Mike Lake

[Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act, September 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as this will be the last time I will be on my feet for a question, I will reiterate what I have said.

It sounds like the other parties in the House support the legislation. We have gone through the committee process. There is very little difference in this legislation from what was in the previous legislation. We have heard commentators from all three parties over the last few weeks talking about trying to make things work in the House. This is the perfect opportunity for that. We have discussed the legislation. We have expedited the process through committee to get the legislation passed for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act, September 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to Bill C-28 in which there is small mention of the do not call list.

I will concur with the hon. member's comments about the do not call list in the sense that a great number of Canadians have signed up for it. I believe 33% have registered their land lines. A smaller percentage have registered their mobile phones.

I point out that notwithstanding comments by other members of the House in regard to the do not call list, surveys have pointed out that a majority of the people who have signed up have indicated that they have received less marketing calls as a result of doing that.

I hope we will have the support of that hon. colleague.

There are differences in the legislation to the do not call list. In putting this legislation forward, we studied some of the things that have or have not worked in other countries. We have built the legislation by taking the best legislation from other countries in the knowledge that this will make a significant impact on the amount of spam coming out of Canada and make us a world leader in a good way in that regard.

[Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act, September 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there was much about the actual anti-spam legislation in that statement. We learned that he was a big fan of Reg Alcock, on which he may stand alone in the House, but I am not sure.

He called me a minister, which I really appreciate, but I am actually not at this point.

With regard to the bill and the comments he was making regarding the digital economy, I would assume that his statement means he will stand with the government as we continue to move forward on a digital economy strategy.

His party, of course, has not stood with the government on any of the successful economic initiatives we have moved forward in this Parliament over the last several years. However, we do look forward to a change in direction from the New Democrats. Perhaps they are embracing a new economic agenda, which would be new certainly for them, as it relates to the digital economy.

As it relates to this bill, I will use the opportunity while I am on my feet to talk about a few things that the bill will actually accomplish. It will address the issue of identity theft, where we are seeing the theft of personal data and bank information from computers. It will address the issue of phishing, which has been talked about by several members in the House today, where we see online fraud, luring individuals to counterfeit websites. It will address the issue of spyware, where we get things implanted on our computer that we do not want that are looking into our personal information on our computer.

[Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act, September 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting question. I am not exactly sure what the question was.

I assume that the hon. member does not really have a real question, because of course, the bill went before committee and went through a rigorous committee hearing. Members from all parties had the opportunity to hear from witnesses. Of course, we passed the bill through the committee stage and again at third reading here in the House.

My hope is that we will be able to move this bill along. Based on the statement the hon. member made, I assume that we will have the cooperation of his party.

I can speak a little about the impact of the bill. Of course, as has been mentioned in the hearings before, the cost of spam to Canadian businesses and consumers is tremendous. We are talking about $3 billion a year in terms of lost productivity and all the various effects of spam, malware, spyware, and all the different things associated with spam. It is an area where Canada unfortunately is actually a world leader, so to speak.

Other countries that have implemented measures similar to what we are implementing here have seen a significant and immediate drop in their rankings in terms of spam originating from their countries.

For example, Australia was rated in the top 10 in terms of spam origination. Almost immediately after passing legislation, it dropped to, I believe, number 17 in the world.

I think we can agree that this is a significant problem. We hope to have the cooperation of all parties of the House.

[Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act, September 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on second reading of Bill C-28, Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act, or FIWSA.

The online marketplace represents a major segment of Canada's economy, with some $62.7 billion in sales in 2007. That same year, the Information Society Index report published by the International Data Corporation projected that worldwide electronic commerce would exceed $9.6 trillion by 2010.

We have now reached the year projected by the Information Society Index and we must think in terms of a digital economy that will soon surpass $10 trillion in revenue. Let me put this in context. That is over six times the size of the Canadian economy and it continues to grow. Those economies that do not tap into the phenomenal growth of online commerce will miss out on opportunities for prosperity and quality of life in the 21st century.

While the digital economy is growing, so also grow the threats that can undermine it. In 2009, the annual security report released by MessageLabs Intelligence estimated that nearly 90% of worldwide email traffic was spam. These unsolicited commercial electronic messages impose costs on consumers and businesses. They tie up bandwidth, they tie up time, and when they contain malware they impose real threats on consumer confidence in the digital economy.

Canada is one of only four countries in the OECD that does not have laws governing spam. We are the only country in the G7 not to have regulations fighting the problems associated with spam, but we are about to change that. In fact, with this bill, Canada will move from laggard to leader. We will be at the forefront of global efforts to fight spam and related online problems.

The bill before us addresses unsolicited commercial electronic messages as well as installation of malware and interference with electronic transmissions. It contains safeguards for consumers and businesses against illegitimate electronic marketing practices. This bill takes a multi-faceted approach to protect consumers and businesses. It implements a clear regulatory enforcement regime that is consistent with international best practices.

When passed into law, this bill would be enforced by three organizations.

First, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, would be able to investigate and take action against the sending of unsolicited commercial electronic messages, the altering of transmission data and the installation of computer programs on computer systems and networks without consent.

The second organization tasked with enforcing this bill is the Competition Bureau, which would address deceptive practices and representations online. This includes false or misleading headers and website content.

Finally, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner would be able to take measures against the unauthorized collection of personal information by access to a computer found to be contrary to an act of Parliament and the unauthorized compiling or supplying of lists of electronic addresses.

Further, both the CRTC and the Competition Tribunal would be given authority to impose administrative monetary penalties, or AMPS, on those who violate the respective provisions of this bill.

These AMPS are significant. The CRTC would be able to impose fines of up to $1 million per violation for individuals and $10 million for businesses. The Competition Bureau would apply to the Competition Tribunal to seek AMPS under the current regime in the Competition Act. That regime allows for penalties of up to $750,000 for individuals, with $1 million for subsequent violations, and up to $10 million for businesses, with $15 million for subsequent violations.

When it comes to stopping spam through these kinds of penalties it is clear that these government agencies will have very sharp teeth. Indeed, where penalties of this nature have been applied in other countries, the amount of spam originating from those countries dropped significantly.

The point I would like to emphasize is that we do not need to turn to police forces to put a stop to spam and other related online problems. We can very effectively use the existing specialized agencies.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner would use its existing tools and enforcement framework to enforce the provisions of this legislation. The Privacy Commissioner's powers to cooperate and exchange information with her international counterparts under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act would be expanded. The enforcement bodies would be able to share information and evidence with their international colleagues so that together international partners would be able to pursue spammers.

In addition to the work of the three regulatory agencies, businesses and individuals would do their part to put an end to spam and related online nuisances. Under this bill, they would have the private right of action against those who have violated the law.

Finally, let me say a few words about the importance of education and awareness to ensuring that individuals and businesses take the right steps to combat spam. In support of this bill, the government will promote education and awareness through the efforts of a national coordinating body.

We will also create a spam reporting centre, which consumers and businesses may contact to report spam and related threats. The spam reporting centre would collect evidence and gather intelligence to help the three enforcement agencies with their investigations. Also, the spam reporting centre would track and analyze statistics and trends in spam and other related online threats.

To conclude, Bill C-28 would make Canada a world leader in anti-spam legislation by providing a more secure online environment for both consumers and businesses. I hope that the House will move quickly to send this bill through the system. I urge hon. members from all parties to join me in supporting it.

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his rant. I have a couple of questions. I am reading the How They Vote Website. I notice the hon. member has more words spoken in the House than the next three members combined. Therefore, I am tempted to ask him if he knows we do not get paid by the word in the House of Commons, but I will not ask him.

Instead, I will ask about a couple of interesting quotes that I read recently. One comes from the Liberal leader. He wrote this in The New York Times magazine. He wrote, “politics is theater. It is part of the job to pretend to have emotions that you do not actually feel”. We have seen that with this opposition day motion and some of the speeches we have heard from the Liberal side today.

Another quote is by the son of a former Liberal prime minister, the member for Papineau who talked about his leader saying:

—he’s a little all over the place sometimes. He says this, he says that — he contradicts himself. For me, he’s not someone with...maybe he has the intelligence, but maybe not the wisdom required.

Maybe this opposition day motion is an example of this. Could the member comment on that?

[Automotive Industry, June 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that question has nothing to do with government business, but this government has shown unprecedented support for the auto sector.

With regard to the economy, I would point out that a number of commentators and experts have talked about Canada's performance. One of those experts is Christine Lagarde, France's finance minister, who said:

I think...we can be inspired by...the Canadian situation. There were some people who said, “I want to be Canadian”.

We do not even know how the Liberal leader feels about that statement.

[Automotive Industry, June 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, of course that is a question to be asked of GM, not of the Government of Canada.

While I am standing I would point out that the actions taken by this government saved thousands of Canadian jobs in the auto sector. In fact, due to the actions of this Canadian government, we have created over 300,000 new jobs in the last year.

We are applauded across the world by every industrialized country for our actions taken. In fact the IMF, the World Economic Forum and the OECD have called Canada a star. The Economist said that we are an economic star. The OECD said that we shine.

[Government Programs, June 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this is just another example of the Liberals' approach over the past four years.

We announced an effective program with worthy recipients, in this case 47 that met the criteria. The Liberals then identified the next 10. They complain about them not getting funding. Of course, if we funded those 10, the Liberals would find the next 10 and complain about them not getting funding.

That is the problem with the Liberal Party, whose leader sees his only two responsibilities as tax and spend.

[Afghanistan, June 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, media reports indicate that recently, as part of their ongoing intimidation campaign in Afghanistan, Taliban insurgents systematically executed a seven-year-old boy they accused of being a spy. If these reports are true, it is horrific, disgusting, and shocking beyond words and says more about the Taliban and its disregard for human life than virtually anything we have seen or heard yet.

These are the people we are battling in Afghanistan. These are the people who are killing our brave Canadian men and women in uniform.

Canada's continuing objective is to help Afghans build a stable and secure country based on the fundamental values of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

Let us never forget who the real enemy is in Afghanistan, and may our courageous soldiers know that this government and all Canadians stand behind them every step of the way.