Marc Garneau

[Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act, November 23rd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my presentation, it was the Liberal Party in 2004 that initiated the process of looking at the very serious problem of spam. As my hon. colleague mentioned, this problem has huge cost implications for the entire planet. It is rather surprising that it has taken five years for this bill, which initially was Bill C-27, to reach third reading.

It is clear as well that Canada has not been ahead of the pack in taking the initiative to bring forward this bill. We have been a laggard on this issue. Canada is the last country in the G8 to bring forward a bill like this one. We are among only four OECD countries that do not yet have legislation on spam. The current government has been in power for almost five years and it has not given the issue of spam, with its huge cost implications, the necessary priority it should have been given.

[Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act, November 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand today in third reading to speak about Bill C-28. I was involved as a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology on the bill, which deals with a very important matter. It was known as Bill C-27 at the time and has now progressed to being Bill C-28, and it is very encouraging to see that we are now at third reading.

First of all, I would like to stress that we must act quickly to resolve the massive problem of unsolicited electronic messages, more commonly known as “spam”.

Let us go back to 2003, when the problem was not nearly as bad as it is now. A report at the time concluded that businesses spent $27 billion on expenses related to the IT personnel needed to deal with this plague.

Who of us in this chamber have not experienced that maddening moment when we have opened up our emails and discovered that a fairly large number were unsolicited, were trying to interest us in something we were really not interested in, were trying to sell us something? Who of us have not experienced the time it has taken to get rid of these unsolicited emails? Of course many of us have now had to purchase software to try to control so-called spam, and this is adding to our annoyance with the whole thing. Even today, the ingeniousness of some people still manages to circumvent even the best spam software, and we still occasionally receive spam messages even with that best software.

Spam represents, according to the experts, 60% to 80% of all email traffic around the world. Clearly this situation is a major challenge for consumers, businesses, governments and Internet service providers. Yet the issue at hand is not limited to spam and, therefore, legislation must also remedy the use of false or misleading statements that disguise the origins or true intent of the email, the installation of unauthorized programs and the unauthorized collection of personal information or email addresses.

Whether spam comes in the form of unsolicited emails, viruses hidden in attachments—which is often the case—phishing, misrepresentations or the use of fraudulent websites, the government must take action to ensure that Canada does not fall behind.

How can we be the only G8 country and one of only four OECD countries that has not introduced legislation on spam? No one can deny the magnitude of this problem that goes beyond the simple annoyance of receiving unsolicited emails.

This practice also has huge costs for users in terms of the cost of receiving emails and text messages, as well as in terms of the users' storage capacities. Furthermore, this interferes with computer systems, which can have consequences on businesses, governments and individuals. When spam floods and completely paralyzes systems, these practices have more serious effects than anyone could imagine on the way society functions.

We often do not realize how vulnerable we are, which is why we must act quickly. In this case, there is no point reminding members that when the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament at the beginning of the year, he ruined our chance to act quickly.

The Liberal Party of Canada has not only always been concerned by this serious problem but has been very proactive on this matter. In fact the Liberal government established an anti-spam task force in May 2004 that held public consultations and round tables with key industry stakeholders. This Liberal initiative led to the 2005 anti-spam action plan for Canada, which was a call to action.

The plan comprised specific recommendations, requiring the implementation of legislative measures that: prohibit the sending of unsolicited commercial electronic messages; prohibit the use of false or misleading statements that disguise the origins or true intent of the email; prohibit the installation of unauthorized programs; and prohibit the unauthorized collection of personal information or email addresses.

Bill C-28 and the initiatives announced by the Conservative government followed through on the recommendations made by the Liberal anti-spam task force of 2005. However, it is worth mentioning that Bill C-27, as originally submitted by the current government, contained a number of flaws. Fortunately, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology did outstanding work and proposed recommendations that significantly improved the bill. With these amendments and with further changes recently proposed in Bill C-28, we believe the bill is achieving its main objectives.

Bill C-28 introduces legislation to deploy most of our recommendations, and therefore we are pleased to say that the government has finally decided to act on the recommendations brought forth by our task force. This said, care must taken and we will continue to monitor the legislation closely to ensure that it does not stifle legitimate electronic commerce in Canada. It is important to emphasize that the fight against spam is much more than just legislation.

The industry committee also discussed how important it is that the government take responsibility for a cohesive approach once Bill C-28 is passed. What good is this law if the authorities overseeing it cannot take action because they lack resources? What specifications will be given to the various entities that will enforce and implement the law?

The minister must submit a comprehensive enforcement plan outlining the roles of these entities, such as the CRTC, the Competition Bureau and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. The fact is that with this many stakeholders, Industry Canada's role as coordinator will be extremely important. We must give this department the proper tools, both from a human resources and an organizational perspective.

In short, it is essential that there be a coordinated approach involving industry partners, affected organizations and concerned stakeholders in order to implement this bill, and it is in this context that the government needs to take action. It needs to provide the mechanisms to ensure that this legislation is enforced effectively. Enforcing this type of law is complex. It needs to be reviewed periodically so that we, as legislators, can cover all eventualities, such as technological advances.

I should also point it that it is becoming essential and urgent to coordinate our legislation with various countries and engage with the international community in order to harmonize measures to achieve agreed-upon objectives. Canada must now take its place and become a leader in this area.

The Liberal task force also recommended that resources be put toward co-ordinated enforcement of the law, since we all know that legislation will only go as far as the capacity and willingness to enforce the law. Hence it is of the utmost importance that the government put appropriate resources into enforcement, in its determination to work with other nations to stamp out spam.

It is also imperative that the government dedicate resources to clearly establish codes of practice. The Liberal Party of Canada will, without fail, be on task to assure that these elements are not forgotten as the process moves forward.

I am confident that we are on the right track. The members of the Liberal Party will continue to work to ensure that this bill is in line with the expectations of the people.

[Men's Health, November 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, today is International Men's Day and some members on all sides of the House are looking a little more hirsute than usual. That is because we are in the middle of the month of Movember, growing moustaches to raise awareness of prostate cancer.

Yesterday one of Canada's leading advocates for men's health, Dr. Larry Goldenberg, was on Parliament Hill and this week he received the Order of Canada. We can improve men's health in Canada by adopting preventive health strategies, promoting healthy living and other measures.

I admit that the comments made about my efforts to look more distinguished with this new moustache have not all been flattering. However, sometimes in life, we have to show some courage.

I hope all members will join with me in celebrating International Men’s Day, as we salute our colleagues who are fighting prostate cancer under their noses.

[Business of Supply, November 18th, 2010]

I thank my colleague for an excellent question.

Certainly the issue of fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft to replace the very old Buffalo aircraft is one that has been kind of hidden from the scene by the government.

Obviously everybody recognizes the important of search and rescue, but at one time the rumour was certainly there that again DND, the defence department, had made its decision. It had its favourite search and rescue fixed-wing aircraft, which was from another country. It did not really want to have a competition, even though there are Canadian companies that would like to bid in this. Therefore, we do not really know what the situation is--

[Business of Supply, November 18th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. The cost of the aircraft is based in part on the method used to calculate it. Are we simply talking about the units or other equipment for the aircraft? The simulators, spare parts and infrastructure that go along with the purchase of aircraft also have a price tag. Naturally, the opposition does not have access to the figures, which the government is carefully guarding. Therefore, I cannot give a definitive answer the member's question about why the price differs according to the country.

[Business of Supply, November 18th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I will answer by reiterating what I said in my speech. First, we have a responsibility to the taxpayers of this country. We can, through an open bidding process, secure the best price for the Canadian taxpayer and not spend more than is absolutely necessary for new fighter jets.

Second, I can assure the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse that the guaranteed spinoffs for Canada and Quebec's aerospace industry will be just as good as if not better than what is being offered in the F-35 purchase, which offers absolutely no guarantees. Open bidding is the best way to proceed.

[Business of Supply, November 18th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I first want to thank my colleague from Beauséjour for his excellent contribution to this debate. I am happy to add my own contribution for several important reasons.

First, I am a former member of the military and I know how the government should ordinarily go about purchasing equipment. Second, equipment purchases often have a huge dollar value, and as a responsible government, we must ensure that we spend taxpayers' money wisely, especially when we have unprecedented budget deficits and a growing national debt under this Conservative government.

It is irresponsible to spend taxpayers' money unwisely, which is clearly what the government is doing in purchasing these F-35 fighter jets. My party certainly recognizes that Canada needs to replace the CF-18s, which will reach the end of their useful life by the end of this decade. It is our duty to make sure our military personnel are properly equipped for the demanding work they do. I hope everyone is in agreement on this.

So how should we proceed? Certainly not in the way this government has decided to proceed.

There is a very well established procedure within the Government of Canada when it comes to purchasing equipment. I was myself involved in using this procedure during my career as an engineer in the Canadian navy.

This acquisition procedure is a tried and true process, which has proven over time to be the best process when it comes to making expensive government purchases

It is not unlike the process that we ourselves, perhaps more informally, use as simple citizens when we make purchases, particularly big purchases, in our own lives from time to time, such as buying a new car or putting a new roof on our home. Obviously most Canadians are careful when they spend their own money.

Therefore the question is: Why can this government not be careful in spending the taxpayer's money?

Let me take the House through the normal acquisition process, and I am sure it will agree with me that this is the proper way to replace our current fighter jets.

First, we have to recognize that our fighter aircraft are aging, the technology they use is outdated, maintenance costs are increasing, and so on. In short, it is time we replaced them with more modern equipment. As well, the roles our fighter jets are expected to play may have changed. We therefore need a new model that can handle these new roles.

This brings me to the second step in the process: defining roles. Yes, we need fighter jets, but why? What are their missions? The answer may seem obvious, but we also need to ask this question: who is the enemy? We have to recognize the primary role these jets play, which is to help us protect our territory, but we also have to consider our alliances with NORAD and NATO, in particular, and the missions we could be asked to take part in because of those alliances. In short, why do we want these fighter jets?

Third, once we have defined the roles we expect of our fighter jets, we undertake the task of defining the technical requirements for this new fighter aircraft, its performance capabilities: how fast it can fly, its endurance between refuelings, its capability to operate with other aircraft from other nations, the amount of payload it can carry, particularly weapons payloads, its manoeuvrability, its survivability and so on.

Once that is defined, we go shopping. We put out an RFP, a request for proposals, and we wait for the bids to come in. We typically involve three government departments, PWGSC that manages the contract, DND that defined the initial requirements and then goes out and evaluates the bidders, and finally Industry Canada that addresses the issue of industrial and regional benefits.

Let me take a bit of time to talk about Industry Canada's role because it is a very important one for Canadians to understand. Industry Canada has a responsibility that could be summarized as follows: when Canada spends billions of dollars offshore purchasing equipment like fighter jets, we also negotiate important offsets with the winning contractor.

Those offsets are in fact guaranteed, and they require the winning contractor to provide business to Canadian companies in an amount equivalent to the value of the contract. This is allowed to occur over a certain period of time, and typically Canada tries to ensure some regional distribution whenever this is feasible.

What is also important to remember is that these offsets can offer the opportunity to transfer intellectual property to Canada, thus building capacity in our aerospace industry. This transfer of intellectual property can be particularly important for the in-service support, or ISS, of the equipment we are purchasing.

When the Liberal government purchased the CF-18s in the early 1980s, it was far-sighted enough to insist on the transfer of intellectual property that would allow Canada to undertake its own maintenance of the aircraft during its lifetime. As we all know, lifetime maintenance costs are usually greater than the initial acquisition costs. This was a very smart move on the part of the then-Liberal government, because it allowed a Canadian company to build expertise in the maintenance of a top-of-the-line fighter aircraft.

Let us go back to our process. Once the bidders on a contract are evaluated, both in terms of performance requirements and the offsets they are prepared to offer, we are then in a position to select the best aircraft for Canada, the best aircraft for the defined missions, and the best industrial and regional benefits for the Canadian aerospace industry.

Why are they the best? Why is this the best way of going about it? In one word, it is because it is a competition. By definition, when a competition is held, the best deal is found. Everybody knows that.

Let us now look at what is happening with the current government and its intention to purchase the F-35. Did it hold a competition? Clearly not. First the Minister of Industry told us in 2008 that we would hold a competition. Then earlier this year we had the Minister of National Defence tell us, yes, the government was going to hold a competition based on the high-level requirements that were presented in the spring of this year.

Then on a quiet summer morning in July, the government announced that it had held a competition based on a high-level requirements list it issued in the spring and that the F-35 was the clear winner.

In actual fact the Minister of National Defence contradicted this on many occasions when he said in this House of Commons that the real competition took place about 10 years ago, back in the late 1990s, a competition that we all know was not a Canadian competition but a competition run by the Pentagon to choose its new joint strike fighter.

Were other jet fighter manufacturers invited to respond? No. Even though companies like Boeing, which makes the Super Hornet, or Dassault, which makes the Rafale, believe that they meet the requirements issued by the government last spring.

Now we have a fighter jet that is still in development and that could cost us a fortune to maintain. The Pentagon is worried. The Norwegians are worried. The British are worried. The Dutch are worried. The Australians are worried. Here is an excerpt from ABC News on November 5.

Australia's biggest defence purchase is under a new cloud over reports the Pentagon is preparing to reveal a cost blow-out and even more delays with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The US-based program has been beset with problems and the Defence Department is putting it through an extensive and thorough review. Critics of the aircraft say each one will easily cost Australia more than $100 million.

There are many other quotes that I could give, from respected authorities who have also corroborated the fact that this airplane is not yet out of the woods. It still has further development to undergo. It still requires further design modifications, which raises the possibility that this aircraft could be very expensive to maintain throughout its life.

That is the situation, and I hope it is not as dire as some critics of the program have made it out to be. What is clear, though, is that this government's message that everything is just great rings false.

We have reason to be concerned about a government that has an annoying tendency to award military contracts without holding an open competition. The Auditor General talked about this in connection with the Chinook helicopters.

The government is being irresponsible with Canadian taxpayers' money. We have pointed this out. We must go out for a fair competition.

[National Defence, November 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government is acting very irresponsibly in refusing to call for bids.

First, it could drag Canada into one of the worst fiascos in the history of federal government expenditures. Second, there is no proof that these planes meet our real needs. Third, the complexity of the planes could lead to huge, unpredictable maintenance costs.

Why does the government still refuse to follow normal procedure and call for bids?

[National Defence, November 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the purchase of the F-35s is becoming more and more embarrassing. The Pentagon, the British, the Dutch, the Norwegians, all are concerned about soaring costs. While other countries are deferring their decision to purchase F-35s, Canada is going full speed ahead in the opposite direction. Moreover, some experts are concerned that the F-35 is an unaffordable plane that does not meet Canada's real performance requirements.

When will the government show us why only one manufacturer is able to meet our requirements?

[National Defence, November 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, even the Republicans in the United States and the Tories in Britain are reassessing their F-35 purchases. Canadian taxpayers are the only ones who cannot count on their government to protect them from billions of dollars in cost overruns. Worse still, Canada is going to lose out on precious economic spinoffs because the Prime Minister refuses to launch a competitive bidding process.

Our military personnel and all Canadians have the right to know that our defence budget is being spent properly. Out of respect for our taxpayers, will the government launch a competitive bidding process?