investments with almost $12 billion in new infrastructure stimulus funding over the next two years. These investments will put shovels in the ground today. They will put paycheques in worker's pockets today and put food on the family table. They will also build infrastructure that will improve our competitiveness and quality of life for decades to come.

There is the entrepreneurial advantage. We have taken significant steps to cut red tape. In the January budget, we took further measures by proposing to establish a Canadian securities regulator and to work with the provinces to amend the agreement on internal trade.

Finally, there is the knowledge advantage. Our goal there was to create the best educated, most skilled, and most flexible workforce in the world.

Mr. Chairman, the economic action plan launches the Canada skills and transition strategy to help Canadians weather the economic storm. We have also made significant investments in our S and T strategy, which you heard about in question period today. I will seek to elaborate on those in just a few minutes.

The Advantage Canada long-term strategy is taking hold. It is proving its worth during the recession, and we will stick to the strategy simply because it is working. It will help us get through the downturn and prepare for a more competitive economy down the road.

Mr. Chairman, when I met with this committee in February, I talked about S and T, manufacturing, and small business development. I'm pleased to have this opportunity to update the committee on these files and to talk about some of the other issues that arise from the 2009-10 main estimates.

S and T is an integral part of our strategy to build Canada's knowledge advantage. We will build a competitive advantage for Canada based on excellence in S and T. Investing in S and T is crucial for developing highly skilled people and improving the long-term competitiveness of Canadian firms.

In the previous three budgets, the Government of Canada provided over $2 billion in new funding for S and T. In Canada's economic action plan of this year, we are investing more than $5.1 billion in new funding towards science and technology initiatives. This represents one of the single largest federal investments in S and T today.

Let me remind the committee of just a few of those measures. In March we announced a $2 billion investment in the new knowledge infrastructure program. This will support infrastructure enhancement at secondary institutions, colleges, and universities across the country. The presidents of the colleges and universities have told us that this was their top priority. These investments create jobs in the short term, but they also provide the infrastructure that universities and colleges require for years to come.

We are investing $750 million in the Canada Foundation for Innovation in support for equipment and facilities, and another $250 million over two years to undertake an accelerated investment program to address deferred maintenance at federal laboratories.

The economic action plan also commits $110 million over three years to the Canadian Space Agency to support research and development in terrestrial prototypes for space robotic vehicles. Canada is and should remain a global leader in this technology, Mr. Chairman.

The Canadarm became a source of national pride--we know that--and Dextre advanced Canada's reputation as a robotics leader. We developed the technology to service satellites while they're still in orbit. With the investment in the Canadian Space Agency, we will protect Canada's heritage and leadership in robotics and move on to the next phases of the technology. We want to remain at the forefront of space robotics with projects such as the Mars Lander and the lunar rover. These technologies have many applications closer to home as well. The country that is the leader in building space robotic vehicles will also be the country at the forefront of such technologies as electric cars and robotics used in the mining industry.

Canada's economic action plan also provides $200 million over two years to the National Research Council industrial research assistance program, or IRAP, as it's known. Members of this committee are well aware that IRAP has been a very popular program for the NRC. The budget provides $170 million to double IRAP's contribution funding and $30 million to help companies hire over 1,000 new post-secondary graduates in business and science. Once again, Mr. Chairman, here is a program that will provide 1,000 new jobs in the short term. These jobs will help businesses develop competitiveness and skills that will help them in the years to come, as well.

The budget provides $87.5 million over three years to temporarily expand the Canada graduate scholarships program. An additional 2,000 master's students and 500 doctoral students will be able to advance their studies, deepen their skills, and better prepare to capitalize on the opportunities ahead.

Mr. Chairman, our S and T investments covered in these estimates also include $50 million for the Institute for Quantum Computing in Waterloo, Ontario. This institute will support the construction and establishment of a new, world-class facility. The investments also provide $5 million to help establish the Ivey Centre for Health Innovation and Leadership at the University of Western Ontario. And they supply $3.5 million over two years to the Networks of Centres of Excellence so they can offer an additional 600 graduate internships through the industrial research and development internship program.

Our S and T investments also include up to $85 million over two years to maintain or upgrade key, existing Arctic research facilities. These investments will ensure that a strong research infrastructure network is in place to support Canada's new high Arctic research station.

In all these examples, Mr. Chairman, we're making investments in a way that stimulates the local economy now and provides the foundation for competitiveness for many years to come.

Mr. Chairman, Canada's entrepreneurial advantage includes framework laws that give both businesses and consumers confidence in the rules of the marketplace. As a result of Canada's economic action plan, we've taken significant measures to streamline and modernize the Competition Act and the Investment Canada Act.

Canada's competition and investment policies serve the country well. They yield a tremendous economic gain, but they have not changed substantially since the 1980s. We needed to bring our framework laws in line with the demands of the modern knowledge-based global economy.

This committee is well aware that in July 2007 we asked Mr. Red Wilson to chair the competition policy review panel to examine the Competition Act and the Investment Canada Act. The panel submitted its final report in June 2008, and we moved swiftly on the panel's recommendations by incorporating them into the Budget Implementation Act, which received royal assent in March. Reforms to the Competition Act protect Canadian consumers more effectively from anti-competitive behaviour and deceptive market practices such as misleading advertising, mass marketing fraud, and price fixing.

The Commissioner of Competition now has recourse to administrative monetary penalties for abuse of dominance. This will provide greater deterrence for anti-competitive behaviour. We have substantially increased fines and jail terms for price-fixing cartels. Businesses will have more certainty under the new rules governing merger review.

Mr. Chairman, these amendments strike an important balance. On the one hand, we ensure that the law will not discourage legitimate business activity, because legitimate businesses have nothing to fear from these changes. In fact, those considering mergers and acquisitions will find the new rules more straightforward.

At the same time, we provide better protection for consumers and companies engaged in honest business practices. Now other elements of the Budget Implementation Act have amended the Investment Canada Act. Further reviews of proposed investments will be applied only to the largest and most important perspective—investments. By raising the threshold for review gradually, we are making it easier for foreign investors to create jobs in Canada by investing here.

I would like to emphasize the importance of our national security amendments. Before now, Canada was the only major industrialized country that did not have a mechanism for reviewing foreign investments on the basis of national security. The national security review mechanism that we now have in place is consistent with our international obligations and is not disguised protectionism. Before leaving the topic of marketplace framework law, let me give the committee a sneak peak at what we will discuss in the coming weeks under Bill C-27, the Electronic Commerce Protection Act.

Members of this committee are well aware of the tremendous growth in online commerce. In 2007 StatsCan reported that the Internet accounted for $62.7 billion in sales in Canada, and this year e-commerce is projected to exceed $8.75 trillion worldwide. But along with the growth of the Internet has come the growth of online threats, including spam, spyware, malware, trojans, and virsuses. Spam now makes up over 80% of global e-mail. It is a major inconvenience and a drain on bandwith in its own right, but spam is also a conduit for other malicious online threats. With Bill C-27, we will take major steps to combat spam and other online threats. We will use the regulatory authorities of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the Competition Bureau, and the Privacy Commissioner. We will also give businesses and consumers their own recourse to the courts to fight spamers.

We worked hard to get this bill right. The government has closely studied the regulatory and legal frameworks in other countries, and Bill C-27 brings together many of its best practices. As for small business, the government recognizes the particular challenges small businesses face and has taken measures to foster an environment conducive to growth.

Access to credit is a major concern. Budget 2009 increased the Business Development Bank of Canada's borrowing capacity, and this improves financing available to creditworthy businesses. The government is also improving the Canada small business financing program by significantly increasing the maximum eligible loan amount. Government-funded business services such as BizPal and the Canada Business Network provide essential information for small business owners to help them start and grow their businesses while at the same time reducing the paperwork required to meet government obligations.

We're investing in Canada's youth by helping the country's young entrepreneurs through funding for the Canadian Youth Business Foundation. Measures have also been taken to reduce taxation. We have accelerated the reduction of the small business tax credit, which is now 11%. The GST has been reduced. The lifetime capital gains exemption has been increased, and there are generous tax credits that promote research and innovation. These are some of the steps taken to help small businesses in this difficult economy

Our government is also taking steps to ensure that Canada emerges from this economic crisis with a more modern and greener infrastructure. Budget 2009 accelerates and expands the recent federal investment in infrastructure, with almost $12 billion in new infrastructure stimulus over the next two years. We are talking about shovel-ready projects. These are projects that can start as soon as the upcoming construction season begins, including the development of roads, bridges, clean energy, and broadband Internet access across the country.

We've also provided $1 billion over two years for a community adjustment fund. Additional economic stimulus will mitigate the short-term impacts of the economic downturn by creating employment opportunitites and will address the transitional and adjustment challenges in restructuring industries or communities. CAP assistance in Ontario will be provided on a priority basis to communities severely affected by the economic downturn, including those that are reliant on resource-based industries such as forestry, mining, and those that depend on the manufacturing industry.

We're also investing in Ontario's communities. Recreational Infrastructure Canada will provide $500 million over the next two years to build and renovate hockey arenas, swimming pools, and other rec centres. In addition, Canada's economic action plan committed $225 million over the next three years to extend broadband access to Canadians who currently have no Internet access or who have only very limited access, particularly those living in rural and remote areas of our country. It's an important initiative that will lay the groundwork for the future economic and social success of all Canadians.

In today's economy, broadband is a vital part of the modern communications infrastructure and an important tool in the knowledge economy. Broadband brings with it important economic and social benefits, such as access to telehealth services, improved business opportunities, and distance learning. Broadband will give Canadian homes and businesses an unprecedented ability to access information, services, and opportunities that would otherwise be out of reach. Canadians in connected areas know that a good website is an important business tool. Parents and educators know how the Internet can help children study and learn more about the world. The broadband program will provide these same services to more Canadians regardless of where they live. We hope it will be a dramatic improvement over the services currently offered to Canadians with limited access to this important resource.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I know the committee would want me to say a few words about the situation facing Canada's automotive sector. One way to support the sector is to help make credit more available. As the committee will know, the economic action plan introduced the new Canadian secured credit facility to purchase asset-backed securities backed by loans and leases on vehicles and equipment. This facility will provide up to $12 billion to support the auto and manufacturing industries through the financing of vehicles and equipment for consumers and businesses. In addition to increasing the amount of credit available, we're taking steps to enhance consumer confidence. We expanded the accounts receivable insurance program by $700 million, bringing the government's total exposure to $1.25 billion. This is proportionate to what is available to U.S. suppliers through the auto supplier support program.

We also created the Canadian warranty commitment program to help auto consumers by backstopping warranties on new vehicles purchased from General Motors Canada or Chrysler Canada while the companies work through their restructuring plans. This will help Canadians feel more confident about their purchases. It will help maintain sales volumes. And of course we are coordinating our efforts with the U.S. government, because as we know in this highly integrated industry, we all need to work together.

All this is in addition to the short-term financing we have provided in partnership with the Government of Ontario to help the companies' Canadian operations while they restructure. Last week we certified Chrysler Canada's restructuring plan and together with the Government of Ontario we provided funding support to Chrysler Canada and Chrysler LLC to further those efforts and maintain a 20% production share in the North American market. All told, our two governments have jointly loaned $3.775 billion to Chrysler, which is proportionate to the U.S. $12.08 billion authorized by the U.S. government.

Mr. Chairman, I'm convinced the committee will want to discuss many other aspects of the industry portfolio. For example, we have established regional development organizations for southern and eastern Ontario and increased funding for the Community Adjustment Fund.

Last month we announced projects funded through the marquee tourism events program, a $100-million initiative over two years that is a key part of Canada's economic action plan. So the industry portfolio is, as you know, Chair, very broad in its reach, and I focused on just a few of the initiatives that I wanted to bring to the committee's attention. The recurring theme, if I may say so, in all these investments is that we are taking action now to provide stimulus to the economy in tough economic times. We are doing it in a way that sticks to our long-term strategy. In this way, Chair, we will create a more competitive Canadian economy for the future.

Thank you, and I would welcome the committee's questions.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-27, An Act to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, and to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Competition Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)