Jim Pankiw

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 6th, 2001]

moved:

That Bill C-28, in Clause 11, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 7 the following:

“(6) A copy of each regulation proposed to be made under subsection (4) shall be laid before each House of Parliament before it is made.”

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 6th, 2001]

moved:

That Bill C-28, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 29 on page 3 with the following:

“multiplied by 4.3 per cent.”

That Bill C-28, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 39 on page 3 with the following:

“of a salary under the Salaries Act, 19.4 per”

That Bill C-28, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 43 on page 3 with the following:

“Senate, 9.8 per cent;”

That Bill C-28, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 46 on page 3 with the following:

“ment in the Senate 6.2 per cent;”

That Bill C-28, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 4 with the following:

“tion in the Senate, 6.2 per cent;”

That Bill C-28, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 4 with the following:

“3.1 per cent;”

That Bill C-28, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 4 with the following:

“1.9 per cent;”

That Bill C-28, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 4 with the following:

“Commons, 20.4 per cent;”

That Bill C-28, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 4 with the following:

“the House, 12.2 per cent;”

That Bill C-28, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 4 with the following:

“Commons, 5.4 per cent;”

That Bill C-28, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 29 on page 4 with the following:

“the House of Commons, 3.1 per cent;”

That Bill C-28, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 4 with the following:

“Commons, 10 per cent; and”

That Bill C-28, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 4 with the following:

“sons in the House of Commons, 4.2 per”

(Amendments Nos. CA-11 to CA-23 inclusive negatived)

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 6th, 2001]

Amendment No. CA-10.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 6th, 2001]

moved:

That Bill C-28, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 39 on page 2 with the following:

“(a) the Speaker of the Senate, 15 per cent;”

That Bill C-28, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 44 on page 2 with the following:

“20.4 per cent;”

That Bill C-28, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 3 with the following:

“Commons, 10.7 per cent;”

That Bill C-28, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 4 and 5 on page 3 with the following:

“the Whole House of Commons, 4.3 per cent; and”

That Bill C-28, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 3 with the following:

“mons, 4.3 per cent;”

That Bill C-28, in Clause 4, be amended by deleting lines 9 to 24 on page 3.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether it is within your ability to do this but of all my amendments to clause 4 there is only one on that I wish a recorded vote. If you wish to group the others and are able to do that it may expedite the process.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 6th, 2001]

moved:

That Bill C-28, in clause 2, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 1 with the following:

“commencing April 1, there shall be paid to”

That Bill C-28, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 15 and 20 on page 2 with the following:

“is equal to 44 per cent of the remuneration”

Mr. Chairman, the most significant amendment I have proposes that the salary increase for members of parliament and senators would be restricted to 2% as opposed to 20%. The rationale for that is that is what was proposed to the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

Furthermore, that future increases, which was my amendment to clause 1, would not be tied to the salary of the chief justice but rather would be the aggregate average percentage in the wage increases earned by members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. This is a fair reasonable approach and something I believe the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has said would be fair and reasonable.

My first question to the minister is, how can he feel that it is justified for members of the House to take a 20% increase in salary when those same members have failed to provide a salary increase to taxpayers in the form of a substantive tax cut? I think taxpayers will find the taking of a 20% salary increase to be offensive based on the fact that they themselves have not been given that type of an increase in the form of a tax cut.

My second question is, because the bill proposes to extend a stipend to chairs and vice-chairs of committees that heretofore has not existed, does the minister not view that as just another extension of the ability of the Prime Minister to exert influence and control over his own members? Of course one of my amendments would be to repeal that stipend.

My third question for the minister deals with the opt in clause. Does he not see that as somewhat political grandstanding? In effect, what that would do is set up a two tier salary system for members of parliament. Does the minister feel that some members of the opposition, who may choose to not opt in, deserve less salary than members of his own caucus? I am thinking in particular of the member who helps his constituents depending on whether or not they vote Liberal and the member who makes up allegations of racism in British Columbia.

Regrettably, my amendment, which dealt with changing the retroactivity to go back only to April 1 as opposed to January 1, was ruled out of order. I had to refer to it in general because there was not a specific clause to refer to. Does the minister not think that the retroactivity is excessive?

Finally, because some members are curious about this, I would like the minister to clarify the opting out provisions. If some members opt out, then seek re-election and are re-elected, would they remain opted out or would they be in? The bill does not seem to be clear on that. It states that elected members would be in, but what about members who previously were members?

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 6th, 2001]

moved:

That Bill C-28, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 8 to 15 on page 1 with the following:

“54.1(1) Subject to subsection (2), the remuneration reference amount is equal to the amount of the annual salary, as of April 1, 2001, of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

(2) The remuneration reference amount shall be increased each year beginning on April 1, 2002, by the aggregate average percentage in the wage increases earned by the members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.”

That Bill C-28, in Clause 1, amended by adding after line 15 on page 2 the following:

“(a) to members of Senate equal to 44”

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Could you please advise me as to which of my amendments you are ruling out of order?

[Statutory Instruments Act, May 30th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-355, an act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act (regulatory accountability).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce this private member's bill entitled, an act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act.

The effect of the bill is that all proposed regulations made by ministers would have to be laid before the House of Commons so that the appropriate committee could study them, conduct inquiries or public hearings and then report back to the House. In effect, it would improve the accountability of the regulatory making procedure.

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

[Computer Hackers, April 6th, 2001]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately amend the Criminal Code to create a separate category of offences and punishments for computer hackers and persons who wilfully or maliciously export computer viruses, both of whose activities disrupt the normal conduct of electronic business in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I will start my speech with a discussion about the Internet and personal computers.

Obviously we live in a world environment where technology is changing at an ever increasing pace. It is creating a lot of opportunities but it also is creating some problems as well.

The Internet is a great tool to use for research. Many people are now shopping on the Internet. E-mail of course is a very efficient and effective method of communication and is becoming increasingly popular. People do banking online. Many companies or individuals for various reasons host websites, which are great sources of information for people to access.

Furthermore, the use of computers in today's world is an absolute necessity. Businesses use them for data management and for accounting purposes. As members of parliament, we rely on computers extensively for our word processing and all of our communications efforts.

Because technology, computers and the Internet are so pervasive in our society and becoming increasingly relied upon, consumer and customer confidence in the case of people who do business online is being questioned. There are issues of privacy.

My private member's motion is designed to fill a void that currently exists in the criminal code.

When the Internet was first developed and its use expanded upon, I do not think a lot of the pioneers who were behind the development of the Internet and the entrepreneurs who broke ground in improving the way computers worked ever envisioned that the Internet could be used for such perverted and corrupt purposes. I am speaking partially about the fact that children in some cases are being targeted and lured into situations where they might be abused by sexual predators.

My motion seeks to specifically provide new criminal code provisions to deal with people who disrupt electronic commerce on purpose. I am talking about computer hackers who hack into computers in an attempt to steal or retrieve data or to simply cause a computer malfunction. One of the most terrible acts occurs when people wilfully and maliciously export computer viruses for the purpose of disrupting business and commerce.

As part of my research for my motion, I contacted a constable with the RCMP commercial crimes division. I asked how the police would deal with people who with premeditation and malice exported a virus. I asked if they exported the virus for wide dissemination or if they were targeting a different organization, would that be dealt with differently. One would think that different acts would have different consequences in terms of the criminal code.

The constable's answers were vague and he was not forthcoming. I told him that he was not giving me the answers for which I was looking. He told me that that was because there was a vacuum in the criminal code. He said they did not have the tools to deal with this. He informed me that in many cases people were charged under a section of the criminal code termed mischief to data. However, it was not specific and not targeted.

My motion seeks to have the government introduce a bill that would have specific provisions in the criminal code which the police could use to charge people who engaged in activities such as hacking or exporting computer viruses.

I hope I receive all party support for this motion. I am proposing that provisions be put in the criminal code. I have not delved into what specific crimes should be delineated or added to the code nor have I made any reference to what the penalties ought to be.

If the bill came before the House of Commons, it would receive second reading, go to committee and would come back to this place for report stage. There would be many opportunities for us to debate the specific charges and what the penalties associated with them would be. This is the appropriate place for that.

I would like to offer my opinion. The penalties associated with criminal acts of computer hacking and exporting of viruses ought to be quite severe. I see these as wilful acts of malice and an attack on personal property. I see these acts as no different from those of an arsonist or somebody who breaks into a home and robs it. The penalties associated with these types of activities ought to be in that type of category which would act as a deterrent to the crimes themselves. We currently do not have appropriate provisions in the criminal code for the police to deal with individuals who are engaging in these activities nor do we have appropriate deterrents.

I would like to state for the record that my constituency office in Saskatoon had a problem with a hacker. My staff had to establish what is called a firewall. I do not know the technical aspects of that, but it is a situation whereby a computer system is set up so nobody can hack into it.

The Anna Kournikova virus which hit earlier this year infected many members' computers. My staff in Ottawa informed me that my computer received 130 of the Anna Kournikova viruses. We should take whatever reasonable measures we can to prevent that type of thing from happening. I also have some resolutions of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police on such things as Internet luring and the exploitation of children, criminal activity involving Internet and sexual activities with young people and other regulations and enforcement provisions of Internet matters. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has recognized that there is a need to be filled.

While my motion is specific and restricted only to computer hackers and virus exporters, there are obviously other things that need to be addressed as well. However I believe it has a basis of common sense and practicality. I hope it will receive the support of all members of the House.

I also want to take this opportunity to say that I am fortunate that this motion was drawn. For the viewers watching who do not know how it works in this place, private members of parliament do not have the privilege of proposing legislation to the House, except through the private members' lottery system. While we can table bills or motions in the House of Commons, they simply sit there in a state of suspension for an indefinite period of time. Periodically a lottery is held in which members' names are drawn. If we are fortunate enough to have a motion or a bill drawn, we then appear before a committee and a select few of those bills are actually deemed votable.

While I am fortunate enough to have had that happen to this motion, a member should not have to rely on good luck or fortune to have a proposal such as this come before the House of Commons. We should look at reforming the system of private members' business.

As a private member, if I had an initiative, a suggested proposal or an amendment to legislation that I wanted to bring forward on behalf of my constituents, this would be an effective means me to do that. It would also be a means to hold the government accountable for the laws and rules. If I am not afforded the ability to do that, it restricts my ability as a member of parliament to act as an effective member of the opposition.

I submit to the House that while it may be politically expedient to try to restrict initiatives from coming forward, we all benefit if opposition members are afforded an ability to be as effective as possible. The ability to bring forward motions or bills is something that should not be restricted.

I think I have effectively covered the premise of my private member's motion which is the need to fill a void in the current Criminal Code of Canada and set out specific offences related to people who willfully disrupt electronic business and commerce in Canada. Their behaviour is very offensive.

I hope I will have the support of all members of the House to have the government bring forward legislation to fill that void and properly address what is a growing problem in Canada.

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, April 6th, 2001]

With respect to the Canada Foundation for Innovation and its Board of Directors: ( a ) what are the names of those organizations and/or persons represented on the Foundation's Board of Directors; ( b ) what is the criteria for being selected to the Board; and ( c ) what is the duration of service for Board members?

Return tabled