Debates of May 8th, 2009

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if Question Nos. 96, 98, 99 and 102 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 96

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

With regard to travel to the Northwest Territories (NWT) by federal officials or employees of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada, National Defence, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment Canada, the Prime Minister’s Office and the Canadian Revenue Agency, based in the provinces, for each year since 2006 to 2008: (a) on what dates did they travel between Edmonton, Alberta and (i) Hay River, NWT, (ii) Yellowknife, NWT, (iii) Norman Wells, NWT, (iv) Inuvik, NWT; (b) what was the total air fare paid for the air portion of the Edmonton to and from the location in the NWT destination listed above, per flight; (c) what is the basis for that fare, including but not limited to class of fare, taxes and surcharges, discounts or passes used; (d) in each instance where the fare paid exceeded the lowest available airfare on that date, why was the lowest fare not used; (e) were T4As or other taxable benefit advice issued to these officials or employees with respect to this air travel; (f) if such advice was issued, what were the amounts; (g) for each official or employee who travelled to the NWT what was the amount paid, per official or employee for meals and incidental expenses; (h) in each instance where an official or employee was reimbursed for meals and incidental expenses and receipts were not provided and an allowance greater than $45 for the year 2006 or $51 for the years 2007 and 2008 was given, was the official or employee issued with a T4A or other taxable benefit advice; and (i) in each instance where such advice was issued what were the individual amounts?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 98

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

With respect to sole source contracts for goods and services issued by or on behalf of the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office only, for the last four years: (a) how many contracts have so been awarded; (b) who received the contracts, on what date and for what amount; (c) what good or service did they provide in return; (d) what was the duration of each contract; and (e) who was responsible for authorizing each contract?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 99

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

With respect to public opinion polling undertaken by the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office only, for the last four years: (a) how many contracts have been awarded to public opinion firms; (b) which firms won contracts, on what date and in what amount; and (c) what was the general topic probed by each contract?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 102

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

With respect to the death of Canadian Forces member MCpl. Joshua Roberts: (a) what information did the government possess that informed Lt Gen. Leslie’s initial explanation to MCpl. Roberts’ family at the repatriation ceremony that MCpl. Roberts was killed by gunfire from Afghans contracted by Compass Security; (b) what information did the government uncover subsequent to Lt Gen. Leslie’s explanation which resulted in the conclusion reached by the National Investigation Service (NIS) that MCpl. Roberts was killed by insurgent gunfire; (c) what information does the government possess that is sufficient to dismiss the statements by Afghans working for Compass Security that they fired their weapons during the firefight in which MCpl. Roberts was killed; (d) what information does the government possess that is sufficient to dismiss the statements made by Canadian and U.S. soldiers present at a roadblock a short distance away from the firefight that indicated they believed it was Compass Security personnel who fired on MCpl. Roberts’ unit; (e) how can the government consider the investigation to be closed and Compass Security completely exonerated when the forensic examination from the bullet that killed MCpl. Roberts was inconclusive; (f) what information does the government possess to explain how the bullet that killed MCpl. Roberts fell out of his body during transit; (g) as the medical officer who wrote the initial report into MCpl. Roberts death concluded that the direction of the bullet that killed MCpl. Roberts could not be determined, what information does the government possess that informed the conclusion in the NIS report that the bullet was fired from an insurgent position; (h) as the NIS report notes that Canadian soldiers came under fire from friendly call signs during the firefight in which MCpl. Roberts was killed, what information does the government possess which definitively rules out any role for friendly fire in causing the death of MCpl. Roberts; (i) why was the video footage from the helmet cameras of soldiers present during the death of MCpl. Roberts ordered erased before it could be analyzed as part of an investigation; (j) why was the family of MCpl. Roberts repeatedly told that they had to realize that an election was going on in response to their repeated requests for the release of information related to the death of MCpl. Roberts; and (k) is it the policy of the government to require families of Canadian soldiers killed in action to go through access to information mechanisms to obtain the official documentation, such as NIS reports or autopsy reports, into the death of their relative?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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.

Electronic Commerce Protection Act

[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.