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

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his very clear enunciation of the evil empire of spam. We are all familiar with it. Do we understand the full nature of what we are taking on in terms of the ability to enforce the requirement of the CRTC to investigate many of these potential complaints? The enforcement around infractions with very large penalties suggests that this may be very litigious. Perhaps the hon. member could comment on this.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am always impressed in a thankful way for the characterizations that the member is able to draw. It certainly exceeds my word crafting. The evil empire of spam is very descriptive in terms of emphasizing how much of a threat this is to day-to-day life and working people, people who, as I say, understand how to use the technology, but do not know how to protect themselves in terms of invasions of their privacy and so on.

What the member is suggesting in terms of fines as a reactive regime is quite true. They are very heavy. The maximum of $1 million for individuals and $10 million for businesses with respect to violations of the act against individuals is one step, but as in any other part of our criminal justice system, that alone does not constitute the proactive response that people would be expecting.

When this goes to committee, the kinds of concerns the member has raised once again should be looked at, such as resources to help people, particularly to avoid litigation or to help them in litigation, but to immediately redress the harm that has been done by the invasion of their privacy through spam. I use the example of credit card violations and knowledge that has undermined seniors with respect to actually losing their homes.

People have a genuine and realistic right to have government protect them from those kinds of things. Whether this bill would completely satisfy that is something that has to be followed up in committee. That is what the public expects us to do. There will be people on the committee who have applied themselves to understanding the law, the nature of the law, and how to act on behalf of people, as well as people who understand the technology.

Whether the CRTC has the resources to respond will be a question that has to be answered by the government. The resources have to be provided. The reactive nature of the legislation alone will not be successful if the CRTC and the rest of regime does not have the capacity to respond on behalf of the public and consumers.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a further concern about the cost and confusion that this legislation may cause to small businesses in the country.

I do not know how much consulting the government has done on this issue. I am assuming that it has gone through more than one Parliament and that there has been a reasonable amount of consultation, but I am just not sure how many small businesses will know. Even when the government does consult with a large group like that, it is going to miss a lot of people.

I am worried that some people may be caught up through not having bad intent but may be violating the act because they do not really understand all the rules.

One of the members mentioned yesterday that if a business sold a hard drive one year and then responded three years later would that be evidence of an ongoing business relationship or would that be considered spam and be actionable by the person who received the spam email against the business.

These are very important issues that have to be worked out. I do not think we want to make this really onerous on small business. We all know what we want to accomplish, but sometimes we can ensnare groups that we really do not want to and cost the economy a lot of money in the process.

I wonder if the member could deal with that particular issue.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are two aspects to the question. There is the cost to small businesses to protect themselves with respect to the invasion of their systems that would undermine their ability to carry on business.

Then there is the issue with respect to small businesses which are engaged in the transfer of information on a very wide basis and whether they understand the act to the extent where they may in an honest and upfront way be engaged in an illegal activity. That is something that the bill I do not think has encompassed or has articulated.

Both aspects would be better pursued through committee. It would be my feeling that small businesses, in having access to the regime that is being put in place by the bill and the resources that are being put in place, would feel satisfied that it is not an added cost. However, the far more difficult, technical and complex nature of whether businesses, in particular small businesses, would be engaged in activity that is not fully understood and would put them in harm's way, in a manner that they had not intended to circumvent the law, that is something that has to be pursued further at committee.

I do understand both aspects of that, having come through a small family business relationship, but not reliant on technology to the extent that we are today. I understand the concerns that the member has raised for small businesses and I appreciate them, as I am sure the House does.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House today and speak to Bill C-27, a bill that looks at providing new prohibitions and enforcement measures as well as changes to existing laws regarding spam.

As one of the youngest members in the House, this is a bill that I feel very strongly about. That is why I stand here very proudly and state our position as the New Democratic Party, asking for the support of the House to make sure that this bill goes to committee in order to be discussed, in order to have the proper consultation it deserves, and in order for there to be time to look at such complex legislation.

The reason why I connect it with my generation is because I am part of a generation that has truly grown up dependent on technology. Not only are we dependent on it for our professional lives, but also our personal lives. It is the tool that brings our generation together.

As we sit and spend an inordinate amount of hours on the Internet, we are frequently faced by the nuisance that is spam, phishing, Trojan horses, and whatever other forms of Internet nuisance there might be. I would also like to point out how problematic it is.

On a more humourous note, I know my colleague yesterday recited some examples of spamware and how ridiculous they are. Whether it is the solicitation of funds from another part of the world, usually unfortunately taking advantage of people's sympathies and empathies toward areas of the world that have undergone crises, or it is ridiculous notes pertaining to people's personal lives and the assumption that we know who is talking to us and who wants to meet us, and all of these kinds of things. But, in fact, once again it is taking advantage of people's dependence on the Internet to connect in terms of their personal life as opposed to getting out and actually meeting people in the real world.

Beyond the humourous, however, we get to some of the really serious problems that emerge from spam and the kind of pollution that enters our in-boxes, our Facebook sites or our BlackBerries on a daily basis. There is the nuisance in terms of time and efficiency that it takes away from us as we go through our emails and spend valuable time erasing ridiculous messages that we receive.

There are the nuisances that businesses go through in terms of erasing spam emails that they receive or else defending perhaps themselves. This is also pertinent to individuals when it is believed they are the ones who have sent the spam messages when in fact it is someone else causing havoc.

Then there is the even more serious element which is the criminal element and the theft that occurs as a result of spam messages. Identity theft is something that we in Canada are very concerned about. I recall quite a bit of media attention when there was what seemed to be a surge in identity theft.

Also, the theft of financial information is connected to identity theft. It is found that many times such spammers, as they are called, or people who take advantage of others on the Internet, usually take advantage of people who are not familiar with technology, whether it is the elderly or people who are less savvy when it comes to Internet technology. That is highly problematic for so many reasons.

What makes it even more disconcerting for members in the House is Canada's inaction when it comes to spam, when it comes to Internet pollution, and when we see so many people being taken advantage of. I particularly want to bring out the extent to which not only Canadians are being taken advantage of but also people all around the world as a result of spam activity that originates here in Canada. I found out that Canada ranked fifth worldwide as the source of web-based email spam, trailing only Iran, Nigeria, Kenya and Israel.

A research study from Cloudmark, a leading provider of anti-spam software, recently presented data on the origins of spam emanating from web-based email providers, such as Hotmail, Gmail and Yahoo, at an international anti-spam conference in Germany. It found out that we are fifth in terms of truly polluting the web world and taking advantage of people, not only in our own country but around the world. We need to be ashamed of that. We take pride in being advanced in the technological age and in our efficiencies with respect to our technology. There is a serious problem in that we have gone so far ahead in our technology that our legislation is lagging behind. We have a lot of people who are taking advantage of that gap and who are acting in very malicious ways and criminal ways as well.

There have been many examples of people who have taken advantage of Facebook sites. I know that is a site on which many politicians in the House spend a great deal of time, networking with their constituents. I am not sure if they have spent enough time to see some of the spam messages pasted on people's Facebook walls in a very public manner, with which I am sure none of us would want to be associated. However, we never know when spammers are going to take advantage of the work we do and our reputation and create havoc on our Facebook sites.

These are the kinds of things that could hit very close to home in the work that we do as political representatives.

I go back to the piece about Canada being negligent when it comes to being proactive in preventing such intense span activity originating from our country. I see the reference to Canada being a lawless spam haven. Two hundred billion spam messages come out of Canada every day. How could we fathom such extensive numbers, knowing very well that this has been an ongoing discussion in our House? I understand the Liberals brought up the first legislation regarding spam in 2003. We are now in 2009. That is six years.

We know there is far more use of the Internet, both in our country and around the world. Where has the federal government been in terms of implementing legislation that would both protect us and certainly clear our name as allowing this kind of activity to take place in our country while turning a blind eye?

I want to go back to talk a bit about some of the important prohibitions that Bill C-27 provides.

The primary prohibition, known as the basic anti-spam provision, notes:

No person shall send or cause or permit to be sent to an electronic address a commercial electronic message unless

(a) the person to whom the message is sent has consented to receiving it, whether the consent is express or implied; and

(b) the message complies with subsection (2).

There are number of provisions as part of subsection (2). It enforces, for example, the importance of three key requirements, form, consent and jurisdiction.

The law establishes form requirements for those who send commercial electronic messages, for example, and identifies the people sending the message. It provides contact information of the centre and also has an unsubscribe mechanism, which is so important as many of us receive numerous emails from the same source and find it difficult to know how to stop from receiving them any more.

The second prohibition that is part of Bill C-27 is referred to as the anti-phishing provision and involves the alteration of the transmission data on electronic messages. It is designed to deal with phishing, where the electronic message appears to go to one place but goes somewhere else. It states:

No person shall, in the course of a commercial activity, alter or cause to be altered the transmission data in an electronic message so that the message is delivered to a destination other than or in addition to that specified by the sender, unless the alteration is made with the express consent of the sender or in accordance with a court order.

The third prohibition is referred to as the anti-spyware and botnet provision. It is designed to deal with the increasingly common method of delivering spam that infects a user's computer and uses the Internet connection to send millions of spam messages.

The provision states:

No person shall, in the course of a commercial activity, install or cause to be installed a computer program on any other person’s computer system or, having so installed or caused to be installed a computer program, cause an electronic message to be sent from that computer system, unless the person has obtained the express consent of the owner or an authorized user of a computer system or is acting in accordance with a court order.

For this to apply, there must be a Canadian connection to the activity. As we have just heard, there is no shortage of Canadian connections to activity, given that we rank number five on the world charts when it comes to infecting other people's Internet connections with spam.

The intent of Bill C-27 is a very good one. For many years we have been talking about the importance of being proactive in this legislation to protect Canadian citizens, consumers and businesses and to prevent the rest of the world from having to deal with the garbage, in many ways, that emanates from our country.

I know my colleague, the member for Timmins—James Bay, an advocate for efficient and fair use of Internet technologies, has spoken many times on the importance of this issue. I would also like to recognize the work of my colleague from Windsor West, the critic on this file, who has worked very hard at committee to ensure that this is a constant priority.

In that sense, this has been an ongoing discussion. What is holding us up? Given that this is such complex legislation, we need to have a proper consultation with stakeholders. We recognize that in 2004 there was some consultation that took place under the Liberals. We also know what happened shortly after that. We have been in a series of minority governments, clearly unable to properly deal with such important legislation.

However, we believe there is enough good faith in the House to recognize that this is a priority and that we can no longer pay lip service to it or leave it on the shelf to be discussed at another time.

Going back to committee is the best way to go about this. For example, there was concern raised yesterday in the House about some provisions that were included in the bill, which came directly from the do-not-call list bill.

On the do-not-call list, many colleagues and Canadians throughout the country have pointed out how problematic it has been. People have, in good will and good faith, signed their names to a list, expecting that they will no longer be harassed by telemarketers and different companies. However, what we did not know was spammers and others on the net were purchasing these lists or finding them and doing quite the opposite, targeting people even more vehemently, the exact people who had specifically requested not to be called.

We see that some of the do-not-call list provisions are in this bill, which we would like to be part of a broader debate. There was some confusion yesterday from members across with respect to whether these kinds of provisions would be part of the final reading of Bill C-27. That immediately raises a red flag and indicates the importance of bringing this bill back to committee so we can ensure that each part of it is pertinent, that it reflects lessons we have learned from the past in terms of efficiency and fairness and that the final product will actually make a difference to Canadians.

We also like to point out the importance, as my fellow colleague from Elmwood—Transcona did, of consulting properly with small businesses. In many cases, small businesses depend a great deal on email communications through the work they do in advertising and contacts with their clients and consumers. We need to ensure that this bill does not penalize them in the kinds of emails they send out and that there are provisions to protect them. We need to understand the work they do.

If a small business does send out an email sometime after a purchase has been made or an agreement has been reached, will that be recognized as spam? Based on numerous emails consumers may receive from a business, will they view that as spam and file a complaint against that business, putting that business in a very difficult situation for actions that are quite legitimate?

We also like to point out that political parties send copious amounts of emails. We use Facebook. We use the tools available to us. Will we be on the short end of facing some difficult situations if people complain about the emails we send out? What kind of balance can we find in that area?

Canadians recognize that by no means are our parties immune to scandals. We see so many in the news and, even more recently, attached to numerous prior political incarnations in the House. We want to ensure that communications, which are so important for democracy, from our political parties are recognized as such. That is why it is so important to bring this bill back to committee so we can have these kinds of discussions.

The next point I would like to make is on enforcement. We find some of the measures around enforcement problematic. We all know it is fine and well to come up with a great bill that looks at punitive measures to render people accountable. However, if we do not have the proper enforcement, what are we doing here? The bill designates the CRTC to engage in such kinds of enforcement activities.

I think we all recognize that the CRTC does very hard work, but in many cases it is stretched thin in taking responsibility for the files and departments it already has under its administration, let alone bringing in such an important and extensive responsibility and adding it to its load. It is not that it would not be the best to deal with this. However, we need to look at proper provision of resources in finances, technology and human resources to ensure the CRTC can truly do the work it has been mandated to do.

I also recognize that the Privacy Commissioner is part of this. Does she have enough resources to undertake this kind of work?

When we talk about such important points as identity theft, the theft of financial information and ensuring that Canadian citizens and businesses can use the Internet safely, these are some pretty serious points. We need to ensure that the people who will be responsible for ensuring the rules and the legislation are followed have the abilities to do so. It is incumbent upon us and the government to ensure that this is the case.

Finally, I want to bring attention to the importance of protecting consumers. This bill is fundamentally about protecting Canadians and Canadian consumers. As New Democrats, we want to believe that. This is a very positive intent. This kind of legislation needs to take place, but we want to ensure that the consultation takes place as it should, that it is implemented properly and that it is enforced properly as well.

For that reason, we look with distress at the fact that our motion on credit cards and protecting consumers in that respect has not been heeded by the government. Numerous measures that we have proposed for employment insurance changes have not been heeded by the government.

Motions have been passed by all three opposition parties, might I add, that look out for the benefit of consumers.

I know that hon. members on the other side of the House represent many consumers, and I hope they will listen to us and bring this bill back to committee to ensure it makes a difference for us as Canadian consumers.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Churchill for her cogent comments on an extremely serious piece of legislation for the protection of consumers.

I have noted that despite the fact that the government is supposed to be paying serious attention, it is not actually going to be an offence in the bill. It is designated as a mere technical violation, which raises a lot of issues about whether this is being treated seriously.

I would like to ask the hon. member whether she shares my concerns with the limitations on the right to intervene. Because the bill specifically limits the right to intervene in any proceedings to only the three commissions, by nature of statutory interpretation that could be argued to exclude all other parties, including all other people who may be impacted. This goes to the earlier question about class actions. In my jurisdiction class actions are extremely narrowly defined. I think that should be looked at by the committee.

I note the commissioner may disclose information but is not required to, either on any violations they have identified or on any actions taken. There is also no certainty provided by the government. It has not tabled its enforcement strategy with its bill. Does it fully intend to charge and try all violators, or is it planning to issue mere warnings? If it does take these actions, are they going to be made public, for example, in a public registry?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the legal background of the member for Edmonton—Strathcona would assist in identifying some of the gaps in this legislation, gaps that sorely need to be recognized.

I particularly note the point she brought up in terms of the severity of punishment in this case, recognizing that in many cases they are criminal actions requiring appropriate action. The piece on enforcement is something I outlined, as well as many others. There is really no point in talking about how we are going to move forward on this if there is no proper strategy or resources in terms of enforcement.

I recognize that the government has received a great deal of flak on this file and it has proposed to view it as a priority. We have not seen it in the most recent throne speeches. For that reason, the NDP is insisting that it ought to be recognized as a priority and brought back to committee to have important questions and gaps addressed.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I noted yesterday that the member for Pickering—Scarborough East from the Liberal Party made a very thoughtful presentation on the whole subject. He pointed out that he had brought forward a private member's bill as far back as 2003, which indicates he was interested in the subject at that point in time, but he was unable to get the Liberal government of the day to do anything about it. For many years now I have heard him comment on high gas prices and other consumer issues. I know he is a real ball of fire and that he is very active in Parliament, in caucus and so on.

If we could not get this done under the Liberal government, and we certainly have not been able to get it done under the Conservative government, what is holding this process up?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona, for this important point, which comes down to some fundamental political questions.

With the increased use of the Internet in our society by Canadians, this is a really big issue. There has been a lot of noise around moving ahead on this by both the Conservative government and the previous Liberal government, and in fact nothing has been done.

We are seeing the attempted hurrying of a bill that is absolutely complex and that requires proper consultation, examination and debate in committee, where people can focus on it in much more depth. We could go from there in order to ensure we are actually making a difference for Canadian Internet users and businesses.

As I noted, it would clear Canada's name in being ranked fifth in the world for spam pollution originating from our country, a reputation we could all do without. We could truly clear our name.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I was struck by the comments my colleague made that Canada is in fifth place in spam production. I was also struck by the other countries that are engaged in it as well. It suggests that there is probably spam legislation out there that has forced spam producers into different areas.

The electronic media is a global medium with the ability to move spam origination from one place to another. Therefore, I am curious about this legislation in terms of whether the legislation will target the person or agency who benefits from sending the spam rather than perhaps the originator of the spam message. If spam is being sent from Nigeria, it could well be coming from Canadian companies or Canadian concerns and simply bypassing the legislation.

Perhaps the member could talk a little more about those details and assure Canadians that this is actually going to work for us.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of interest from the New Democrats in the House to make sure this issue is dealt with properly. I would like to thank them and those from our party who have worked on looking more closely at this legislation for the interest they have shown. They are truly speaking up for people who live in their communities and their ridings.

As my colleague pointed out, the truly shameful position we hold on the world stage in terms of spam begs some serious action, but it also begs some questions we need to be asking about how we are going to deal with spam activity.

As the member pointed out, spam activity from one country might actually be originating in our own country or from another country. These are the kinds of scenarios we need to be looking at in our discussions in committee. We need to be asking experts in this field. We need to be asking people who are victimized as a result of this kind of work.

We can also look at some of the examples in the United States. Our neighbours to the south are clearly implementing far more progressive legislation in a number of areas.

I hear guffawing every time we talk about the Obama administration. However, we should really take note of some of the things the Americans are doing. Certainly in terms of anti-spam legislation, they are going after individuals. They are able through their enforcement mechanisms to find the individual who is more than likely part of an agency and is in fact responsible for this activity.

Let us not reinvent the wheel here. There are people who are doing some pretty progressive things, and they are following up with the appropriate enforcement.

Why do we not stand up, clear our name and take some proactive action from our side as well?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a further question for the member for Churchill. I have noticed in the legislation that while individual private persons who are harmed by spyware or spam have the opportunity to initiate proceedings before the commission, there is no provision in the legislation to allow the court to award costs or require the accused to pay for the costs of initiating those proceedings.

I am wondering whether the member would think that might be advantageous.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Edmonton—Strathcona for looking at some of the specifics of how the enforcement and the punitive measures would actually come to be realized.

Certainly the question of costs incurred is a very serious one. We see the volume of 200 billion spam emails a day coming out of Canada. We are talking about some pretty extensive action, which would probably result in a great deal of activity, court costs, whatever kind of costs that would need to be incurred as a result of responding to such activity and taking action.

We need to be asking some of those questions and making sure the punishment is squarely centred on the people who are infesting our email inboxes and spamming us.

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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