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

[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.

[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.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, when I sat on the access to information committee, I received a tremendous amount of letters on this issue.

The government promised 2,500 new police officers, but it never delivered on that promise. When it comes to enforcement of this legislation, what type of resources will the government provide to ensure it is implemented properly and aggressively?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Madam Speaker, the bill puts the power for regulating the Internet not in the hands of law enforcement, but in the hands of the CRTC, the Competition Bureau and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, enforcement agencies already in place. They have the mechanisms necessary to deal with this kind of situation. The bill would give them additional mechanisms that fit the parameters of their mandates in the first place.

We have studied the best practices of organizations around the world that have dealt with this kind of issue effectively, such as Australia. The bill would put similar mechanisms in place that would enable us to operate equally effectively in Canada. The bill would allow us to work with partners around the world.

The other part of the equation is the need to deal with spam originating outside our borders. The bill would allow us to work with agencies around the world to ensure we can put an end to that, as well as an end to the issue of spam originating in Canada and going outside our borders.

There are significant enforcement mechanisms in the bill that will actually be very effective to deal with this issue.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very interested in the move to bring in an anti-spam bill. I think it affects every element of the competitive digital world in which we live.

Buried within the bill the government has given itself the powers to strip the provisions of the do-not-call registry, with which we have had many problems, and that concerns me.

My question is two-fold.

First, why do the Conservatives not just come out and say that they are going to strip the do-not-call registry as opposed to burying it within a bill?

Second, it appears it is being replaced on the presumption that the telemarketers would need prior consent to call in now, so that would somehow replace it. Yet when we look at the enforcement mechanisms of the do-not-call registry, they get 20,000 complaints a month, and over the entire time, the CRTC has only ever sent out 70 warning letters.

I do not know how the Conservatives expect to deal with spam and the problems with the do-not-call registry, when clearly the CRTC does not have the resources to address it. Would my hon. colleague please explain why they decided to kill the do-not-call registry, while putting it within the bill on anti-spam?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will start by correcting the hon. member. The bill clearly does not abolish the do-not-call registry. In dealing with the issue at hand, one of the important points to be made is we have had the real opportunity to benefit, in the drafting of the bill, from the study of best practices around the world.

In dealing with the substance of the bill, I will talk a little on a personal experience. A lot of people think spam is nothing more than a nuisance. Previous to my being elected in 2006, I worked for the Edmonton Oilers Hockey Club. At one point I was the director of ticket sales and as such, I had my email address on the website for the Oilers. At some point someone harvested that email address and sold it to spammers and I began to get completely inundated by spam. It was so bad it eventually got to the point where I had to change my email address. Members can imagine what goes in to changing an email address. It meant changing business cards. It meant the people who had my email address could no longer reach me.

This happened to several people within the organization. It meant we had to hire additional IT staff or put our IT resources to combat this through measures to block spam. Significant resources had to be allocated to that problem. It is estimated that the cost of problem is $3 billion to the Canadian economy per year.

If we multiply the effects I experienced and the efforts we had to take for the Oilers with thousands and thousands of companies across the country, including many small businesses that do not have IT professionals, the cost is significant.

I look forward to the member's support.

[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.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The honourable member for Pickering—Scarborough-Est has about six and a half minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks on this bill.

Statements by members. The honourable member for Calgary—West.

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.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

When the bill was last before the House, the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East had the floor. There are six and a half minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks.

I therefore call upon the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope to be able to encapsulate some of the thoughts that I have before the House with respect to this important piece of legislation.

I was concerned not just about the international implications but that Canada must demonstrate a greater willingness to co-operate, to work collectively, and to find solutions that are certainly concurrent with new developments in technology, particularly those who are involved with spam, the illegal sending of electronic information, phishing and that sort of behaviour, including the use of malware. We must be able to ensure that we have at our disposal the availability of the best technologies, and that the best practices in consultation with the provinces, the international community and the federal government are brought to bear.

One of the concerns I also have is the economic damage that spam has created. Given my work on this file, going back to Bill C-460, back in October 2003, I have always been troubled with the penalty, not just the question of resources to ensure that we enforce but of course the penalty. The penalty is a significant, on paper, administrative monetary penalty.

I realize that this is the way we have gone in Canada, but the bigger concern is that the damage done to the industries or consumers is never fully and properly compensated. Sooner or later we are going to have to recognize that administrative, monetary penalties, while they may form a deterrent and while industries or consumers may in fact receive, ultimately, proper payment from those who have purveyed or who have been accused and charged, and ultimately convicted, the fact is that victims will continue in this context to remain victims.

I would hope the moneys that the federal government will be getting when it catches those who are involved with the use of illegal forms of electronic messaging are in fact moneys that could be used for better training, to be reinvested in ensuring that we have proper, best practices that can be advocated, that we can share with small and medium sized enterprises, and that we can help to educate in our schools. So we are not just saying, “Here is $1 million to stop the problem”, but once we seize those assets, once we get that kind of money, it should in fact be reinvested into the very resources, the very force, the very effectiveness of this legislation.

As I pointed out earlier, this bill has good intentions. However, if it cannot be vigorously implemented, it will not give the desired results. Therefore, my expectation is that the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology and the other committees that may examine this issue should be prepared to take into consideration the evidence of witnesses in order to adopt the most important practices. We must reassure people that this bill will not just be a document but that it will also represent the demands of people who work very hard to combat this problem, which continues to be a veritable impediment for consumers and businesses.

With regard to spam, this issue understandably affects everyone, especially in a country such as ours where we use BlackBerries and receive messages from businesses.

I cannot emphasize how wrong it is for all of us to have cellphone companies actually charge people for spam that they neither asked for nor did they in fact encourage. So it seems to me it is attacks on a problem that Parliament has missed for years. I am hoping that we can actually address this issue and that we also reach out to cellphone companies, and stop this practice of billing Canadians for something that is no fault of their own. It is the result of negligence perhaps by Parliament over the years not to get a proper model together.

As it turns out, the legislation in terms of other jurisdictions may be behind the eight ball. We may have been a little slow in getting off, but nothing stops us from working with the various software companies and large computer companies to make sure that we avail ourselves of the best, the most modern, the most up-to-date best practices, and best abilities to detect those fraudsters who, in my view and I think the view of all parliamentarians, are engaging in a practice that undermines the integrity of one of the premium and most important forms of communication that we have in the modern age.

Since the time that I presented my bill and the time in which my party has been interested in this, we have gone through several ministers of industry. I am hoping and I challenge the current industry minister to put his rhetoric aside and to continue to focus on the importance of having this legislation passed. The importance of the legislation passed also means taking in necessary amendments as they become available. I have mentioned some that could be considered.

I look forward to questions and I also look forward to a speedy third reading debate to get this into the Senate, so that we can give Canadians a modicum of assurance that Canada is acting in a way that is not only consistent with the best practices around the world but we are acting in a way that ensures that above all we are protecting consumers in this country.

As a Liberal, I am proud of the fact that my party has taken this issue very seriously. We began the blue ribbon panel. I am seeing that several years later the Conservatives have finally realized how important a consumer issue this is. Be it as it may that it is late, I think we can stand together and ensure that this legislation, with some modification, should pass as soon as possible, assuming of course proper and appropriate parliamentary due diligence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for an excellent presentation. I do recall hearing a lot from him over the last few years on consumer issues, particularly the high price of gasoline, when he has actually been ahead of his party on consumer issues. I really appreciate him doing that. He indicated he introduced the first bill in 2003 and certainly had his battles with his own government at the time because he could not get it to move. But I applaud him for sticking with his principles and sticking to the issues by taking positions that were not always consistent with his government at the time.

He indicated the way the bill is structured and set up by the government. He also talked about the poor resources that Industry Canada may have and the problems it has with coordination. Does he have any suggestions for amendments that would make this a much tougher, easier and forceful bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, as new as the hon. member may be to this Parliament, he is certainly a quick study on a number of consumer issues and I have noticed that from a number of other members. This grey hair is now starting to show the amount of time I have spent on some of these issues.

It is critical that if we are going to properly resource enforcement in this country, particularly as it relates to the CRTC and to the Competition Bureau, that the money the government acquires under administrative monetary penalties be added to the resources which the government contemplates thereby ensuring that we stamp out spam to the extent that we can.

In fact, I am asking the government to not use these monies prior to making a commitment to vigorously strengthen the bill. I am proposing that it provide more money.

This is the least we can do because if we are not going to actually compensate the victims who have been badly hurt by the wanton attempts by spammers, as is done in many other jurisdictions including the United States, my view is that the money at the very least should be given back to better resources, to acquire the best modalities, so that we can continue to be one step ahead of this.

I know that in my neighbourhood, in Pickering, there are hundreds of people I have spoken to in the past two or three years whose computers have been completely destroyed by this, costing them several hundreds of dollars. They do not ask for money. They just ask that the federal government stand up, stamp out this problem, and stop using Canada as a sieve to export the problem externally, which is something that Parliament has to consider. It is not just saying we are going to stop it here in Canada. We have to recognize once and for all that spammers in Canada are doing this nation a disservice and creating a black eye for our country as they export this problem to other countries as well.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very detailed remarks on the matter before the House today.

Before I ask my question, I would like to say a little bit about myself. I am one of the youngest members here. I belong to a generation of people who use the Internet constantly, not just in our professional lives, but in our daily lives to stay in touch with friends through email or Facebook. Those of us who use a lot of online resources get a lot of spam and so forth that slow down our communications.

I believe that Canada is a leader in many respects, but this is one big exception. Canada is way behind the rest of the world. Worse still, Canada is part of the problem for the rest of the world because it does not have legislation that covers this and because many of those who send troublesome emails to us and to others are based in Canada.

I would like my colleague to comment on that and on the fact that Canada has not really shown leadership on this issue.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question.

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the member for a very good presentation. I do have some concerns. They are not necessarily regarding the legislation, because we in our party do support the legislation. We think that it should have been brought in long ago because we are behind the curve in this area.

What we have here is a pro-business government. It is not really known for being a leader in consumer-type legislation. The issue becomes whether one trusts the government. We could have the fanciest, most comprehensive legislation in the world, but if the enforcement is not there, we really have not accomplished much.

I would like to know whether the member and his party have any ideas on how we can not only make the best legislation possible here in the House but also limit the possible loopholes the government might have for not giving it the full enforcement that it deserves.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

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

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

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

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-27, the electronic commerce protection act, on behalf of New Democrats. We will be supporting the bill, in principle, but we feel that it is important for it to go to committee for extensive review to ensure we get it right. I will be speaking a little later about some previous legislation where we did not get it right, and, in fact, the correction is buried in this bill.

I thank the member for Windsor West for the good work he has done on this file and look forward to more comments from him when it gets to committee.

I want to talk about some key elements of the bill, why it is needed, the cost of spam to business and citizens and some other details that are in the bill that are not directly related to electronic commerce protection.

When the government came forward with this bill it said that it was about protecting the privacy and personal security concerns associated with spam, counterfeit websites and spyware. It said that spam and related online threats were a real concern to all Internet users as they can lead to the theft of personal data, such as credit card information, which is identity theft; online fraud involving counterfeit websites, phishing; the collection of personal information through illicit access to computer systems, spyware; and false or misleading representations in the online marketplace.

The proposed legislation would also treat unsolicited text messages or cellphone spam as--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I apologize but there is a conversation happening very close to me. I would ask the members to leave the House to continue that conversation if they wish.

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of key points from the background information that was provided on the bill. It reads:

The bill also addresses the legislative recommendations of the Task Force on Spam, which brought together industry, consumers and academic experts to design a comprehensive package of measures to combat threats to the online economy.

The intention of the proposed legislation is to deter the most dangerous and damaging forms of spam from occurring in Canada and to help drive spammers out of Canada.

This bill proposes a private right of action, modelled on U.S. legislation, which would allow businesses and consumers to take civil action against anyone who violates the ECPA. The proposed ECPA's technology-neutral approach allows all forms of commercial electronic messages to be treated the same way. This means that the proposed bill would also address unsolicited text messages, or “cellphone spam”, as a form of “unsolicited commercial electronic message”.

The bill would establish a clear regulatory enforcement regime consistent with international best practices and a multi-faceted approach to enforcement that protects consumers and empowers the private sector to take action against spammers.

An important proponent of the proposed ECPA is the enforcement regime whereby the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), the Competition Bureau and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner would be given the authority to share the information and evidence with their counterparts who enforce similar laws internationally....

It goes on to talk about the administrative monetary penalties of up to $1 million for individuals and $10 million in all other cases. It talks about the CRTC role and the role of the Privacy Commissioner.

I know that many of the people listening to this debate know what spam is but I want to give a definition because, like anything else, spam means one thing to one person and something else to another. Spam is identified as the abuse of electronic messaging systems, including most broadcast mediums' digital delivery systems, to send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately. While the most widely recognized form of spam is email spam, the term applies to similar abuses in other media instant messaging: news net news groups spam, web search engine spam, spam and blogs, wikispam, online classified ads spam, mobile phone messaging spam, Internet forum spam, junk fax transmissions and the file sharing network.

Spamming remains economically viable because advertisers have no operating costs beyond the management of their mailing lists, and it is difficult to hold centres accountable for their mass mailing. Because the barrier to entry is so low, spammers are numerous and the volume of unsolicited mail has become very high.

The costs, such as lost productivity and fraud, are borne by the public and by Internet service providers, which have been forced to add extra capacity to cope with the deluge. Spamming is widely reviled and has been the subject of legislation in many jurisdictions.

I want to talk briefly about the costs. There are certainly costs to business when we talk about the filters and all the mechanisms that they need to put in place in order to prevent spam from getting into their systems, whether it is their cell phone systems or their Internet or email systems.

There is also the cost to workers. Many times when we are talking about businesses in the House, we are often talking about productivity and efficiency. In some of the previous work I have done, when we talked to businesses about how to improve productivity and efficiency, we often looked at time management techniques. One of the statistics that came from looking at time management techniques was that every time people were interrupted at a task, it would take them seven minutes to get back to the level where they left off.

Every time workers have their systems infiltrated by spam, we see a direct impact on the productivity of that company. Even if workers set time aside to look at their email, when they are dealing with junk email, it prevents them from dealing with the other activities before them. We know it takes a significant amount of time to get back to the place they left off. Therefore, there is a direct impact on worker productivity.

Many of us in the House have experienced spam on what should be a fairly highly protected system. It is an annoyance, a cost factor and extremely disruptive.

Some citizens are more vulnerable to spam. Fraud is involved, both in terms of stealing identity and in terms of having vulnerable people being hooked into purchasing goods and services that they do not need and which are often not of the quality and substance one would expect.

Therefore, there is a very real cost to businesses, to consumers and to the average citizen.

The important thing to point out about this legislation is that Canada is the only G7 country without anti-spam legislation. We often like to tout ourselves as being a proactive and progressive country and here we are lagging seriously behind. In fact, Canada ranked fifth worldwide as a source of web-based email spam, trailing only Iran, Nigeria, Kenya and Israel. It is a pretty sad track record to say that we are one of the countries that is a haven for spammers. Our track record is so bad that we are considered almost lawless when it comes to preventing spam.

Part of what we know about this is that companies anxious to target Canadian-based spammers have been forced to turn to other countries to do the job because we do not have legislation. They actually need to go to international law enforcement agencies that look at criminal spam activities. However, they have difficult enforcing any legislation because the Canadian authorities lack the requisite investigatory powers.

Michael Geist said:

The fact that organizations are forced to use U.S. courts and laws to deal with Canadian spammers points to an inconvenient truth -- Canadian anti-spam laws are woefully inadequate and we are rapidly emerging as a haven for spammers eager to exploit the weak legal framework.

We can see that there is sufficient information out there to say that Canada needs to take action and it is long past due.

In an article from December 16, 2008, CBC News, it says:

Canadian computers — many of them unwittingly — send out over nine billion spam e-mails a day, almost five per cent of all global spam traffic, according to a report from network and internet security firm Cisco. In an annual security report...Cisco estimated almost 200 billion messages per day, or 90 per cent of all e-mails sent worldwide — can be defined as spam, double the volume of the previous year.

I talked earlier about the cost to business, the cost to workers and the cost to citizens. When we look at that volume, it is shocking. Again, Canada has known about this problem for many years and it is only now that we are getting legislation.

I want to talk briefly about some of the key components of the legislation. There are three primary prohibitions. This bill would require all senders to obtain express consent before sending commercial electronic messages, including email, instant messages and so on, and to include contact and unsubscribed information. It would also require provisions designed to counter phishing, spyware and botnets used to send spam.

Various sections deal with this but I want to deal with three requirements: the form, consent and jurisdiction. The law requires that the identification of the person sending the message, as well as on whose behalf it is sent is included, contact information of the sender, because I think many of us have ended up with messages that we have no idea who is behind the sending, and an unsubscribe mechanism. The unsubscribe mechanism must allow for an easy opt-out by email or hyperlink that remains valid for at least 60 days after the message is sent. The sender has 10 days to comply with the unsubscribe request, and currently we know that spammers use the unsubscribe button to actually send more spam. If this is truly enforced, this unsubscribe mechanism, it will actually cut off some of the junk email that we are currently getting.

I want to touch briefly on the enforcement provisions. What we know is that the enforcement provisions do not have any real teeth. We can put all the fines we want in the act, but if we do not have the resources and the tools to commit to enforcement, they are meaningless.

I want to briefly talk about the do-not-call list because some changes to that legislation are embedded in Bill C-27.

In an article by Geist, he says:

Government Quietly Lays Groundwork For Overhaul of Do-Not-Call List....

We know in this House that there have been some serious problems with the do-not-call list. When I talked earlier about the need to have this bill go to committee, what we want to do is ensure the bill accurately deals with the problem that is before this House. We saw this with the do-not-call legislation and with the voter identification where a bill was put before the House but the government did not get it right and it had to make amendments to the bills, which was time-consuming and costly.

Therefore, it is very important that the bill comes before the committee and has a full and extensive review to make sure that the bill is actually going to deal with the spam problem.

In Geist's article, he said:

Four years after the National Task on Spam unanimously recommended that the Canadian government introduce anti-spam legislation...the Government took action by tabling Bill C-27....

While the introduction of anti-spam legislation is long overdue, one of the most significant changes was not reported or even included in the government's briefing materials. Buried at the very end of the 69-page bill, are provisions that would lay the groundwork to kill the National Do-Not-Call list.

It is interesting that it was buried at the end of the bill and not included in any briefing documents, because what it actually says is, “Oops, we blew that initial piece of legislation”.

He continued:

The proposed approach is very complicated, but boils down to the government repealing the provisions that establish and govern the do-not-call list. In its place, the ECPA approach of requiring an opt-in would apply, meaning that Canadians would no longer need to register their phone numbers on a do-not-call list. Instead, the presumption would be that telemarkets could not call without prior consent. The ECPA would also bring with it stronger penalties (up to $10 million) and fewer exceptions.

Although the do-not-call list is less than a year old, change cannot come soon enough. It faced severe criticism earlier this year when it was reported that out-of-country telemarketers, who are out of the regulatory reach of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, were accessing the list and making unwanted calls to Canadians. With more than six million numbers now registered on the list, the prospect of do-not-call registration leading to more calls rather than less instantly became a disturbing reality for millions of Canadians.

What that is talking about is people who registered their numbers, and then telemarketers outside of the country accessed the do-not-call list to call people. That seems like a pretty good gap in the legislation.

I hear some of my colleagues calling it a boondoggle. I would certainly say that it is a serious problem when the very legislation that is supposed to protect consumers actually results in more calls to them.

This is buried in this piece of legislation, changing the goof-up.

Geist said:

While the misuse of the do-not-call list remains a concern, a review of thousands of pages of internal government documents released under the Access to Information Act reveal that it is only the tip of the iceberg. In addition to lax list distribution policies, the enforcement side of the do-not-call list raises serious alarm bells with the majority of complaints being dismissed as invalid without CRTC investigation, the appearance of a conflict of interest in sorting through complaints, and a regulator that has been content to issue to “warnings” rather than levying the tough penalties contained in the law.

He went on to say:

The proliferation of the do-not-call list is certainly disconcerting, but [the] picture that emerges about its enforcement is even more troubling. The documents reveal that the CRTC receives over 20,000 telemarketing complaints each month, many involving the do-not-call list (some complaints may relate to other telecommunications rules that cover automated dialers or curfews).

The article goes on to talk about the fact that the initial evaluation of complaints is handled by Bell, which manages the do-not-call list rather than the CRTC. Here we have industry policing the do-not-call list and deciding whether complaints are legitimate or not. It goes on to talk about the fact that, for example, in January, Bell reported there were only 42 valid prima facie national do-not-call violations, while 3,033 national do-not-call complaints were ruled invalid. That is, in 42 out of 3,033 complaints, it was ruled by industry, Bell, that the complaints were not valid.

That does sound a little bit like the fox in the henhouse to me. So when we are talking about enforcement, as the member for Windsor West has rightly pointed out, there are some concerns about whether the enforcement mechanisms in the bill will actually be applied.

Geist goes on to say:

Complaints that survive Bell’s initial round of scrutiny go to the CRTC for further investigation. To date, the CRTC has sent out approximately 70 warning letters where it believes there are reasonable grounds to conclude that the organization is not in compliance with the do-not-call list legislation. Recipients of the letters are asked to take “corrective action” to address the concerns and warned that failure to do so could lead to penalties of up to $15,000 per violation for corporations. Notwithstanding that threat, the CRTC has yet to levy any fines.

When we have legislation that proposes a maximum penalty for individuals of $1 million, and $10 million for any other person, it sounds like pretty hefty fines. However, we need to put forward a mechanism that, first of all, allows appropriate investigation without interference by industry.

With regard to Bell, I do not know about anybody else, but I certainly receive messages from Bell. If I were to complain in regard to the do-not-call list and Bell is the investigator, I wonder what kind of independent scrutiny would be paid to that investigation.

The enforcement piece of this is critical. Canada's reputation internationally with regard to spam is in shreds. In order for us to tell the international community that we are going to walk the talk on this, we need to ensure that resources are put in place to make sure that the enforcement mechanism actually happens.

In conclusion, the New Democrats are in support of sending this bill to committee. I want to reiterate our position that it is very important that we have experts and technical witnesses who can deal with the content of this bill to ensure that Canada will actually be able to say, “Yes, we have anti-spam legislation that is going to stand up to international scrutiny, has appropriate enforcement mechanisms, and will actually protect businesses, consumers and Canadian citizens against both fraud and impact on the cost to productivity in this country.

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

Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that the member spoke more about other legislation than this legislation, it sounds as though the NDP will be supporting this. I have a few comments after listening to what she had to say.

First, I will talk about one difference in the piece of legislation she was talking about versus this one. One of the things this bill has in it is a need to opt in. From a business standpoint, if a business wants to send a consumer emails advertising something, the consumer has to opt in to that. The company has to make sure that in the normal course of business it acquires a person as a customer or it advertises to the person who then indicates in some way that he or she actually wants to receive things from that company. That is different from what she was talking about being one of the problems of the do-not-call registry.

She also talked a bit about time. While it is clear that there is a need for this type of legislation, one of the advantages in having taken the time is that we have the opportunity to learn from best practices around the world that have been used in places like Australia, the U.S. and the U.K., and to implement those best practices into this legislation.

As well, we have the opportunity to set up a mechanism that allows us to work with jurisdictions around the world to ensure that we have enforcement that reaches beyond our borders, because of course, this is a cross-border issue. It is a global issue. This bill would allow the agencies charged with enforcement to work with similar agencies in other countries to ensure that we are able to tackle the issue of spammers sending spam to Canada from other countries, and also deal with our own issues of Canadian companies, organizations or individuals sending spam to other countries. We can now be made aware and then act according to the new rules that are in place.

I will wrap up with a question. Given that the NDP intends to support this bill and that there was some concern expressed about the time it has taken, and particularly given the fact that we are in another minority government context and do not know at which point Parliament might dissolve and we might be forced into another election and all legislation would die again, how dedicated would the NDP be to ensuring that this legislation gets through committee quickly, gets properly studied but becomes a priority for the committee, and then is brought back and passed through the House as quickly as possible?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to correct a piece of information the member has put out there.

When I was talking about the do-not-call list, I was specifically talking about Bill C-27. I could refer the member to page 56 of the bill, and the clause relating to sections 41.1 to 41.7, which specifically relate to the do-not-call registry. Therefore, I was talking about the current piece of legislation.

When the member talks about what the NDP will do around the passage of this bill, it is incumbent upon members of this House to ensure that when they pass legislation, it actually is going to do the job that it purports to do. Again I just need to reference the do-not-call registry to demonstrate how we now have another bill having to deal with a past mistake. That is a waste of this House's time. We are now having to talk about the do-not-call registry once again because we did not get it right the first time. New Democrats will ensure that they study this bill very carefully to make sure that it is going to do the job it is supposed to do.

I also want to go back to the member's statement about businesses getting their customers' consent, and I specifically did say that. What I said was that the bill requires all senders to obtain express consent before sending commercial electronic messages. That is an important aspect of this bill and we would support getting permission to receive mail from a business.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member, in light of the request of the parliamentary secretary to consider passing this bill as quickly as possible, if she and others have considered the true, massive complexity lying behind our attempt to regulate this field. I will just ask her one question as an example.

The bill deals with freedom of communication. It deals with what is actually a charter right, a very conspicuous charter right. I wonder if anyone has noticed that the bill prohibits the sending of a commercial electronic message to an address, not a person but an address. It then says it can only be done if there is consent. It is an offence if it is done without the consent of the person to whom the electronic message is sent, but the offence has been framed as one where a message is sent to an electronic address, not a person.

There does not appear to be any place in the bill where the electronic address is actually matched up with a person. I think we are going to have to get out the chalkboard at the committee and go through this very carefully to try to get it right.

If it is the view of the government that it just wants to throw some Jell-O at the wall and see if it sticks, so that at least we are seen to be doing our job here in advance of an election, there is some rational for that in politics, but I think we had better try to get this right and I have concerns on the technical side as to whether this is going to pass muster.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member makes a very valid comment. This is a very complex bill. It is 69 pages in length, I believe, and it is very important that parliamentarians do their due diligence.

Again, I talked about the do-not-call registry. What is important is that they fully study the aspects of this bill and look at the impact on business, on workers and on Canadian citizens, to make sure that there is no inadvertent impact.

The member across was quite correct when I talked about the voter identification bill. There was a bill that essentially prevented about a million rural voters from voting. That is an unintended consequence, unless of course there was a Machiavellian plan to cut off rural voters, which I am sure there was not.

We do not want to have a bill that has an impact that we did not foresee, so it is very important that the committee does its due diligence. It is a responsibility as a parliamentarian, when we are examining legislation, to do a 360° review. We need to make sure that this legislation is actually going to do what it is supposed to do and that it has the resources.

I talked about enforcement. It is meaningless if we put measures in a bill and do not devote the resources to making sure it can happen. We see that enforcement problem in other pieces of legislation. The do-not-call registry was a good example of it.

I would argue that it is incumbent upon parliamentarians to take the time to look at the bill, to make sure we understand what its impact would be, and to define some of those vague terminologies that were not quite clear on how we are going to enforce them or patrol them.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the question by the member of the Liberal Party.

In around 2000 I had the good fortune in Manitoba to be the coordinator to bring in the electronic commerce act, which was the most comprehensive of its kind in Canada at the time. We put in a consumer provision for residents to be reimbursed by credit card companies if they purchased a product or service online and they did not receive it. At the time, there were only two or three states in the United States that had such a provision.

I am not sure whether it would be under this bill, but I wonder whether consumer legislation like that could be added to this bill.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member is very aware of the need for consumer protection in any number of areas, including for airline passengers. He has done some very good work in that area.

Anything we can do to protect consumers is important. I would expect that when this bill goes to committee, one of the things that people will be looking at is consumer protection. Often consumers unwittingly end up on lists, whether they are credit card lists or other kinds of mailing lists, and their names get distributed all over the place. I would urge the committee to look at consumer protection as an aspect of this bill.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Before resuming debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Don Valley East, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville, The Economy.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in support of Bill C-27, the electronic commerce protection act. The key reason is that for eight years I operated my own business out of my home like thousands of other Canadians. I can say from first-hand experience that spam is bad news.

High speed Internet communication by email has become the predominant communication tool worldwide. It is the greatest enabler in the information age for small business and the self-employed. It allows thousands of small-business operators and the self-employed in every province to start their businesses and operate them at a profit. That includes writers, people in public relations, journalists, photographers, engineers, lawyers, event managers, fundraisers and many other occupations.

Email and high speed Internet allow thousands of disabled persons to operate businesses and to work from home. It creates almost a level playing field in that situation for disabled persons. It is an incredibly valuable tool for the disabled to communicate with business people and their family and friends.

Parents benefit hugely from home offices and email. The Internet has been a boon to parents who choose to stay at home with infants and children, which my wife and I have done in the past. They want to work in the evenings or do their email during their children's nap time or playtime if they have infants, as does my friend in Oakville, who operates a home business and is a mother as well. She has a little one-and-a-half-year-old. She can do them simultaneously. She is connected by her notebook computer to her clients, associates and, in fact, the world.

Aside from the travel costs, the most important common denominator and resource for self-employed people in small business is their time. I would suggest that time for the self-employed and small business people is actually priceless. It is almost a currency. When someone or some organization, without any invitation or permission and with no previous business relationship, at a very little incremental cost that is too small to measure, sucks up that time by using trickery and stealth marketing to steal that time with spam, it should be stopped.

Unsolicited, unlimited junk mail trying to sell people watches and many other products of very dubious value should also be stopped. Forwarding fraudulent messages designed to dupe innocent people and cheat them out of their savings should be stopped. For example, I would expect most of the people in the House today have received an email from a prince in Nigeria who only needs a little bit of money to get out of prison and is willing to share his resources for the rest of his life. The sad part is that if enough of those emails are sent out and enough mud is thrown against the wall, somebody will respond and somebody will be duped.

The key problem is that in normal marketing and in normal business, the legitimate kind, those wishing to sell goods and services are restrained to reasonable efforts by cost. It costs money to send letters, to make phone calls, to place ads and to get the attention of consumers and other businesses. In fact, the average cost for a letter is 70 cents to a dollar. However, on the Internet, the cost per contact for spam is actually too small to measure. It is not even pennies. Technology, which is our greatest tool, is also subject to abuse.

The Internet is a precious resource. Effectively it belongs to all of us. As subscribers to telephone and Internet services, we pay a fair amount and we are allowed fair usage. Millions of Canadians rely on the telecommunications network to conduct business. They move goods across continents and the oceans. They keep industry moving to help provide thousands of jobs in thousands of businesses. We share this resource, the Internet, to our mutual benefit.

However, there are limits to this shared network. The network cannot carry an unlimited number of messages. People who have ever tried to call their mother on Mother's Day might have had a busy signal, because that happens to be the busiest day of the year on the telephone network. If they try again and again, they will finally get through. Christmas morning and New Year's Eve are similar. There is a limit to the network.

When a relatively few companies, often not owned or operated by Canadians, send out millions of unwanted and unwelcome messages, they utilize more than their fair share of the network. They use a proportion of resources they have not paid for in fairness and they slow down or stop the email messages everyone else is trying to send or receive. They rob us again of more of our time. These spam senders suffer no significant costs when they send out thousands of emails and demonstrate a wanton disregard for the time of others.

Unfortunately, they are some of the most clever and seedy people on the planet. They devise ways to interrupt our shared network and waste the time of thousands of business people. It is very difficult to put a value on that time, but it is certainly in the millions of dollars. They pitch some products that few people would ever buy. It gets worse.

Recently, my own PC network adviser, Paul Lebl, explained to me that these spammers have developed viruses or worms. The emails have very deceptive subject lines and if the wrong email is opened, the virus or worm will search the hard drive and find every email address on the hard drive and send the spam to every one of those email addresses as well. It is a very insidious practice. I view it as vandalism and it has to be deterred or stopped.

No one is saying that this legislation is going to end all spam in Canada or worldwide, but it will help us work with other countries to reduce spam worldwide. It is about improving Canada's competitiveness in the electronic marketplace as well as protecting Canadian consumers from the most dangerous types of spam. Boosting the competitiveness of our economy and protecting Canadians are two primary priorities of our Conservative government.

Since taking office a little over three years ago, our government has taken action to improve the competitiveness of Canadian companies and of our economy as a whole. Budget 2009 continued to create a competitive advantage which will drive our economy forward for years to come.

We are taking steps to enhance our traditional industries with new knowledge and to create opportunities for the development of new industries.

While our economy obviously faces significant challenges as a result of the dramatically reduced demand in the United States, the proactive initiatives of this government have lessened the blow. The good news is we are positioned to come out of this crisis faster than other countries.

Some members of the House have expressed interest in introducing new taxes and raising existing ones. Our government believes that this would be the wrong approach.

New measures taken by our government have been aimed at improving competition and not just filling government coffers or satisfying special interests.

As mentioned, this bill is about continuing to improve Canada's competitiveness. We are already leading the way in e-commerce, but our online economy is under threat from unsolicited commercial email which undermines consumer confidence and hurts productivity.

The global cost of this unsolicited email, or spam, is estimated at $100 billion a year. Spam costs Canada an estimated $3 billion annually. As has been mentioned, spam represents about 87% of the email traffic around the world at 62 trillion spam emails during that time period.

Spam is a nuisance. It undermines competitiveness and it puts Canadians at risk. Our proposed electronic commerce protection act would deter the most dangerous forms of spam, like identity theft, phishing and spyware. It would help drive spammers out of Canada and allow us to work with our international partners to pursue spammers outside the country.

As usual, our Conservative government is taking action to protect consumers and businesses. We are not just talking. We are acting. This initiative will mean a lot to individuals and to businesses. Individuals will be more confident when they choose to shop online. Businesses will be able to more effectively protect their brand and their online reputation while improving their productivity.

As well as being consistently committed to competitiveness, our Conservative government has always believed in acting when people break the rules. This bill is accompanied by significant and tangible penalties. Offences carry fines of up to $1 million for individuals and $10 million for businesses. Spammers beware.

There are a number of other aspects of this issue which I want to quickly highlight before I conclude.

First, the bill covers text messaging or cellphone spam. The provisions in the bill are not limited to certain types of technology. They target all spam and will continue to be relevant as technology evolves.

Second, this will not affect legitimate or responsible businesses that contact customers or potential customers who have signalled their desire to be contacted.

Third, this approach has been implemented in many other countries with substantial success. Australia, the U.K. and the U.S. have passed strong domestic laws combatting spam, similar to this one. In Australia, for example, the spam act significantly reduced the country's proportion of global spam. Some Australian spammers shut down altogether.

Unfortunately, the bill would not eliminate spam altogether, but it would serve to deter the most dangerous, destructive and deceptive forms of spam, especially those that facilitate other criminal activities, like identity theft.

Finally, the bill would deliver on a commitment made in our 2008 election platform, I am proud to say. That platform stated:

A re-elected Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will introduce legislation to prohibit the use of spam (unsolicited commercial email) to collect personal information under false pretences and to engage in criminal conduct. The new law will reduce dangerous, destructive and deceptive email and web site practices, and will establish new fines for those who break the law.

We made a commitment, and we are getting the job done. We are improving competitiveness and we are protecting Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would remind the hon. member that it is forbidden to use the names of sitting members in the House. One must refer to them by their title.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, while I have read the bill very carefully, and I listened to my hon. colleague's position on it, the one thing that has been left out is a lot of very legitimate businesses make a lot of money on spam, such as the phone giants.

Every time a spam message goes to some teenager's cellphone, the teenager has to pay. The spammer does not get paid, the phone giants get paid. Kids, with their little cellphone accounts, have no ability to stop these spammers. The messages come in and they have to pay, month after month.

I would think it would be incumbent upon us, if we are truly to protect people from spam, to put into the legislation that the phone giants cannot make backhanded money off people who are dependent on their phones and get hit by these spammers.

Does the member not think it would be prudent for us to say that there should not be charges levied against people who are innocently victims of spam?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I presume when the member talks about the phone giants, he means the large telecommunications companies. I think what he is talking about is young people who already are paying, competitively compared to worldwide, too much for their cellphone bills are now paying too much for unsolicited messages.

That is part of the benefit of the bill. As spam reduces, young people will get fewer unsolicited emails and those bills will go down.

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

Madam Speaker, Internet security has been an emerging business, growing very rapidly over the last number of years now because of issues such as this.

Ten years ago the Manitoba government had security people earning $100,000 a year. We could not keep them because the banks were hiring them at more than double the price. This has been the effect of not having legislation in place all these years, allowing these spammers to be running free in our market.

The question really comes back to how committed the Conservative government is to this, beyond getting a nice press release out and some good coverage, like they did on the do-not-call legislation last year, but then doing very little enforcement?

It is incumbent upon us to tighten the noose around the government as much as we can to make certain that it has no option to get out of enforcing a very strong act.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to point out what I mentioned in my remarks earlier, and that is the bill is accompanied by significant penalties.

Offences carry fines of up to $1 million for individuals and $10 million for businesses. These are not cost of doing business fines. These are very significant fines. Working in conjunction with authorities in the other parts of the world, where the Internet is getting clogged with spam and people's time is being wasted, we think they will be quite effective.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was talking earlier about the do-not-call list. Page 56 of Bill C-27 talks about repealing sections 41(1) to 41(7) of the act, and that has to do with the do-not-call registry. Could the member comment on the fact that we saw some pretty serious problems with enforcement with the do-not-call registry and the do-not-call list?

I mentioned the fact that the first level of complaint was Bell. If Bell determined there was a valid complaint, it would then be referred to the CRTC. The CRTC issued 70 warning letters and levied no fines in relation to the do-not-call registry, even though the ability to levy a fine was within the act.

The fines in this legislation are much more serious. However, could the member specifically comment on the requirement for enforcement and what he sees as being important aspects of that enforcement?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, enforcement is a matter of the words of the bill and the regulations in the bill and how the various parties want to enforce it.

It should be noted that the electronic commerce protection act will not abolish the do-not-call list. I think the member might be aware of that. There are published reports to that effect, and it is not true.

For greater certainty, there is a section of the bill that remains dormant until it is made law by an order-in-council and by regulation.

Section 6.7 of the electronic commerce protection act carves out telemarketing and interactive voice communications to be treated differently, but it does not repeal the do-not-call list.

On the matter of enforcement, I understand the bill is going to committee. There will be discussion at committee and we look forward to hearing the comments of the other parties on how that might be achieved.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I hope we will get the bill to committee. I have heard from the member and the parliamentary secretary that there is no power to cancel the do-not-call registry. Yet sections 41.1 to 41.7 of the act is the do-not-call registry.

Either the Conservatives are slipping it in the bill or they are not sure it is in the bill. Maybe they want to work with us at committee and go through the bill. I would be very wary about us going too far out front on giving our imprimatur to a bill that clearly is doing something the members are telling us it is not.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to reassure the member opposite that there is no intention to repeal the do-not-call list.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, why, then, is it in the bill? Should we strike it now before we send it to committee?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will go over it again for the member. The electronic commerce protection act does not abolish the do-not-call list. Clause 6.7 carves out telemarketing by exempting interactive voice communications, facsimiles and voice recordings to telephone accounts from the application of the act.

The provision at the end of the bill, which is clause 86, allows for the repeal of the do-not-call list at the time of the government's choosing in the future. It does not repeal the list. It leaves the door open for greater certainty. Clause 86 will remain dormant until the government chooses to enact it by order-in-council.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very glad we finally dragged it out of the hon. member. It is in the bill, but it is not in the bill unless the government decides to enact it, so we would be giving the government the power to do that. The Conservatives have told the House again and again that it is not there, but now we finally see it is there, but they will only enact it when they choose to enact it.

Again, why is it in the bill? Why does the government not at least have the guts to come out and say that it completely blew it on the registry. It had no enforcement plan. This has been a complete debacle.

Now the Conservatives are slipping it in the bill and whenever they feel comfortable, they will remove it. Why not just tell the House of Commons that they blew it and they have to fix it? They put it in an anti-spam bill and they do not want to say that.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is worth going back to the purpose of the act. The intention of the proposed electronic commerce protection act is to reduce the most damaging and deceptive forms of spam and other computer-related threats that discourage the use of electronic commerce and undermine personal privacy. It will address spam that is malicious in content, those emails that attempt to lure Canadians into fraudulent transactions or counterfeit websites.

A recent scheme, of which the member may be aware, was the UPS re-shipping fraud scam. A fraudulent company, posing as UPS, sent out a spam in an attempt to lure individuals into receiving shipments and sending that shipment, which would usually be overseas, to a second party in turn for payment. Of course the payment never came.

The bill would provide tools for businesses and network providers to better protect the networks on which we purchase products and do our banking. It would provide better protection for our personal information online and prohibit the bulk sharing and compilation of electronic addresses.

I hope that helps the member.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very glad to rise to speak to this somewhat bizarre bill.

It is very clear that the government is setting up a bill to kill the do-not-call registry. It is talking about fraud. It is talking about fax machines. We push the government on question after question, and it tells us that just because it is in there does not mean it is actually in there. Then it asks us to speed the bill through. I would be very concerned about rushing through a bill brought forward by the Conservative government without doing due diligence.

Legislation is like trying to push a glacier. It is very cumbersome. People want to develop legislation for this, that or the other, and they tell us we have to have a law. Then we put in a law and we see the concerns. Any time the Conservatives try to bring in a law, they start howling up and down that the opposition are not willing to push it through right away. It tells us we are soft on crime because we do want to actually study a bill on mandatory minimums for furniture theft or whatever else they bring forward.

There are all kinds of booby traps in legislation. Legislation always has unintended consequences. If we do not do the due diligence, we end up using a hammer to whack a bunch of little pieces all over the place without necessarily getting what we wanted.

When we look at a bill, it has to be focused, and it to be focused right. So what are we focused on right now? The bill is focused on the issue of spam.

Is spam a problem? Spam is a big problem. Spam is a problem on two or three different levels. It is an irritant, number one. I get it all the time on my BlackBerry. There is a woman in some cafe who is waiting to meet me and she thinks I look great. This woman who emails me never has my first name. I go on my BlackBerry and someone is selling me products to make certain parts of my body bigger than they need to be. Then I go on my BlackBerry and someone is selling me a beautiful condo on a malaria-infested swamp. Those are irritants, and so I erase them. Sure it costs me a bit of time, but it is not that big a deal.

The bigger problem with spam is the use of it to defraud people across the world. Of course we know about the Nigerian 419 scam. When I ran my magazine, in the days when the fax machine was cutting-edge technology, we got these faxes from Nigeria or Bosnia, or wherever there was a crisis, from someone trying to get out of the country who needed some money. If we gave them money, we would get money back. Everybody knows the 419 scam. But it was cumbersome. It was slow. It had to be done on fax machines. It actually cost them money to do it, so they had to limit the number of scams they could get away with. Surprisingly, a lot of people got snagged in these kinds of frauds.

However, when we moved to digital technology, the ability of these fraud artists anywhere in the world to inundate millions and millions of Internet subscribers with fraudulent claims jumped astronomically, and the costs for doing it became almost nothing.

The vast majority of us look at those fraud emails, and we might be a little upset or we might laugh at them, and we erase them. However, they only need one in a thousand people or one in ten thousand people to succeed. People have lost their savings. There have been senior citizens who have been defrauded, or young people who have lost money. It is so hard to track these fraud artists down. An international effort is needed to deal with them. We have to be able to root these players out, and we have to be get them off our servers.

The other major problem with spam is the use of spyware technology and the use of Trojans, the malignant attempt to destroy people's personal or office computers. That is a level of destruction in our corporate economy that no jurisdiction should be willing to put up with. For all too long in Canada we have sat back and said it is the cost of doing business. However, it should not be the cost of doing business. We need a very clear set of laws to go after spammers, especially given the ability of spam artists to burrow into our computers, take our lists and reproduce them, or use our computers to send spam further and further afield.

The issue is that we need spam legislation. The New Democratic Party will be supporting spam legislation going to committee to ensure we have the tools to shut these operators down.

That being said, there needs to be due diligence. We need to look at this bill carefully, because it is a very large and cumbersome bill. There are a number of elements of this bill that are concerning. They really relate to how the Conservative government bungled the do-not-call registry.

We will go back to the do-not-call registry at a further point. But the idea behind the registry was great. That is how many laws are started. People phone an MP's office and say they are sick and tired of people calling them at home every day and they want something done about it. The government says, “Everyone is upset. We are going to act on it. We are going to have a do-not-call registry”.

Then we look at what happened with the do-not-call registry. The glaring gaps left millions of people who trusted in it exposed.

When there are unknown firms with cryptic names, such as “my broker office”, paying $50 so they can purchase all the numbers on that list in Toronto, we have a big problem. And when the CRTC allows companies with very dubious names to download those lists, we have a big problem.

When I am at work and I see a phone number on my BlackBerry and somebody is selling me a dodgy vacation in the Cayman Islands, I am thinking about how they got my parliamentary phone number. I think back to someone, somewhere paying $50 to get the list of all the Canadian phone numbers. That is a huge glaring problem.

Of course I could stand here and beat up on the Conservative government for completely blowing the registry and not thinking about it, but I am not going to do that. I am going to say that it meant well. Legislation is difficult. It set up a registry because it was responding to a problem. But there were gaping holes in it, and now we have a bigger problem.

The problem was that the lists were left open and all kinds of dodgy operations got access to them. Who knows where they are? They are not subject to Canadian law. They could be calling, for pennies, from anyplace around the world. We are stuck.

Our consumers are being exposed to fraudulent claims. I do not know how many times I have been told that the warranty on my car is just about done. Obviously they have never seen my Pontiac Sunfire or they would know the warranty was done on that a long, long time ago.

The other problem with the do-not-call registry is the enforcement mechanism. The government turned it over to the CRTC. The CRTC deals with just about everything under the sun. Being on the heritage committee, I am not going to beat up on the CRTC, but it can barely keep track of all the broadcast issues and the telecommunications issues.

The CRTC has the job of policing the do-not-call registry. Twenty thousand complaints a month are brought forward. As my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan put forward, Bell reviews those and decides which are the serious ones and which are not. Many of those get tossed out. I am not saying that Bell is tossing out the ones that might implicate itself, but at the end of the day there have been only 70 letters sent out calling for “corrective action”.

Of the 308 members in this House of Commons, how many have received dodgy phone calls from which this list is supposed to protect them? I bet there are 70 right here alone. Then we add our family members and people who phone our constituency offices and there are a lot more than 70 people who have had reason to complain.

For all the registry's hoopla, we have allowed millions of names to be siphoned off by fraud artists. There have been only 70 letters calling for corrective action. That is a big issue. It is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Talking about the complete failure of the phone registry brings us back to Bill C-27. There is one view that Bill C-27 might try to change the registry by saying there is an opt-in clause as opposed to an opt-out clause, that Canadians would not have to receive a message from anybody unless they have given prior consent.

This is where I have a problem with the enforceability of the bill. Requiring someone to get prior consent before they contact people, I think in the digital age is going to prove almost impossible. There might be people, who are not very active in the digital world, who do not want to be called unless they call the other people first, but the vast majority of transactions are happening without prior consent.

This is where we get into some real problems with the enforceability of the act. If we try to draw too wide a net on spammers, we are going to get caught up with a whole bunch of business transactions. Some of them are very legitimate and some are less so, but will we get to the spammers? I am concerned about this. I think we need to bring this to committee to hear from witnesses on how practical that provision would be.

If the government brings in an opting-in clause rather than an opting-out clause in this spammer's bill, then conceivably the opt-out clause for the phone registry would not be needed any more. Contrary to what the Conservative Party is telling us, on page 56, clause 86 says that sections 41.1 to 41.7 of the act would be repealed. That is the do-not-call registry.

We are being assured, after many, many questions to the Conservative ranks, that repealing the do-not-call registry is not the same as repealing the do-not-call registry. We would only repeal the do-not-call registry if it becomes law and then we decide to enact it.

We are being asked, as opposition members, to quickly push this legislation through so that once again we show we are tough on spammers. If it is in this legislation, then why not say it is in this legislation? Why not say we had a problem with the phone registry, we blew it and it is not working. The opt-out clause does not work so we are going for an opt-in clause. Put that on the table. The Conservatives did not do that. They have hidden it in the microscopic print.

That is not the way to enact legislation. Legislation is not hiding things in a bill and then calling on the opposition members to quickly vote for it to show they are supporting the government. We need to make sure this legislation will work.

The idea of multi-million dollar fines for major spam fraudsters is a perfectly reasonable solution. If we are going after the malignant spyware out there, we need serious criminal penalities. That has to be in the bill. The NDP supports that.

The problem, again, goes back to the dodgy way the phone registry played out with enforcement. Can we really expect that the CRTC, with its inability to respond to the 20,000 calls a month it got about the phone registry, is going to have the tools to go after these operators? That is the question.

I suggest that we need to look at thinning the bill down, making sure our legal teams have the clear mandate to go after the people we really need to go after, draw the net a little smaller and make sure we can do this under police powers. We are never going to get the spam cleared up until we have a way of enforcing it. At the end of the day it is very bulky, slow moving legislation that ends up being challenged in the courts. We support moving forward with this legislation, but it has to be done right.

In my time, I have seen many bills crafted in the House and passed with many nods, only to reveal a month or six months down the road that we did not see something.

For example, there was the voter registration bill. It went through once. New Democrats certainly were raising a hue and cry about problems with the bill at that time and a million rural people were disenfranchised. The bill had to be brought back a second time and there were still problems with it. We had legal experts and student organizations which said that, if we do not make the proper changes, hundreds of thousands of people will be disenfranchised and it will be subject to a court challenge. Now we have Elections Canada looking at that bill right now that had become law and it will probably be subject to a court challenge, which means it would come back for legislation again.

If we were in the private sector and did such a bad job once, twice and we were looking at it three times, everyone would get fired. Here, we just wait until it comes back to committee. I do not think that is a good enough way to do business.

On the issue of spam, of all the issues we argue about in the House of Commons, we can all agree no one likes spam. We can all agree that we want to be able to go after the fraud artists, but where we might diverge is on whether or not we rush through legislation that is not thought out.

So, we will support this going to committee. We want to see a bill that is enforceable, that hits the targets that it needs, and that it does not reproduce the debacle of the phone registry that started out as a good idea, but never delivered the goods.

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

Madam Speaker, I like the member's idea that we should try to focus and limit the bill as much as possible to deal specifically with the problem and involve police powers wherever possible. However, it is a good idea to have an opt-in approach rather than the approach before, the do-not-call list, which was basically negative option offers which is something that has been tried before and the public does not like it.

The question really becomes, if we go with an opting-in approach, then what do we do with all the businesses in Canada who have their existing customer base? Are we going to make them pay this added cost for them to contact and get permission from say, a thousand customers, to be able to communicate with them? Would we put in some sort of grandfathering provisions that say for existing customers, businesses could still carry on an existing relationship with them and contact them, but then for any new customers they would have to get permission?

I think that is actually being done, certainly on a provincial basis in Canada now by provincial regulated organizations which are over time getting the permission from customers to allow contact with them for various reasons. I would ask the member to comment on that because I really think he is onto something here. This is a very good idea he has just brought up.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the things that the bill actually identifies is that if there is a prior business relationship there is no requirement to get that kind of prior consent. So that is an element that is a very common sense approach.

Where it becomes difficult is where people who do not want to receive it say, “I bought a hard drive from this company three years ago and they're still emailing me three and four years after. That is spam”. Then it becomes a question, are we starting to go after businesses that legitimately have a customer base? They email customers and that is how we get around it. If people then start to make complaints against them, saying they are spammers and want to be protected because prior consent was not given, nowhere did it say they were going to get emails. That is the problem.

We do not have a bill where we are tying up legitimate businesses who get big server lists. Every politician here has a big server list they email. Many people who get their email may think it is spam. If they do not like it, erase it, but it is still a legitimate process. The issue becomes what if we get a cumbersome law where businesses are going to get tied up as potential spammers. We need to isolate the kind of nefarious activity, namely spam, that is clearly useless, stupid, idiotic, and fraudulent. It is clogging up our networks and sometimes causing much more damage, and we have to be able to go after the spammers.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for highlighting some of the good things in this piece of legislation but also some of the concerns.

I want to return to section 86 which repeals sections 41.1 to 41.7 of the act. Here it is in black and white.

The government may say it is in here, but it will enact it at some point in time. We recently had some experience in the House with the government embedding critical items in other pieces of legislation. I just need to point to the budget bill, Bill C-10. In that bill we saw the embedding of the Navigable Waters Protection Act with significant changes to it that impact on our environment, pay equity legislation where women can no longer in this country file a human rights complaint for equal pay for work of equal value, and significant changes to the student loans program.

Canadians will have to forgive New Democrats when the Conservatives say “trust me. It is okay. This is here but we don't really mean it”. What is that saying about deny, delay, and then go to jail.

What we have here is that it says “repeal”. It relates to the do-not-call registry.

My question for the member is this. Why does he think it was hidden in section 86 of the legislation, almost near the very end on page 56 out of 69 pages.? Why is it buried at the end of the legislation? Why was it not included in the government briefing documents?

I think it is an important piece to have a legitimate discussion.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, the one thing we have begun to find with Conservative government bills is that we get neo-con spamming. It buries these Trojans. It is just like when they warn us about the emails, we have to be very careful what we agree to because there is something buried in it that will affect our computers. With Conservative government legislation, there is always something buried in the bills that will affect the fabric of what has been a great country.

For example, the Conservatives buried the attack on pay equity in its so-called budget stimulation package and an attack on environmental protection for riverways. What that had to do with an economic stimulus is still beyond me.

Here we have buried in the bill the provision to kill the do-not-call registry. I think it is buried in there because the Conservatives have a hard time admitting when they absolutely blew it, and they blew it on the do-not-call registry.

Rather than come out and say, “Yes, we blew it”, they hid it in the legislation. However, what is disturbing is when we asked them about it, we could not get a straight answer. First we were told no, we did not read the bill. We said, yes we did. Then they looked at it and said, that does not mean what it means. We said, yes it does. Sections 41.1 to 41.7 of the act are repealed. That is the act that represents the do-not-call registry. Then they said “Pass it. That does not mean that it is repealed. It will be repealed when we decide that it is repealed”.

Again, here is a government that allows itself leeway on legislation that it wants powers to be able to strike things, start things, stop things, and then bury them in other pieces of legislation.

The concern here is that this should be a bill that is focused on dealing with fraud artists and spammers. Let us do that, but if we are going to deal with the do-not-call registry and the debacle around that, either fix the do-not-call registry or say, “This bill is going to supersede the do-not-call registry because the do-not-call registry was a failure”.

I have not seen in the bill how it would actually become enforceable or actually utilized in terms of opting-in and opting-out clauses for commercial activity. I do not think the government has thought it through and that is very disturbing.

I would finally say in response to my colleague that perhaps I read too much into the Conservatives response. Perhaps they have not read the bill thoroughly. Therefore, we need to get it to committee so that all the members of the House, especially those on the government side, will actually know what is in their own legislation

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I begin my remarks, I want to say that I am just as curious as the last member who spoke in relation to the revocation of the do-not-call list framework in this bill. A summary is a written piece customarily found within the leaf of the bill in a statutory document like this. There is no reference to it in the summary, at least in any way that one could identify it. I may not be quite so accusatory, but I am just as curious. Perhaps we could get something on the record here in this debate from the government's side about that.

In any event, I am very supportive of the bill. Certainly, my party also is in principle and we are quite desirous that this bill move through second reading and go to committee. Having said that, this bill, as I pointed out earlier in a comment, is going to have some problems at committee on a technical basis. In my view, it should have. There are some brand new concepts. As everyone knows, when we try to legislate something new in a brand new field in our Canadian society, and this is a relatively brand new field, there are huge problems in codifying concepts and getting them written down in law. I think there will be huge problems with this and I have outlined a few that I would like to cover in my remarks here this afternoon.

I am just flying randomly here, but I do want to go to subsection 2(4) of the bill which, as I read it, is defective. It is absolutely not ready for prime time. There is a verb missing. It is not a full sentence. Subsection 2(4) of the bill stands alone and it just says:

An electronic message described in subsection (2) or (3) that is sent for the purposes of law enforcement, public safety, the protection of Canada, the conduct of international affairs or the defence of Canada.

Somebody forgot to complete the sentence. That does not happen very often in a bill. I did not read the French version. That may contain some of the answer, but in the English version, this section is totally incomplete and needs to be fixed. There may be other sections in the bill that have the same problem.

I wanted to go through a similar list of things where I think special attention has to be paid. First, the definition of spam. Of course, the bill itself does not use the word spam. That might be a breach of somebody's copyright or something on their commercial product. Who knows? However, it does refer to the concept of a commercial electronic message. That is the commodity that is being restricted here. It is not messages; it is commercial electronic messages. It is okay to use whatever terms we want in a bill like this, but we are going to have to make sure that every commercial electronic message that is carried out there and is going to be subject to this restriction is legitimately restricted.

I am sure that the people who have drafted the bill have thought it through, but this is why we send things through Parliament. This is why we send it to committee. It is just to make sure that we have not gone too far and have not included things inadvertently that we really do not want to include.

The second thing I want to point out has to do with subsection 6(1). At the core of subsection 6(1), it attempts to restrict or regulate the unconsented electronic commercial message. I mentioned this earlier, but I do want to re-document it here in my remarks. It says:

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

The place to which the message is being sent is an electronic address. It is not being sent to a person.

Just below that in the same section it says that commercial electronic messages cannot be sent unless “the person to whom the message is sent has consented to receiving it...”.

If the message is being sent to an address and not a person, how can there be a person to whom the message is sent? The message is being sent to an electronic address. Therefore, it is not clear who the person is who controls the giving or not giving of consent. A person, of course, can be a corporation. However, it is just not clear.

If someone is alleged to have broken this law, it is quite possible that the person will say that he or she did not send it to a person but to an electronic address. Nobody in the world could possibly know who is associated with that electronic address. The person might know or might not know. It might be the person registered to the email address but we do not know. It is left unclear. I see this as a problem, not in trying to understand the clause, but in trying to prosecute or enforce the law.

The third thing I want to mention concerns the business of consent. The statute is worded in a way that says that a person cannot send a commercial electronic message to an address unless that non-defined person gives consent. If there is to be enforcement and if there is to be a prosecution, the difficulty I see right now is proving the non-consent. It is easy in court to prove consent but it is more difficult non-consent because one must potentially prove a negative. I am not sure the courts are ready for this. Some prosecutors out there may have said, yes, that they can handle this, that they can prove a negative, but I know how difficult it is to prove a negative. As I read this, any prosecution would need to involve evidence of non-consent, which means proving that negative.

In the initial instance, the message is not from a person but from an electronic address and electronic addresses do not have personal identities. They cannot talk, they cannot communicate and they cannot give an address. It is not clear which person is the person empowered to give or withhold consent.

I see some members in the House are dozing off as I walk through this conundrum, but this is something the committee will need to deal with. I know, Mr. Speaker, you are listening intently and that you have question marks in there too.

I have suggested that it is tough to prove a negative, and we all know it is, but it is a very tough thing to prove in a courtroom.

On the next issue concerning defining what a commercial electronic message is, it refers to a message that has a commercial character. It does not go much deeper than that. Many different types of messages are out there, billions of messages moving around the globe, and if there is to be enforcement, the trick will be trying to figure out which have the commercial character. Some spams will be clearly commercial but some spam will not. Some messaging will be clearly not commercial but personal, and then there is the other stuff that falls right in the middle, a little bit of both, and that will be extremely difficult, in view of our charter and the way courts will handle quasi-criminal prosecutions, to actually nail down what is commercial and what is not, and what is a little bit commercial and what is a little bit personal. This will be a problem but I will leave that there. It is a matter that I hope the committee will look at.

I want to mention clause 47 of the bill, which I will describe as brilliant. From my perspective, this is the best part of this bill because it purports to create a private right of enforcement. This would allow a person to make an application to a court where the person believes that he or she has been harmed in some way by this unauthorized, non-consented to, commercial electronic message, or some other offence described in the statute. By creating that, it frees up all of that enforcement mechanism that the state would otherwise need to create. It gives a citizen the ability to initiate something, go to court and get a response from the court without dragging all the federal or provincial prosecutors along.

Of course, that enforcement action would be freed up from a lot of the additional baggage that is sometimes imposed on our enforcement authorities by application of the charter. Sometimes in our system of governance, the charter, as interpreted by the courts, places obligations on governments to do or not do things as it enforces the law. Be that as it may, this creation of the private right of enforcement will allow the enforcement to be borne at the instance of an informed citizen, who has a grievance with respect to some of the things prohibited here, to take that to a court and, hopefully, get a fairly decent response.

I must say that, given the issues I raised earlier about definitions and procedures, a citizen might encounter the same kinds of problems in terms of definition and enforcement, but we all must acknowledge that this is a new area of law and we will need to deal with these new concepts and new definitions.

I am pleased to see the private right of enforcement. Who knows where it will all end up but so much of the electronic universe is taken up with individuals and individual initiatives. It is kind of like the wild west. When it comes to enforcement, the individual will become the enforcer. Who knows if some individual out there will actually go into the business of being the enforcer? “Show me your illegal spam and I will take it to court and get the judgment”. Some enterprising citizen out there is quite likely to take on that task. We may have created a new industry here with this private right of enforcement.

In terms of these points, I want to go to subclause 2(3) because I have a concern about it. This clause is part of the clause that describes what a commercial or electronic message is. For greater certainty, it states:

An electronic message that contains a request for consent to send a message described in subsection (2) is also considered to be a commercial electronic message.

That means that a party that wishes to send a commercial message is not even allowed to ask for consent to send a commercial message. If I interpret that clause properly, an electronic message that contains a request for consent to send a message is also a commercial electronic message.

That, unfortunately, raises what I would call a catch 22. No one can send a message without getting consent and no one can send a message asking for consent because that would be a commercial message.

I have a feeling that might be a problem when it comes to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It might not be but if the government is firm on this, if the people who have drafted these laws have come to the conclusion that must be in the bill, then I suggest that the provision may need to be buttressed by some additional wording or with a preamble in the bill that would give some weight to defend against a charter-based challenge that would say that this is a catch 22 provision.

There would hardly ever be a commercial message again on the Internet because no one could even ask for consent. We need to be able to ask for consent, otherwise we would never be able to send a commercial message. It says pretty clearly that an electronic message that contains a request for consent is a commercial electronic message, which the statute prohibits.

I really would like to hear from some of the government members or from the parliamentary secretary, if not today, then later, as to why the do-not-call list provisions, clause 86, are now being prepared for revocation. I would not even mind knowing why it was kind of buried in the statute and not referred to in the summary. I am sure there is a reasonable explanation for that. The record will show the questions I have raised on these small, picky, but real issues.

I will just confirm that, notwithstanding all of these minor points that I have raised, there is a great deal of support for legislation of this nature and my party will support it to get it to committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the member's comments and observations. I, too, would like to hear from some government members and to ask them questions for more clarity.

The question, what is commercial and what is not, is a very interesting question. If a broker asks a person to go for lunch, is it a personal question or is it a business question, because clearly the broker is trying to ask the potential customer out to discuss business?

The question also is: Who decides whether it is spam or not? In a lot of cases, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. I see big problems here for small businesses and the opt-in approach. What is a business supposed to do, wait until the customers come in because the business person is fearful that he or she cannot contact his or her customers without a consent form being signed?

We have a potential here for huge costs unless we have a grandfather clause saying that if a business has 1,000 customers, it is allowed to contact those customers. The customer list would be grandfathered in as of the proclamation date of the bill. Otherwise, we will have huge costs for small businesses that need to contact each one of their customers as they come in to get them to sign permission forms so they can contact them in the routine business relationship that many of them have had with a company for many years.

What happens if one of those customers gets mad at the company for whatever reason? The previous member talked about buying a hard drive three years ago. What happens if a business sends the customer a message and he or she takes offence? Has the business done something wrong?

Those are a lot of interesting questions and I would ask the member to give us a fuller explanation on some of his concerns about this very important question.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the electronic messaging business is not an area in which I normally spend a lot of quality time, but I rely on electronic messages throughout the day. I just checked my BlackBerry and there are seven emails waiting for me. I should check to see if any of them are spam.

As I try to answer the question, or at least address the comment, I read the French version of subclause 2(4) and it is properly written. There is a verb in the French section, but the English version has to be corrected.

I acknowledge the member's comments that the bringing into place of this statute and its execution could create some huge costs for people who are recognized as being in the business now, large commercial organizations. I am pretty sure they will find a way to communicate with parliamentarians at the committee level as this thing goes forward.

Most of Canada's large commercial entities and SMEs are organized into groupings. I am pretty sure they will be able to outline potential costs to them and there may be an adaptation that can be made to accommodate the serious concerns consistent with the goals of the bill.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a good point, which is that an address is not a person. Even if the address from which the message was sent is available, how can we find out who was responsible for sending it? That is an address too. Of course, if it is an advertisement, there will be a name, but we must not forget that, much like the problems we had with fax machines a while back, large telecommunications or communications companies often send messages on behalf of insurance companies or other companies. So who should be held responsible? Such companies often have several numbers and addresses. How are we supposed to trace it?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect in the big picture that those whose job it is to enforce the anti-spam provisions will look for the large offenders first. The large offenders have probably already crossed the line a billion times. Locating those egregious, manifest, massive breaches of the statute, as it may come to be in force, will be fairly easy to find in the big picture. It is a question of dealing with it first in Canada and then abroad, with co-operation internationally.

My gut tells me the bill is not ready for prime time, it will have difficulties. However, I am pleased that we are taking steps to move it in that direction. Let us hope that when we make the move, we will not spend $25 million in a prosecution and then lose it. Let us move carefully toward enforcement. We should discourage the government from seeking quick, expedited passage of the bill. We should take our time and try to do it right so the product is what we need.

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

Mr. Speaker, several of the members today, including members of the Liberal Party, have brought up concern about the whole issue of whether the government is capable or will be capable of enforcing this act, given what happened with the do-not-call legislation and given that it was brought forward just before the last election. There was a lot of good press on the issue. Now we find out a year later that it is really not very viable as a bill.

There should be some concern. We can pass the best legislation in the world, but if the free enterprise government has no real interest in executing and being tough on enforcing the law, then what have we gained in the process?

Are there things we could do to the bill to make it tougher for the government to get out of enforcing it in a tough way? It was suggested by the member for Timmins—James Bay that maybe we should be looking at a police influence as opposed to letting the CRTC and other government bodies deal with the issue.

Could the member deal with that question?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that the bill contains a private prosecution mechanism. There is an alternative, where a citizen might just succeed in doing what the government would find very expensive and difficult to do. Let us all keep in mind this statute is not going to be handed over for enforcement to municipal police forces or provincial police forces. Under the bill, as I understand it, this could only be investigated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It would be a federal prosecution, as I understand it.

To get something going here, we are going to have a complaint and we are going to have an investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We are going to have take police officers and get them onto the Internet and start gathering all of this data. It can be very expensive. Fortunately, they can probably do it from behind their computer, but they may need a few warrants. However, it will be a federal prosecution.

Then we have to get a federal prosecutor to take something from a brand new law. It could take a year or two to develop. I think there is a statutory limitation on prosecutions, as well. They would have to do it within that limit.

It is going to be tough, but let us get something in the hopper and start working on it. I have a feeling it will be the private prosecution piece that will be the secret weapon, that some individual will take this and run with it and we will have an evolution of enforcement on the private side that will beat the government by a country mile. That is why I do congratulate inclusion of this in the bill.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today on this issue.

It was said that email is becoming more and more common in our societies. I am an enthusiast myself. It has the advantage of enabling us to do several things at once. While listening to the debate, for instance, I had my computer open in front of me. It makes it possible to communicate with people sometimes at the far ends of the earth, whom I have not seen for a long time. It is also possible to communicate with people who are very close by, such as colleagues in the House or even the lobby coordinator, Marie-Ève. I want to salute her on behalf of all Bloc Québécois members because she does a fantastic job, like all the people who work around us and support us in our tasks.

When viewers watch us on television, they see us proceeding efficiently and think we are all very good and know what to do. The reality is that we would often be lost without the coordinators in the lobby and all the parliamentary personnel who help us. I want to thank them very much for the work they do.

Having made this aside, I want to comment on BillC-27, Electronic Commerce Protection Act. Spam is of ever greater concern in our economies and that is due in large part to the fact that email is free. I want to assure the House right away that I would not dream of changing that. However, individuals who want to send unsolicited documents, mail or advertising can easily do so. They can send them to very large numbers of people at no additional cost. Spam is not very interesting and just a tiny proportion of people pay any attention to it. The volume is so immense, though, that only a small percentage is enough to get some potentially attractive customers, while the user would have to pay for traditional methods of promotion.

If someone wants to send an advertisement to every house by regular mail, there are no laws against it, apart from certain municipal regulations. This is not a problem, though, because people rarely take advantage of the situation to send millions of people in North America a letter announcing some scheme to get millions of dollars out of a particular country, thereby making everyone rich. There is no critical mass to justify doing this by traditional mail.

But in the case of email, there is that sort of critical mass. We have to sort through our email to separate the wheat from the chaff. We also have to have software with anti-spam and anti-phishing systems to identify such messages. These automated systems sometimes make mistakes, with the result that we sometimes do not receive legitimate email messages. They drown in a sea of spam.

The Bloc Québécois believes it is high time we had anti-spam legislation. The task force on spam, which was created in 2004, has been calling for legislation for more than four years.

Four years is an eternity when it comes to computer technology. Most western countries have already passed anti-spam legislation. Canada has unfortunately not yet done so, and we are happy to be able to study this bill. A number of members have pointed out that it is not perfect and that they still have concerns. We share the view that this bill can certainly be improved, but we will support it in principle so that it is referred to committee.

When the issue of prevention and punishment on the Internet comes up, in connection with spam, we often hear the argument that, because the Internet is involved, there is no control—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber. He will have another 14 minutes the next time this bill is debated in the House.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from May 7 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am almost as surprised to be speaking as you are to call upon me.

This morning, we are considering Bill C-27. It is widely known how absolutely dramatic and traumatic the whole issue of spam is and the interception of messages and the relationship that has to the electronic medium that we are so dependent on today. This is a dramatic example in this legislation in its analysis of the extent to which span can create absolute chaos in the lives of individuals, businesses and governments.

Most recently, there was an example of how one of these electronic wizards, who is totally capable of developing the programs, used that knowledge to intercept military messages between aircraft. The extent to which that could have created absolute chaos was, in fact, so dangerous. It was illustrated in the press. We have had to take the kind of action that would have been able to intercept those messages, neutralize them and protect our public.

The issue of creating spam and what it will do to our capacity in a civil society to use this technology in a positive way is threatened by people who have the capacity to understand and implement evil designs on individuals, businesses and governments. It is, therefore, in the overall interest of civil society that we act on this.

It has been estimated that, to this date, many billions of dollars have been taken and applied to those who have suffered the effects of their electronic Internet capacity being undermined. They have tried to implement reactive responses by calling upon service agencies to protect their own email addresses and so on, but billions of dollars have spent on that. Naturally, people find themselves looking at government and wanting to know what government at all levels will do to protect them.

The government has responded in a positive way. In fact, it has built on the recommendations that were made by a Liberal task force in 2004. I think it would be helpful for those who are watching to know about the recommendations with respect to that task force, which held many consultations.

The recommendations were: to prohibit the sending of spam without the prior consent of recipients; to prohibit the use of false or misleading statements that disguise the origins or true intent of the email; to prohibit the installation of unauthorized programs; and, to prohibit the unauthorized collection of personal information or email addresses. Bill C-27 takes a great step forward in terms of dealing with those recommendations that were made back in 2004.

Those who are watching would also wish to be informed as to the regime that is being put in place to follow up with respect to charges that have been levelled against people who are involved in this kind of scamming process.

The bill introduces fines for the violation of these acts up to a maximum of $1 million for individuals and $10 million for businesses. It would establish rules for warrants for information during an investigation and injunctions on spam activity while under investigation. The bill also would establish the private right of action, allowing individuals and businesses the ability to seek damages from the perpetrators of spam.

While the legislation takes these steps, it also behooves us to look at what additional steps could possibly be taken.

It is important to note that the whole strategy with respect to fighting spam requires more than just a legislative regime. The willingness to enforce the law is absolutely paramount. In this regard, the task force recommended in 2004 some additional steps that it felt the government should consider and perhaps could be considered when the bill is at committee.

The task force indicated that dedicated resources and strong support should be provided to agencies to administer and enforce the anti-spam legislation. It behooves the government to reflect on whether those resources have been dedicated. The task force further recommended co-ordinated anti-spam actions with other nations. While a huge amount of spam comes from the United States, this is a battle that requires international response. The task force also recommended that international service providers and other network operators establish best business practices. The final recommendation was to establish a spam database to better monitor the sources of spam.

It is important that we understand the regime that is the foundation of support with respect to the strategic response that is embedded in the bill.

The bill would give authority to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, the Competition Bureau and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to share information and evidence with international counterparts in order to pursue violators outside of Canada.

The minister indicated in his announcement the government's commitment to establishing Industry Canada as the national co-ordinating body in order to expand awareness and education of the whole nature of spam, what the government was doing in terms of the responding regime and to share that information with Canadians, with network operators and small businesses, and to co-ordinate the work with the private sector, and to conduct research and intelligence gathering.

Hopefully this information will be upfront so that people who have been victimized by those who are using spam to undermine their electronic systems will have a hotline to interface with immediately and the steps in the bill will kick in and they will know that the responding regime is at their service.

To that extent, the bill intends to create a spam reporting centre that would receive reports and related threats allowing it to collect evidence and gather intelligence to assist the three enforcement agencies, the CRTC, the Competition Bureau and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

In committee, I hope this particular part of the regime that would be put in place by the bill, will be put right up front and that the electronic and communications interface with that reporting centre is made public, the number immediately has an acknowledged and up front series of steps that will be taken on behalf of consumers so they can rest assured that the evidential and the responding follow-up is immediate and predictable. The bill attempts to do that but there is a great deal of doubt out in the wider public whether we really have a handle on this particular problem.

The bill, in terms of its content, the history leading up to the response and the substance, meets the needs and expectations of our public. The public can also be assured that there will be an additional response, particularly as it is coordinated on an international basis.

It is very important that the resources be put into fighting what has been estimated as a $27 billion annual expenditure in information technology, including increased expenditures in Internet bandwidth, storage costs, anti-spam software and user support. Just that figure alone indicates that $27 billion is being invested by consumers to try and protect themselves, and that they are doing it at a time when the legislative framework has left them wanting.

What we are now doing, through this legislation, is taking that investment and backing it up with a legislative framework that is both prescriptive and proactive. It is saying that we understand the problem and we understand the nature of the intelligence intercept and how it is undermining consumers' ability to use their email addresses with confidence and without being invaded by people who want to access private information.

The government more recently introduced legislation that attempts to protect private individuals from abuse with respect to their credit card information and their day-to-day transactions through the mail. We have been reminded of this time and time again, in particular with respect to seniors who have been vulnerable to those who have victimized them because they have laid access to that private information, even to the extent, as members will recall, where information on mortgages and home ownership was used for transactions to place, resulting in people actually losing their home. Both the province and federal government have had to respond to that with new legislation, which sets a similar regime in place to protect our public.

Again I use that as an example that there just seems to be no limit to the extent that some in our society will victimize others and they will use a variety of tools to do it, not the least of which is using spam to access private information to mislead and abuse, to undermine enforcement agencies and to victimize the vulnerable. This legislation takes a major step forward in terms of dealing with that.

This was an initiative that was predicated on the basis of need. It was recognized several years ago in 2004 by the opposition, then the government, and this legislation builds upon that. There are still some gaps but those will be addressed in committee. However, our public can rest assured that the whole issue of spam and its evil intent will be dealt with by a regime that has follow-up and follow-through.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say that we have a bit of reluctance over here to believe that the Conservatives will actually enforce this bill, no matter how good we make it through the committee process. However, it seems to me that our saving grace in this bill, in terms of enforcement, is the private right of action, the fact that if the government is slow on doing the enforcement, the public has a right to go to the courts to try and get action that way.

I know there are certain provinces, such as Quebec and Manitoba, for example, that have class action legislation. I think Ontario might as well. Could the member confirm that the class action provisions would be applicable in this situation, or would the person have to deal primarily on an individual, case by case basis? Could there be a class action lawsuit under this legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, the whole nature of an individual action, in fact even how an individual action could spark what has been characterized as a class action, is one for the lawyers in the committee to ascertain. I am a school teacher from Scarborough and not a lawyer, but I can certainly understand the premise upon which the member has asked that question.

I am joined by two of my colleagues, both of whom are lawyers, and they have taken note of that particular question. It would be my hope that in committee what provincial legislation is doing with respect to the right of a private individual to enact an action and the resources that would be provided to do that perhaps within the scope of this bill or provincial legislation will be pursued.

As I said, it is very important that people have a one-stop-shopping interface when they have been victimized, one number, so that there is a follow up. This is a very serious and complex area of technology. People know how to use it, but they do not know the overall design to the extent that they can protect themselves.

The premise the member is suggesting should be noted and followed up by the committee, but I am not capable at this point to give any further elaboration of the question than that.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member a question and thank him for his speech.

He is probably aware that the member for Pickering—Scarborough East introduced a bill dealing with this issue as far back as 2003. So this has been in the pipe now through two successive governments and for quite a number of years.

Is he satisfied that enough consultation has been done on this issue up to this point so that people are not going to be surprised when they find out, in the event this legislation gets passed?

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the NDP members' speeches in particular, and I think they are quite right. I very much appreciated one of the points raised by one of my NDP colleagues, who said that the Liberals first introduced the idea for such a bill, the predecessor to Bill C-27, but we saw no progress on the matter. Sure, there were consultations, but there was never any implementation or procedure. This would suggest that the Liberal member was perhaps not able to convince his Liberal Party colleagues, although, quite often, the Liberals' good ideas are unfortunately not contagious and do not get passed on to others. Sometimes a single member of the Liberal caucus might have a good idea, while the others might not understand its essence.

It is even worse among the Conservatives, since they rarely have any good ideas. They have had a few; I do not wish to make a complete generalization. Nonetheless, I am sometimes surprised by some of their ideas. They have finally had a good one with Bill C-27. Let us hope that it will be studied and passed.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about this bill in terms of how it is going to be policed. I am very concerned about the provisions in the bill for actually enforcing this legislation, the cost of to the taxpayers of doing this and the permutations that are going to be involved.

Has my hon. colleague put some time into considering how we are going to maintain a system of enforcement and what the cost will be to the taxpayers?

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

This is one of the reasons we want to send the bill to be examined in committee. We want to examine all the possibilities and avenues very carefully. It could turn out to be expensive. The Internet is a tricky thing. It is international and quite spread out. We can block a computer that is sending out spam, but then we get some from a different computer. It can become incredibly difficult to block all spam. This battle could be an expensive one, but it is a matter of national interest, because it affects many citizens, all parliamentarians and me as well. We will have to examine the costs in committee, but all costs aside, this bill could be passed with no problem.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, when we think of the Internet and the way it is used, and the viruses and the ability to manipulate the information, I am concerned about this bill as well, because, of course, many false and fraudulent messages can be set out with the snap of a finger, from a variety of locations, and could target innocent businesses.

We could see a situation where businesses that did not want to be on the Internet and were not sending spam could find themselves in litigation or under investigation for things they had nothing to do with.

Honestly, how are we going to enforce the provisions of this bill once we enact it?

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

It is well timed, because I just had a conversation about this yesterday with my brother—I do have a brother; in fact, I have two brothers, but one of them works on the Hill—and we were saying that, sometimes, sending something by email can play down the importance of it or at least take away a sense of responsibility to some extent.

As my colleague was saying, with a simple click of the mouse, people can messages to the entire planet concerning, for instance—I am picking a topic at random, thinking of my colleague from the Gaspé—the seal hunt. With one click, we can send our position regarding the seal hunt, whether we support it or not, to every single member of the House.

As I was saying earlier, a few years ago, before the advent of the Internet, we took the time to write out letters by hand and send them with stamps. We took the time to buy stamps, write out letters, address them to the members and send them. That still happens, but it is becoming complicated, and it seems that the Conservatives might want to deregulate Canada Post, but that is another matter.

However, I must admit, when a citizen took the time to write a handwritten letter to a parliamentarian to complain about an issue, we might have paid more attention to that complaint in the past than we do now when it is sent in a single click to everyone.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have to refer this bill—sorry, I was thinking of his brothers—to committee for further study because it has some problems.

I myself think that it is very important to make sure people do not get spammed all the time, as they do now, especially since there are so many young people online. So many sex-related sites pop up now, and we have to block them.

My question for my colleague is about certain Internet sites, such as Craigslist. I have made three attempts to find an apartment in the region, and the sites I was referred to ended up being fraudulent. I consider that to be a kind of spam. I would like to hear what he has to say about that.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent question. I too am looking for an apartment in Ottawa.

She talked about spam from certain, shall we say, naughty, sites, and we sure do not want our children—not my children because I do not have any, but the children of other parliamentarians—to see these things. We have to block access to those sites. That is one of the reasons that we want to send Bill C-27 to committee so that we can figure out how to fight spam.

Earlier, I was talking about good, old-fashioned, handwritten letters. People get desensitized when they get so much spam sent indiscriminately. When these messages are sent to pretty much everyone, it is just not personal and it has no meaning. As a parliamentarian, I still love receiving handwritten letters from my fellow citizens. I can tell that they took the time to share something important.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-27. We in the NDP firmly believe this legislation is long overdue. We think there are a lot of improvements that could be made to this bill, as with any bill. Therefore, we are certainly prepared to send it off to committee and hope that the committee can do the job that is necessary to make it a better bill.

There is a whole series of questions and answers that we have heard over the last couple of days that have shed some light on the history of this bill and the details of it, but I want to comment on an article from CBC News. It says that Canada is a source of over nine billion spam messages a day. In a study, it was found that nine out of 10 emails worldwide are spam, according to a Cisco Systems security firm. That was as of December 16, 2008.

The article states:

Canadian computers — many of them unwittingly — send out over nine billion spam e-mails a day, almost five per cent of all global spam traffic, according to a report from network and internet security firm Cisco.

In an annual security report released Monday, Cisco estimated almost 200 billion messages per day, or 90 per cent of all e-mails sent worldwide — can be defined as spam, double the volume of the previous year.

E-mail spam is rarely sent from the computers of the spammers themselves...Instead they use a number of techniques, from phishing scams, to e-mail with attached malware, to hijacking the computers of unwitting people.

It sounds pretty scary, actually.

The article goes on to say:

The spammers then use these networks of computers — called botnets — to send out more spam.

While many spammers still send out mass-mailing spam to millions of untargeted recipients, web security software is usually able to filter these messages, the company said.

We have all known over the years that it is almost mandatory today for people to invest in Norton Internet Security and McAfee. I have spent literally hundreds of dollars in a year trying to keep a dozen computers in the office safe from viruses, and so on. This is a really big business and it is growing in leaps and bounds. So it is certainly long overdue that we step in.

I have mentioned several times that one of my favourite long-time MPs in the House, the member for Pickering—Scarborough East, brought in a bill way back in 2003. That is when we should have brought in the legislation. At this point, under normal circumstances, we would probably be looking at having made amendments to his original bill, had the government of the day done the right thing.

I can recall back in 2000 being asked to coordinate the Manitoba e-commerce bill. It was the most comprehensive e-commerce bill of its type in Canada of the day, and perhaps it is even today. We were able to get the five warring departments in the government together, because that is what it boils down to at the end of the day, and got them to agree that we had to proceed with this e-commerce legislation.

We followed the Uniform Law Conference model. We mixed and matched some things and added some consumer legislation, which I am not aware has been replicated anywhere else in the country up this point. We decided that if we wanted to promote purchases on the Internet, we should try to provide as much consumer protection to the public as possible.

We borrowed a little idea that had been adopted in three or four American states as of that time but nowhere in Canada. We put a provision in the act to provide that if any Manitoban purchased a product or service online and did not receive the product or service, the credit card company would be held responsible for reimbursement.

When we went to committee on this issue, we had the credit card companies, understandably, show up and make representations about how onerous this would be. We went ahead and passed the legislation anyway. We have had no problems, as far as I know, with the credit card companies, complaining that this was something bad.

As my colleague from Timmins mentioned yesterday, at the end of the day, we may reconfigure this bill a little differently from what it is right now. It may be a little light on the enforcement side. We have seen how weak the enforcement has been on the do-not-call list, which has only been around for a year. The very best that has come out of it has been nothing more than a few warning letters from the CRTC. No one has been prosecuted or chased around seriously about any aspect. That has turned out to be a big disaster for the government, which is trying hide its failure and collapse it partly through this bill.

What we may have to do at the end is have a little more emphasis on the policing side of things and a little less emphasis on organizations like the CRTC, which do not have the resources and, as a result, do not have the track record of being really tough on much over the past little while.

That was a suggestion the member made yesterday, and that may well be a good idea. He wanted to focus in, specifically, on the problem.

I do not see any problem in even going the other way a bit and expanding the scope of the bill to include what I just mentioned before, some consumer-type legislation. We can look at the Manitoba legislation. There was more than just the credit card issue that I had mentioned. There were two or three other issues. I am sure that in the intervening years, which has been now nine years or so, there must be some legislation in Quebec, or Ontario, or Alberta or another province that we could perhaps use in framing this legislation.

I am not suggesting that somehow we should put this off for another four or five years in order to get it right. However, I do think we should do as much consulting as possible. We should get as many people, particularly people with small businesses, in to make presentations on the bill as soon as possible so we do not have this huge compliance problem at the end of the day.

I will give an example. I will use a real estate agent as an example. If a real estate agent contacts a previous client who is outside of the three year rule and has not done business or does not have a contract with the real estate agent, is he or she violating the rules? Are we going to make criminals out of thousands of real estate agents across the country who may unwittingly and unknowingly get themselves into trouble over situations like this?

I really feel we have to go through the process. We have to contact the Real Estate Association, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, all the different small business organizations and get their input into this so we do not end up with a big problem on our hands at the end of the day.

Overall, the approach is a solid approach. I will tell members why. The do-not-call list was to allow people who were in the basket to get out of that basket. It is negative option offers. I do not know whether members are familiar with that concept, but this is something we deal with in Consumer Affairs all the time. Certainly insurance companies practise negative option offers.

For example, a home insurance policy, at one point, had sewer backup coverage on it. It would be too administratively expensive, for example, for the insurance company to contact each one of its customers and consult them on the issue. It would become cost prohibitive and the product would probably cost a lot more. Therefore, insurance companies automatically, for maybe $2.00 or $3,00, a small amount, add the coverage on all policies across Canada. People who do not want the coverage have to get back to the insurance company to have it taken it off. Cable companies do that, as well. We have seen that in Manitoba. We have seen that across the country.

Some people get angry about it, even though all they have to do is phone and get their name taken off. However, some jurisdictions have banned the practice of negative option offers, even though it is very administratively efficient and probably, in a way, good in some ways for the consumer in terms of cost.

It is the idea that people are going to have stuff put on their policies or on their cable bills without them consenting to it and without them knowing about it. That was the original do-not-call list approach. Everyone was put in the basket and they were told to phone and get themselves off this list. That was the approach.

Now the government has smartened up on this whole issue and it is taking the approach that people have to consent to be on the list. That is the right way to go. It is a little more cumbersome. It is going to take a little more time. It is not going to make people of small businesses overly happy, but this just did not start yesterday. For the last few years, different businesses across the country have been doing exactly that. For the last three or four years, they have been getting consent forms signed by their customers when they come in.

The last time people renewed their home insurance policy, or their automobile insurance policy and certainly real estate agent activity, they have been asked to sign a form, whether they know it or not and they probably did. That form will give the person the right to contact them.

Any time people want to cease contact with the business, then they can do that. Those businesses know that over the last couple of years they just cannot start phoning people and sending out emails at will, as they used to in the old days. The whole picture has changed and small business understands that.

It took some getting used to, but I think many of the businesses now accept that it is a good idea and they have put in place these practices of getting the consent from the customers, and that is a good thing. This bill deals with that.

There is a very interesting observation on this whole process and I do not know how many people know about it. Therefore, I will take the opportunity in my remaining time to explain it. It is an article on Geist on spam. I really was not aware of this problem.

The article states that “the government quietly lays the groundwork for needed overhaul in the do-not-call list”. We thought we were dealing with Bill C-27, a bill dealing with spam. Instead it turns out we are dealing with the problems of the government's do-not-call list, which has turned into a big disaster for it. It got its political points out of it and it was a good thing for it to do. However, it turned out to be a big mess and now the government is afraid of embarrassment, so it is trying to quietly solve the problems with that list by dealing with this list.

The article states:

Four years after the National Task Force on Spam unanimously recommended that the Canadian government introduce anti-spam legislation, the Government today took an important step forward by tabling Bill C-27, the Electronic Commerce Protection Act.

It further states:

—marketers must obtain consumer consent before sending commercial electronic messages...While...long overdue, one of the most significant changes was not reported or even included in the government’s briefing materials. Buried at the very end of the 69-page bill, are provisions that would lay the groundwork to kill the National Do-Not-Call list.

I recall back nine years ago when we brought in this huge omnibus bill on the electronic commerce legislation in Manitoba. It is right about the time that Jane Stewart was having all her troubles with her database issues.

One of our major driving forces for our legislation was that we had to get the legislative ability to enable the use of the federal business number. As a government, we were very concerned. We were very concerned that this legislation had to be brought through the house. We were also aware that the opposition, if it ever took the time to read it, would see that there were a lot things in there with which it could probably find fault. One of them was shared databases and things like that.

That is why, as a government, we ended up making the bill bigger and bigger and at the end of the day, putting some good consumer legislation in there so when we sent out a press release, we talked about the consumer legislation, but not about the database and business number issues and so on.

Thank goodness members of the Conservative opposition of the day were not overly active and did not pay attention, so the bill went through and they did not ask any questions about it, in my view, for the benefit of the province. Had we been the opposition at that time, we would have torn it apart.

Whenever I see a bill that big, and this one is 69 pages, I look through it. A lawyer is sitting to my right and she is nodding in agreement. When we see a bill that big, we want to find out what are these guys hiding. I bet there is something in there the Conservatives are trying to get through by calling it something else.

In any event, this gentleman says that “the proposed approach is very complicated”. That is good to know. He says that It boils down to the fact that the government is repealing the provisions that establish and govern the do-not-call list. Guess what? It is in the bill.

The member for Timmins—James Bay mentioned it yesterday. If this is not a big issue, then why is it in the bill? He says that in its place the approach of requiring an opt-in would apply, which I see as fine, meaning Canadians would no longer need to register their phone numbers on the do-not-call list. That is good too. It saves people a lot of trouble. He says that instead the presumption would be that telemarketers would not call without prior consent, which we discussed, and that it would also bring in stronger penalties, up to $10 million and few exceptions.

He goes on to say that although the do-not-call list is less than a year old, change cannot come soon enough. He says that it faced severe criticism earlier this year when it was reported that out-of-country telemarketers, who are out of the regular reach of the CRTC, are accessing the list and making unwanted calls to Canadians, and that with more than six million numbers registered on the list, the prospect of do-not-call list registration leading to more calls rather than less instantly becomes a disturbing reality.

What is this man saying? He is saying all those people last year, who responded the minute the government passed the do-not-call legislation, flooded the phone lines, phoning in, giving their number, asking to be taken off the list. Offshore companies simply accessed that whole list of numbers and used it, totally defeating the purpose. I did not phone last year to take my name off the list and I guess it was good. Had I phoned, I would have ended up with tons and tons of spam.

I can see why the Conservatives are hanging their heads over there and do not want to talk about something like this because this is a big embarrassment. They should just own up to it and say that they goofed up, that they made a mistake and that this is how we will fix it. We see that is exactly what they are doing right now.

He goes on to say that while the misuse of the do not call list remains a concern, a review of the thousands of pages of internal government documents released under the Access to Information reveals it is only the tip of the iceberg. That means there is a lot more underneath there if it looks like an iceberg.

He says that in addition to the lax distribution policies, the enforcement side of the do not call list raises serious alarm bells, with the majority of complaints being dismissed as invalid. He says that without CRTC investigation, the appearance of a conflict of interest and sorting through complaints on a regulator that has been content to issue warnings rather than levying the tough penalties contained in the law.

I said there were 70 warning letters that were sent out. This gets more interesting. I am going to run out of time, but if anyone wants to read the remaining paragraphs I will be very happy to make copies. There are many more interesting things in the letter. I will draw to a close and allow for any questions that might come my way.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would ask that we see the clock at 1:30.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is there consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.