Alan Tonks

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, May 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has referred to the inequity that exists with respect to the manner in which the RCMP is capable of doing its own negotiations, in a stand-alone labour relations context. He has also mentioned the fact that in balancing that out, the government, in order to validate the position it is taking that the RCMP must not have those same rights, is using the argument, I take it, that the RCMP, through the federal government, has entered into provincial contractual arrangements where it is now the last line of defence in many of those provinces that do not have a disagreement and it will use that in court to justify the position that it has taken in that appeal in denying the RCMP those universal standards of labour rights.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on whether that is a fair position to take, in the interests of equity, in the interests of it being perceived as protecting the public.

[Electronic Commerce Protection Act, May 8th, 2009]

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.

[Electronic Commerce Protection Act, May 8th, 2009]

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.

[Electronic Commerce Protection Act, May 8th, 2009]

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.

[Electronic Commerce Protection Act, May 8th, 2009]

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.

[Controlled Drugs and Substance Act, March 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of the member for Vancouver East in the overview she has given with respect to coming to grips with the issues and whether it is a more liberal approach to the issue of illicit drugs, a higher regime in terms of what this bill suggests, or whether it is to be more lenient.

I was not going to ask a question but her statement that prohibition has driven people to become criminals has touched a sensitive nerve with respect to an issue that is evolving in Ontario and Quebec. Over 50% of cigarette sales are illicit in Quebec and Ontario and it is getting worse. Biker bangs are taking over the delivery system. They are going to a dial a smoke system, which is an open and flagrant violation of the existing legal regime. Children are being exposed to the health implications and cost implications. Even though we have a legal system for smokes in Ontario and Quebec, that is what is happening.

I would like the member to compare that to what she is putting forward as a resolution. I would like her to tell me if she thinks the premise she is operating from, given the experience with respect to what is happening in Ontario and Quebec, is the right approach to the availability and use of drugs.

[Climate Change Accountability Act, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to thank the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North for bringing forward this bill.

I have had an opportunity very briefly to talk to the member. I know that he is serious, sincere, and committed in mobilizing every resource possible to deal with the serious issue of climate change. I know that he believes that in this bill, as his party does, that they are putting forward the mechanism that will challenge the government to in fact enunciate by setting targets a strategy that conforms with the Kyoto protocol, and that in fact will serve as a legacy for future generations.

In that statement of mission, I think that the member and his colleagues are to be congratulated because in that mission we should all very emphatically state that we support the objective. In fact, we can see that the science tells us irrefutably that climate change is going to be probably the most significant threat to civil society globally in the near future.

Even this morning, we were reminded of the juxtaposition of the towns and villages in Nova Scotia that would be affected with just a small temperature change. That cataclysmic effect will be felt around the globe. Therefore, the seriousness of the bill and its relevance to climate change cannot be denied.

However, there are other issues at this particular point we also should keep in mind. The government, through its members, has spoken very eloquently with respect to the most recent action plan statement as a stimulus menu of those areas through research, commercialization and technology and is starting to seriously confront climate change with a template for action.

I appreciate that there are those who doubt what the impact is going to be. In fact, as we look at the very near past many have said that the government de facto had said that we have withdrawn from the Kyoto commitment and others have said that we are the only country in the world to have signed on to the treaty to have unilaterally declared we will not use, for example, the 1990 baseline, or at worst, we will not even try to meet our targets.

That has been suggested and it will be for the government to have the opportunity to illustrate very clearly that it is not true. On this side, we hope it is not.

I just came from the natural resources committee where in a non-partisan way the committee is looking at part of a strategy to deal with climate change across the country from sea to sea to sea with what is called a comprehensive investment in technologies that will be integrated and that will seriously reduce the threat of climate change and contribution to the targets that Canada implicitly at least has said that it is dedicated to.

The members of the committee have been, I think, tremendously impressed with the engineering and practical implications that this has on the future economy in terms of creating jobs, in terms of creating high value added investments, and at the same time dealing with climate change. In other words, we are combining the most important ingredients of sustainable development, economic growth on the one hand, and meeting our environmental challenges together, and not one to sacrifice the other, but both together marching down and meeting our climate change targets.

The reason we are having a bit of difficulty with this bill is we have already been on record, through two acts that were designed as a template to deal with climate change.

Prior to Bill C-311, in its last sitting, this Parliament approved the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act and the Federal Sustainable Development Act, which are superior to this private member's bill. If they were seriously used as the template for the mission that has been the subject of Bill C-311, those two acts have within them the mechanisms to deal with the issues and to measure the accomplishments that we discussed at our natural resources committee.

The worst thing in any organization is to have a goal that is very complex in a very large country like ours, which is to achieve sustainable development in our climate change objectives, but never get the feedback and measure what we have accomplished. If we do not stand back every so often and take account of what is happening, then we have this doubting Thomas approach that nothing is being accomplished, which is not altogether true.

A careful reading of those two acts would show us that the opportunity for measurement is encompassed with them. This private member's bill has suggested that we should have periodic reports, with the baseline targets of 1990 and the target of 2050, from either through the Auditor General or through the round table on the economy and development. In fact, those mechanisms are being used under Federal Sustainable Development Act and the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act.

I have sat on the environment committee when the Auditor General, for example, has reported department by department. She has reported on how the department has met its sustainable development objectives. The committee has an opportunity to suggest what remedial action is required.

At some point we try to separate the politics of environmental sustainability and our strategies to deal with climate change and accurately position us in a non-partisan way with respect to what our mission is and how we have been dedicated to it.

In bringing this bill forward, I know it was not the intent of the member to detract or add a political dimension to it. When we do not use the acts we have passed, which are affirmations of what we believe, then we place ourselves in the position where we may marginalize the issue because of the politics.

I know this is not what has been intended, but if the alternative course had been taken that there are shortcomings to the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act and the Federal Sustainable Development Act, they should have been the subject of the bill, not one that appears to transplant them.

At this point we will be observing very closely what is happening in Copenhagen with respect to establishing those targets and we will support those. However, this bill marginalizes the two acts that are already affirmations of the mission we have to deal with climate change.

[Environmental Enforcement Act, March 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member has talked about climate change, but I would like to get back to the actual bill.

This bill introduces a fine regime, a penalty regime that is designed to impact very strongly on those who pollute. However, fines have been the price of doing business. Is there anything else in the bill that would make those who pollute pay and it would not just be written off as a matter of being the price of doing business?

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure members of the House are quite moved by the very valid and comprehensive overview that the member has given on behalf of his constituents and those suffering in the forestry industry.

Is the member aware, though, that, in its last sitting, the natural resources committee conducted an exhaustive series of hearings and came out with a report that was to set the stage for the summit that the member is calling for? It gives an overview historically of what happened with respect to the sector. It talks about an action plan, such as the procurement approach that the member is suggesting.

I have more of a leading question. Would the member take a look at that report? After looking at the report, he may be satisfied that that would be the foundation for the summit that he is asking for and that the government really can get on with the action that is in that report.

[March 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for introducing this bill in the effort to find a balance. I reflect on the debate we had between generic and non-generic drugs.

My question is similarly intended. The individuals who have come to see me who are opposed to this bill have indicated that in one particular respect, that is, the investment with respect to software proprietary rights and so on, there should be some consideration given to the manufacturers that have made those investments. Then there is the commercialization issue that comes into it. Could the member express how that balance similarly can be achieved through this bill?

The issue of training and safety has been brought forward. The member has talked a little about that, but does he think that training and safety will be placed at risk in terms of protection for the consumer?