2009-05-08

Government Orders
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 7 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. 
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): 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.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say that we have a bit of reluctance over here to believe that the Conservatives will actually enforce this bill, no matter how good we make it through the committee process. However, it seems to me that our saving grace in this bill, in terms of enforcement, is the private right of action, the fact that if the government is slow on doing the enforcement, the public has a right to go to the courts to try and get action that way.
I know there are certain provinces, such as Quebec and Manitoba, for example, that have class action legislation. I think Ontario might as well. Could the member confirm that the class action provisions would be applicable in this situation, or would the person have to deal primarily on an individual, case by case basis? Could there be a class action lawsuit under this legislation?
[Interjection]
Alan Tonks: 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.
Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his very clear enunciation of the evil empire of spam. We are all familiar with it. Do we understand the full nature of what we are taking on in terms of the ability to enforce the requirement of the CRTC to investigate many of these potential complaints? The enforcement around infractions with very large penalties suggests that this may be very litigious. Perhaps the hon. member could comment on this.
[Interjection]
Alan Tonks: 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.
[Interjection]
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, I have a further concern about the cost and confusion that this legislation may cause to small businesses in the country. 
I do not know how much consulting the government has done on this issue. I am assuming that it has gone through more than one Parliament and that there has been a reasonable amount of consultation, but I am just not sure how many small businesses will know. Even when the government does consult with a large group like that, it is going to miss a lot of people.
I am worried that some people may be caught up through not having bad intent but may be violating the act because they do not really understand all the rules.
One of the members mentioned yesterday that if a business sold a hard drive one year and then responded three years later would that be evidence of an ongoing business relationship or would that be considered spam and be actionable by the person who received the spam email against the business.
These are very important issues that have to be worked out. I do not think we want to make this really onerous on small business. We all know what we want to accomplish, but sometimes we can ensnare groups that we really do not want to and cost the economy a lot of money in the process.
I wonder if the member could deal with that particular issue.
[Interjection]
Alan Tonks: 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.
Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House today and speak to Bill C-27, a bill that looks at providing new prohibitions and enforcement measures as well as changes to existing laws regarding spam.
As one of the youngest members in the House, this is a bill that I feel very strongly about. That is why I stand here very proudly and state our position as the New Democratic Party, asking for the support of the House to make sure that this bill goes to committee in order to be discussed, in order to have the proper consultation it deserves, and in order for there to be time to look at such complex legislation.
The reason why I connect it with my generation is because I am part of a generation that has truly grown up dependent on technology. Not only are we dependent on it for our professional lives, but also our personal lives. It is the tool that brings our generation together. 
As we sit and spend an inordinate amount of hours on the Internet, we are frequently faced by the nuisance that is spam, phishing, Trojan horses, and whatever other forms of Internet nuisance there might be. I would also like to point out how problematic it is.
 On a more humourous note, I know my colleague yesterday recited some examples of spamware and how ridiculous they are. Whether it is the solicitation of funds from another part of the world, usually unfortunately taking advantage of people's sympathies and empathies toward areas of the world that have undergone crises, or it is ridiculous notes pertaining to people's personal lives and the assumption that we know who is talking to us and who wants to meet us, and all of these kinds of things. But, in fact, once again it is taking advantage of people's dependence on the Internet to connect in terms of their personal life as opposed to getting out and actually meeting people in the real world.
Beyond the humourous, however, we get to some of the really serious problems that emerge from spam and the kind of pollution that enters our in-boxes, our Facebook sites or our BlackBerries on a daily basis. There is the nuisance in terms of time and efficiency that it takes away from us as we go through our emails and spend valuable time erasing ridiculous messages that we receive.
There are the nuisances that businesses go through in terms of erasing spam emails that they receive or else defending perhaps themselves. This is also pertinent to individuals when it is believed they are the ones who have sent the spam messages when in fact it is someone else causing havoc.
Then there is the even more serious element which is the criminal element and the theft that occurs as a result of spam messages. Identity theft is something that we in Canada are very concerned about. I recall quite a bit of media attention when there was what seemed to be a surge in identity theft.
Also, the theft of financial information is connected to identity theft. It is found that many times such spammers, as they are called, or people who take advantage of others on the Internet, usually take advantage of people who are not familiar with technology, whether it is the elderly or people who are less savvy when it comes to Internet technology. That is highly problematic for so many reasons.
What makes it even more disconcerting for members in the House is Canada's inaction when it comes to spam, when it comes to Internet pollution, and when we see so many people being taken advantage of. I particularly want to bring out the extent to which not only Canadians are being taken advantage of but also people all around the world as a result of spam activity that originates here in Canada. I found out that Canada ranked fifth worldwide as the source of web-based email spam, trailing only Iran, Nigeria, Kenya and Israel.
A research study from Cloudmark, a leading provider of anti-spam software, recently presented data on the origins of spam emanating from web-based email providers, such as Hotmail, Gmail and Yahoo, at an international anti-spam conference in Germany. It found out that we are fifth in terms of truly polluting the web world and taking advantage of people, not only in our own country but around the world. We need to be ashamed of that. We take pride in being advanced in the technological age and in our efficiencies with respect to our technology. There is a serious problem in that we have gone so far ahead in our technology that our legislation is lagging behind. We have a lot of people who are taking advantage of that gap and who are acting in very malicious ways and criminal ways as well.
There have been many examples of people who have taken advantage of Facebook sites. I know that is a site on which many politicians in the House spend a great deal of time, networking with their constituents. I am not sure if they have spent enough time to see some of the spam messages pasted on people's Facebook walls in a very public manner, with which I am sure none of us would want to be associated. However, we never know when spammers are going to take advantage of the work we do and our reputation and create havoc on our Facebook sites.
These are the kinds of things that could hit very close to home in the work that we do as political representatives.
I go back to the piece about Canada being negligent when it comes to being proactive in preventing such intense span activity originating from our country. I see the reference to Canada being a lawless spam haven. Two hundred billion spam messages come out of Canada every day. How could we fathom such extensive numbers, knowing very well that this has been an ongoing discussion in our House? I understand the Liberals brought up the first legislation regarding spam in 2003. We are now in 2009. That is six years.
We know there is far more use of the Internet, both in our country and around the world. Where has the federal government been in terms of implementing legislation that would both protect us and certainly clear our name as allowing this kind of activity to take place in our country while turning a blind eye?
I want to go back to talk a bit about some of the important prohibitions that Bill C-27 provides.
The primary prohibition, known as the basic anti-spam provision, notes:
 No person shall send or cause or permit to be sent to an electronic address a commercial electronic message unless 
 (a) the person to whom the message is sent has consented to receiving it, whether the consent is express or implied; and 
 (b) the message complies with subsection (2). 
There are number of provisions as part of subsection (2). It enforces, for example, the importance of three key requirements, form, consent and jurisdiction.
The law establishes form requirements for those who send commercial electronic messages, for example, and identifies the people sending the message. It provides contact information of the centre and also has an unsubscribe mechanism, which is so important as many of us receive numerous emails from the same source and find it difficult to know how to stop from receiving them any more.
The second prohibition that is part of Bill C-27 is referred to as the anti-phishing provision and involves the alteration of the transmission data on electronic messages. It is designed to deal with phishing, where the electronic message appears to go to one place but goes somewhere else. It states:
 No person shall, in the course of a commercial activity, alter or cause to be altered the transmission data in an electronic message so that the message is delivered to a destination other than or in addition to that specified by the sender, unless the alteration is made with the express consent of the sender or in accordance with a court order. 
The third prohibition is referred to as the anti-spyware and botnet provision. It is designed to deal with the increasingly common method of delivering spam that infects a user's computer and uses the Internet connection to send millions of spam messages.
The provision states:
 No person shall, in the course of a commercial activity, install or cause to be installed a computer program on any other person’s computer system or, having so installed or caused to be installed a computer program, cause an electronic message to be sent from that computer system, unless the person has obtained the express consent of the owner or an authorized user of a computer system or is acting in accordance with a court order. 
For this to apply, there must be a Canadian connection to the activity. As we have just heard, there is no shortage of Canadian connections to activity, given that we rank number five on the world charts when it comes to infecting other people's Internet connections with spam.
The intent of Bill C-27 is a very good one. For many years we have been talking about the importance of being proactive in this legislation to protect Canadian citizens, consumers and businesses and to prevent the rest of the world from having to deal with the garbage, in many ways, that emanates from our country.
I know my colleague, the member for Timmins—James Bay, an advocate for efficient and fair use of Internet technologies, has spoken many times on the importance of this issue. I would also like to recognize the work of my colleague from Windsor West, the critic on this file, who has worked very hard at committee to ensure that this is a constant priority.
In that sense, this has been an ongoing discussion. What is holding us up? Given that this is such complex legislation, we need to have a proper consultation with stakeholders. We recognize that in 2004 there was some consultation that took place under the Liberals. We also know what happened shortly after that. We have been in a series of minority governments, clearly unable to properly deal with such important legislation.
However, we believe there is enough good faith in the House to recognize that this is a priority and that we can no longer pay lip service to it or leave it on the shelf to be discussed at another time.
Going back to committee is the best way to go about this. For example, there was concern raised yesterday in the House about some provisions that were included in the bill, which came directly from the do-not-call list bill.
 On the do-not-call list, many colleagues and Canadians throughout the country have pointed out how problematic it has been. People have, in good will and good faith, signed their names to a list, expecting that they will no longer be harassed by telemarketers and different companies. However, what we did not know was spammers and others on the net were purchasing these lists or finding them and doing quite the opposite, targeting people even more vehemently, the exact people who had specifically requested not to be called.
We see that some of the do-not-call list provisions are in this bill, which we would like to be part of a broader debate. There was some confusion yesterday from members across with respect to whether these kinds of provisions would be part of the final reading of Bill C-27. That immediately raises a red flag and indicates the importance of bringing this bill back to committee so we can ensure that each part of it is pertinent, that it reflects lessons we have learned from the past in terms of efficiency and fairness and that the final product will actually make a difference to Canadians.
We also like to point out the importance, as my fellow colleague from Elmwood—Transcona did, of consulting properly with small businesses. In many cases, small businesses depend a great deal on email communications through the work they do in advertising and contacts with their clients and consumers. We need to ensure that this bill does not penalize them in the kinds of emails they send out and that there are provisions to protect them. We need to understand the work they do.
If a small business does send out an email sometime after a purchase has been made or an agreement has been reached, will that be recognized as spam? Based on numerous emails consumers may receive from a business, will they view that as spam and file a complaint against that business, putting that business in a very difficult situation for actions that are quite legitimate?
We also like to point out that political parties send copious amounts of emails. We use Facebook. We use the tools available to us. Will we be on the short end of facing some difficult situations if people complain about the emails we send out? What kind of balance can we find in that area?
Canadians recognize that by no means are our parties immune to scandals. We see so many in the news and, even more recently, attached to numerous prior political incarnations in the House. We want to ensure that communications, which are so important for democracy, from our political parties are recognized as such. That is why it is so important to bring this bill back to committee so we can have these kinds of discussions.
The next point I would like to make is on enforcement. We find some of the measures around enforcement problematic. We all know it is fine and well to come up with a great bill that looks at punitive measures to render people accountable. However, if we do not have the proper enforcement, what are we doing here? The bill designates the CRTC to engage in such kinds of enforcement activities.
I think we all recognize that the CRTC does very hard work, but in many cases it is stretched thin in taking responsibility for the files and departments it already has under its administration, let alone bringing in such an important and extensive responsibility and adding it to its load. It is not that it would not be the best to deal with this. However, we need to look at proper provision of resources in finances, technology and human resources to ensure the CRTC can truly do the work it has been mandated to do.
 I also recognize that the Privacy Commissioner is part of this. Does she have enough resources to undertake this kind of work?
When we talk about such important points as identity theft, the theft of financial information and ensuring that Canadian citizens and businesses can use the Internet safely, these are some pretty serious points. We need to ensure that the people who will be responsible for ensuring the rules and the legislation are followed have the abilities to do so. It is incumbent upon us and the government to ensure that this is the case.
Finally, I want to bring attention to the importance of protecting consumers. This bill is fundamentally about protecting Canadians and Canadian consumers. As New Democrats, we want to believe that. This is a very positive intent. This kind of legislation needs to take place, but we want to ensure that the consultation takes place as it should, that it is implemented properly and that it is enforced properly as well.
 For that reason, we look with distress at the fact that our motion on credit cards and protecting consumers in that respect has not been heeded by the government. Numerous measures that we have proposed for employment insurance changes have not been heeded by the government.
Motions have been passed by all three opposition parties, might I add, that look out for the benefit of consumers.
I know that hon. members on the other side of the House represent many consumers, and I hope they will listen to us and bring this bill back to committee to ensure it makes a difference for us as Canadian consumers.
Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Churchill for her cogent comments on an extremely serious piece of legislation for the protection of consumers. 
I have noted that despite the fact that the government is supposed to be paying serious attention, it is not actually going to be an offence in the bill. It is designated as a mere technical violation, which raises a lot of issues about whether this is being treated seriously.
I would like to ask the hon. member whether she shares my concerns with the limitations on the right to intervene. Because the bill specifically limits the right to intervene in any proceedings to only the three commissions, by nature of statutory interpretation that could be argued to exclude all other parties, including all other people who may be impacted. This goes to the earlier question about class actions. In my jurisdiction class actions are extremely narrowly defined. I think that should be looked at by the committee.
 I note the commissioner may disclose information but is not required to, either on any violations they have identified or on any actions taken. There is also no certainty provided by the government. It has not tabled its enforcement strategy with its bill. Does it fully intend to charge and try all violators, or is it planning to issue mere warnings? If it does take these actions, are they going to be made public, for example, in a public registry?
[Interjection]
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the legal background of the member for Edmonton—Strathcona would assist in identifying some of the gaps in this legislation, gaps that sorely need to be recognized.
I particularly note the point she brought up in terms of the severity of punishment in this case, recognizing that in many cases they are criminal actions requiring appropriate action. The piece on enforcement is something I outlined, as well as many others. There is really no point in talking about how we are going to move forward on this if there is no proper strategy or resources in terms of enforcement. 
I recognize that the government has received a great deal of flak on this file and it has proposed to view it as a priority. We have not seen it in the most recent throne speeches. For that reason, the NDP is insisting that it ought to be recognized as a priority and brought back to committee to have important questions and gaps addressed.
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, I noted yesterday that the member for Pickering—Scarborough East from the Liberal Party made a very thoughtful presentation on the whole subject. He pointed out that he had brought forward a private member's bill as far back as 2003, which indicates he was interested in the subject at that point in time, but he was unable to get the Liberal government of the day to do anything about it. For many years now I have heard him comment on high gas prices and other consumer issues. I know he is a real ball of fire and that he is very active in Parliament, in caucus and so on.
If we could not get this done under the Liberal government, and we certainly have not been able to get it done under the Conservative government, what is holding this process up?
[Interjection]
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona, for this important point, which comes down to some fundamental political questions.
With the increased use of the Internet in our society by Canadians, this is a really big issue. There has been a lot of noise around moving ahead on this by both the Conservative government and the previous Liberal government, and in fact nothing has been done.
We are seeing the attempted hurrying of a bill that is absolutely complex and that requires proper consultation, examination and debate in committee, where people can focus on it in much more depth. We could go from there in order to ensure we are actually making a difference for Canadian Internet users and businesses.
 As I noted, it would clear Canada's name in being ranked fifth in the world for spam pollution originating from our country, a reputation we could all do without. We could truly clear our name.
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, I was struck by the comments my colleague made that Canada is in fifth place in spam production. I was also struck by the other countries that are engaged in it as well. It suggests that there is probably spam legislation out there that has forced spam producers into different areas.
The electronic media is a global medium with the ability to move spam origination from one place to another. Therefore, I am curious about this legislation in terms of whether the legislation will target the person or agency who benefits from sending the spam rather than perhaps the originator of the spam message. If spam is being sent from Nigeria, it could well be coming from Canadian companies or Canadian concerns and simply bypassing the legislation.
Perhaps the member could talk a little more about those details and assure Canadians that this is actually going to work for us.
[Interjection]
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of interest from the New Democrats in the House to make sure this issue is dealt with properly. I would like to thank them and those from our party who have worked on looking more closely at this legislation for the interest they have shown. They are truly speaking up for people who live in their communities and their ridings.
As my colleague pointed out, the truly shameful position we hold on the world stage in terms of spam begs some serious action, but it also begs some questions we need to be asking about how we are going to deal with spam activity.
As the member pointed out, spam activity from one country might actually be originating in our own country or from another country. These are the kinds of scenarios we need to be looking at in our discussions in committee. We need to be asking experts in this field. We need to be asking people who are victimized as a result of this kind of work. 
We can also look at some of the examples in the United States. Our neighbours to the south are clearly implementing far more progressive legislation in a number of areas.
 I hear guffawing every time we talk about the Obama administration. However, we should really take note of some of the things the Americans are doing. Certainly in terms of anti-spam legislation, they are going after individuals. They are able through their enforcement mechanisms to find the individual who is more than likely part of an agency and is in fact responsible for this activity.
Let us not reinvent the wheel here. There are people who are doing some pretty progressive things, and they are following up with the appropriate enforcement.
 Why do we not stand up, clear our name and take some proactive action from our side as well?
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question for the member for Churchill. I have noticed in the legislation that while individual private persons who are harmed by spyware or spam have the opportunity to initiate proceedings before the commission, there is no provision in the legislation to allow the court to award costs or require the accused to pay for the costs of initiating those proceedings.
I am wondering whether the member would think that might be advantageous.
[Interjection]
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Edmonton—Strathcona for looking at some of the specifics of how the enforcement and the punitive measures would actually come to be realized.
Certainly the question of costs incurred is a very serious one. We see the volume of 200 billion spam emails a day coming out of Canada. We are talking about some pretty extensive action, which would probably result in a great deal of activity, court costs, whatever kind of costs that would need to be incurred as a result of responding to such activity and taking action.
We need to be asking some of those questions and making sure the punishment is squarely centred on the people who are infesting our email inboxes and spamming us.

Statements By Members
Canada DayMs. Lois Brown (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this year's Canada Day parade in Aurora, Ontario in celebration of the founding of our great nation is expected to be the largest yet. One individual in particular deserves much of the credit for this success.
Ever since Aurora held its first parade in 1969, when the late Bobby Gimby sang his hit song Canada, the town of Aurora has locally been dubbed as “Canada's Birthday Town”. 
When the parade was cancelled two years ago, a very patriotic Canadian swung into action. Overnight, Sher St. Kitts has nearly single-handedly transformed the Aurora Canada Day parade into one of York region's most important events. Last year, over 10,000 citizens were treated to a sea of red and white as over 65 spectacular entries marched along the street.
With the help of Sher St. Kitts and her “red hot Canadians” parade committee, Aurora will once again, on July 1, be rightfully defending its title as “Canada's Birthday Town”.
Contraband TobaccoMs. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday was the one-year anniversary of the release of the RCMP's contraband tobacco enforcement strategy.
The RCMP notes that the growing trade in contraband tobacco challenges health objectives to reduce tobacco consumption; provides easy and unmonitored accessibility to tobacco by Canada's youth; requires increased criminal justice spending; supports other criminal activities, such as drug and gun trafficking; and takes away hundreds of millions of dollars annually from the government.
The illicit trade in tobacco products presents a serious threat to health and public safety in Canada.
Over a year ago, the government's own police service recommended a multi-jurisdictional and multi-departmental solution to reduce the tide of contraband tobacco. Nothing has been done. 
When is the government going to heed its own advice and keep illegal cigarettes out of the hands of children?
Multiple Sclerosis Awareness MonthMs. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ): Mr. Speaker, May is Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month, and the carnation campaign is on now. The carnation campaign, which was initiated by a Quebec chapter in 1975, is now in its 33rd year.
The campaign's goal is to raise awareness of the disease and the organization's mission, which is to provide financial support for multiple sclerosis research and to “enable people affected by MS to enhance their quality of life”. 
Multiple sclerosis is an insidious and unpredictable disease that can affect its victims' hearing, memory, vision, balance and mobility. It can have emotional and financial effects on its victims. The incidence of this disease in Canada is among the highest in the world, and women are three times as likely to be affected.
Let us all work together to bring hope to Canadians by buying these flowers, which symbolize love, fascination and distinction. 
InfrastructureNiki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Churchill, representing northern Manitoba, there are numerous times that I have asked where the federal government is on behalf of the people I represent.
However, I am pleased with the recent building Canada fund announcements, and I want to denote that pleasure. These announcements involve the partnership between the federal and provincial governments in finally committing the funds that so many northerners deserve in terms of their infrastructure.
We have heard announcements in terms of Thompson, Flin Flon, The Pas, Nelson House, Cranberry Portage, Island Lake, the RM of Kelsey, and Wabowden. However, the work is not done.
Northerners, first nations and rural communities are asking where the federal government is when it comes to infrastructure that is fundamental to their well-being.
Where is the federal government in terms of commitment to all-weather road infrastructure? The provincial government has taken initiatives in providing road infrastructure to our eastern first nations. 
Where is the federal government in terms of rural--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca.
Fort McMurray--AthabascaMr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when people ask me what we have to offer in my riding of Fort McMurray--Athabasca, I am very proud to say that northern Alberta takes pride in having a Canadian heritage river, the Clearwater River; the largest lake in Alberta, Lake Athabasca; a protected UNESCO world heritage site, Wood Buffalo National Park; one of North America's oldest trade routes; one of the largest natural bison herds in the world; the last wild nesting area of the whooping crane; falcon nesting sites; salt plains; the largest non-desert sand dunes in the world; the best fall blueberries one has ever tasted; and, in my opinion, the hardest working people in Canada.
Northern Alberta is not only oil sands and the economic engine of Canada, it is also breathtaking, pristine, protected Canadian wilderness, a place that my constituents and I are proud to call home.
Acadia UniversityHon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Acadia University in Wolfville, Nova Scotia will be marking the 125th anniversary of its first female graduate during convocation ceremonies on May 10 and 11.
In 1884, Clara Bell Marshall became Acadia's first female graduate and only the second woman in the entire British Commonwealth to be granted a degree. In honour of that occasion, all of the honorary degree recipients at spring convocation this year at Acadia will be women.
The Toronto Acadia Alumni Women's Committee recently held a networking and fundraising event with proceeds going to the Clara Marshall Raymond Scholarship Fund, to which donations are most welcomed, I will remind my colleagues.
Women of Nova Scotia have made an important contribution in the founding and building of Acadia. In fact in the early 1800s, it was local women who knit great quantities of mittens to sell and raise funds to buy materials and supplies to aid in the construction of the college.
Congratulations, Acadia, on your contribution to equality for women.
Please join with me in congratulating Acadia's 800 new graduates and congratulating the new president, Ray Ivany, and the chancellor, Arthur Irving, and the entire Acadia community.
VE DayMr. Greg Kerr (West Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, since 1945, May 8 has been known as Victory in Europe Day, or VE Day. It is the day our allied forces triumphed over adversity, the day that marked the end of the second world war in Europe.
It was a day of great celebration. However, the joy was tempered by the memory of fallen comrades and preparations for the final struggle in the Pacific. When British Prime Minister Winston Churchill went on the air to declare Victory in Europe Day, he told listeners, “We may allow ourselves a brief period of rejoicing, but let us not forget for a moment the toil and efforts that lie ahead”.
More than one million courageous servicemen and servicewomen left their homes, their families and their friends to serve Canada during the second world war. Tragically, 47,000 would never return.
The Government of Canada remains steadfast in its commitment to Canada's veterans. We encourage Canadians to honour and respect the tremendous sacrifices and achievements of our men and women who have served and who continue to serve today. We are here today because of them and we owe it to them. 
Canada remembers VE Day.
Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceMr. Luc Desnoyers (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on April 6, the Ontario Superior Court issued an important ruling declaring that section 96 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations was unconstitutional. According to the judge, section 96 substantially interferes with the freedom of members of the RCMP to engage in a process of collective bargaining. 
Yesterday, the federal government once again turned its back on members of the RCMP when it said that it would appeal this decision.
This is the same government that, in the last budget, tried to take away, wholly or partly, federal public servants' right to strike and to cancel their wage increases. So it is not at all surprising that the government is once again interfering with the rights of workers. 
HeroismMrs. Shelly Glover (Saint Boniface, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House today to pay tribute to a true hero.
On Sunday afternoon, Faron Hall was sitting on the banks of the fast-moving Red River when he saw what looked like a teen jumping from the nearby Provencher Bridge. Then he heard a shout for help. He saw a head bobbing up and down in the water and realized that without his help, the person who had fallen into the icy waters might perish.
Faron Hall is a homeless man who has lived and slept on the banks of the Red River for several years. Sadly, his younger sister, Kristi Hall, was stabbed to death in 2007. But, despite his own personal problems, Faron Hall values life above all, so, without any hesitation, he cast off his backpack and raced into the frigid river to make sure the life of the young boy was saved. Faron Hall grabbed the boy and struggled to pull him to the shore safely where another bystander, Wayne Spence, assisted in pulling them ashore. 
Today Joseph Mousseau is alive and has his whole life ahead of him because of the remarkable unselfish and quick actions of Faron Hall, who lives an unpretentious life. I think I can speak for everyone here today and say that Faron Hall is a true hero.
Gilles FournierMs. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise here today to pay tribute to Gilles Fournier, who was recently honoured with the 2009 Prix de la Justice award. The first resident of Laval to win the award, he is the president of DIRA-Laval, an organization dedicated to protecting and defending the rights of seniors who have been the victims of violence, abuse or neglect.
Since its founding in 2002, DIRA-Laval has handled over 1,250 cases of abuse, violence or neglect involving seniors. Mr. Fournier's involvement in ensuring the respect and protection of seniors' rights has earned DIRA-Laval recognition from outside its municipal borders, since many cities have turned to that organization for help.
On behalf of everyone in Laval, thank you, Mr. Fournier, for everything you do for the people in our community and for seniors everywhere.
Leader of the Liberal Party of CanadaMr. Steven Blaney (Lévis—Bellechasse, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the new Liberal leader, who heads a political party that brutally trampled on Quebec by unilaterally repatriating the Constitution, seems to have a regressive attitude toward Quebec.
In his book Blood and Belonging, he says that he speaks French from France, and not with a Quebec accent, as if Quebec French were a dialect and a Quebec accent were a sin.
The member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore also says that to give Quebec a seat at UNESCO would be embarrassing for Canada and would make Quebec a laughing stock. On the contrary, our country's founding fathers dreamed that Quebec, like all the provinces, would assert its authority and sovereignty in its own areas of jurisdiction. 
Fortunately, with the support of Conservative members from across the country, Quebec has a strong voice at the United Nations in science, culture and education, and it speaks with a Quebec accent.
Winnipeg General StrikeJim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, I would like to stand today to recognize the 90th anniversary of the Winnipeg general strike which is considered the biggest and most traumatic general strike in Canada. 
Ninety years ago workers banded together and demanded fairness. Tradesmen, labourers and workers from nearly every walk of life walked off the job. 
All in all, nearly 22,000 workers left work to protest the poor working conditions and low wages. The strike paralyzed the city and had a nationwide effect. It officially began on March 15, 1919 and ended on June 26, 1919.
 The strike left a powerful legacy in the minds of working Canadians. In 1920, 11 Labour candidates won seats in the Manitoba legislature. Four of them were strike leaders.
In 1921, J. S. Woodsworth, a Methodist minister turned striker, became the first independent Labour MP elected to Ottawa. He would later become the first leader of the CCF, the forerunner of today's NDP.
TaxationMrs. Kelly Block (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party and their leader continue to show they have no clue how to help Canadian families during this economic downturn. The Liberal leader said recently that he “will have to raise taxes”. We thank the Liberal leader for his honesty.
Now we know the Liberals want to hike taxes on Canadian families during a global recession. We also know that they want to increase the GST. We know that they want to impose a job-killing carbon tax. We also know that they want to take away the universal child tax benefit. The Liberals and their leader seem to like taking money out of Canadians' pockets.
Would the Liberal leader stand in the House and finally come clean with Canadians? Which taxes would the Liberals raise? By how much would they raise them? Who would be forced to pay these higher taxes?
Canada-European Union Economic PartnershipMr. Claude Guimond (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this week, negotiations for a Canada-EU economic partnership began. This agreement, which goes beyond the typical characteristics of a free trade agreement, would have a greater impact on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, including the mobility of labour and the question of procurement.
While Quebec is taking part in the negotiations, it is because Brussels, the EU capital, insisted, and not Ottawa. This regrettable fact, which can only suggest that this government does not understand Quebec's role, leads us to believe that Brussels understands what it means to respect jurisdictions better than some members of the federal government.
In the context of these negotiations, Quebec must be at the negotiating table, because, for one thing, the matters at issue come under Quebec's jurisdiction. The Bloc Québécois will ensure that Quebec plays more than a minor role and that it gets a real seat, not an ejection seat, as it had with UNESCO.
Ted ReynoldsHon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all colleagues in the House, I want to acknowledge with sadness the passing, on Wednesday, April 29, of one of Canada's broadcasting legends, Ted Reynolds.
A B.C. native and Vancouverite, Ted's career with CBC Sports began in 1956 and spanned five decades. He called play by play for 23 different sports on television and radio, and covered marquee events including the Olympics, the Commonwealth and Pan-Am games, the Grey Cup, and four royal tours.
Ted was the first host of the Vancouver Canucks telecasts for Hockey Night in Canada on CBC when the Canucks joined the NHL in 1970. For his outstanding contribution to Canadian broadcasting, Ted was a two-time recipient of the Doug Gilbert Media Award, a member of the B.C. Sports Hall of Fame, the 2003 recipient of Sports Media Canada's Achievement Award, and a 2007 inductee into CBC's Sports Hall of Fame.
I ask all members of the House to join me in celebrating and acknowledging the life and contributions of one of Canada's great sports broadcasters, Ted Reynolds.
TaxationMr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the Conservatives are the only ones they can trust to manage the economy during this financial crisis. Our economic action plan has measures in it that are stimulating the economy and putting more money back into the pockets of Canadian families. Already with this plan we have reduced taxes by $20 billion. 
This is in stark contrast to the Liberals, who last weekend reaffirmed their eternal commitment to raising taxes on Canadians. At their recent convention, the Liberals once again adopted a job-killing carbon tax policy which would devastate agriculture in my riding. We also know they want to increase the GST and end the universal child care benefit. 
To make things even worse, the leader of the Liberal Party recently announced that he will have to raise taxes. He cannot keep hiding the details of this tax hike policy from Canadians. When will the Liberal leader come clean with Canadians, tell them which taxes he will raise, by how much he will raise them, and who will be forced to pay those taxes?

Oral Questions
EmploymentHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in January, the government promised 190,000 jobs. So far, the Conservative record is a net loss of 320,000 jobs. The only progress, and that is despite the government, is in the category of self-employment. In other words, Canadians are left to fight this recession on their own.
Do the Conservatives still stand by that pledge of 190,000 jobs? That would mean a net increase of more than half a million jobs from where things stand today. Is their promise still operative?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are obviously very pleased with the April job numbers that were announced earlier today. It shows that our economic action plan is having a positive effect, helping to create and maintain jobs.
It also indicates that we must stay the course. What would be absolutely devastating to Canadians and our economy is the Liberal leader's plan to raise taxes. It would choke any possibility of a recovery. It would kill new jobs and it would punish hard-working Canadians, especially those who are creating their own jobs so they can avoid a Liberal payroll tax increase down the road.
Employment InsuranceRalph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the minister lives on fiction and fancies. The Conservatives are grateful for small mercies, but more than 320,000 families are still without hope. For many, the problem is getting worse. The jobless rate today is up in St. John's, Quebec City, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton and Abbotsford. In some places, like Kitchener, St. Catharines and Windsor, unemployment has reached double-digit levels.
Why will the Conservatives not take at least some of the pressure off hard-hit families by letting more of them qualify for employment insurance? What is wrong with that?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, this government has made adjustments to employment insurance to allow more Canadians to collect employment insurance while this economy reaches some tough times. We were pleased that many jobs were created last month, and we are more committed than ever to fight hard to create more jobs and a better economy.
What would be absolutely devastating is if the Liberal leader had his way and would raise taxes. That would kill the recovery and punish Canadians. It is not something this side of the House would ever allow.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, it is that side of the House that broke its promise on income trusts and put a 31% tax on the retirement savings of 2.5 million Canadians. The government has been told that it is wrong by the Conference Board, the C.D. Howe Institute, the TD Bank and even provincial Conservatives of Ontario.
Let me ask this: Last September, the Prime Minister promised to make self-employed Canadians eligible for employment insurance. Since self-employment is apparently the government's only strategy, when will it keep the promise to make EI benefits available to the self-employed?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, in one breath, the member for Wascana belittles those people who create their own jobs, employ themselves and reach out to others. Now he seems to do a U-turn.
What is absolutely essential is that Canadians know that the Liberals want to raise taxes. Tax freedom day comes two weeks earlier since this Prime Minister took office. The member for Wascana and the Liberals want to turn the clock back and go deeper into Canadians' pockets. That will kill jobs and hurt Canadian taxpayers. Those of us on this side of the House will not allow it.
Mrs. Alexandra Mendes (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, employment numbers released today highlight the importance of self-employed workers in our economy. In many cases, self-employed workers depend on a very small number of contracts to make ends meet. In the current economic situation, there is no guarantee that these contracts will be renewed. Many self-employed workers may find themselves in unstable situations.
When will the Conservatives allow self-employed people to contribute to employment insurance?
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue, CPC): Mr. Speaker, governing means looking ahead. Now is not the time to create an atmosphere of uncertainty in Canada by raising all sorts of taxes, as the Liberal leader has suggested. Canada's economic action plan, which is designed to stimulate the economy and create jobs, includes measures to support those who collect employment insurance. First, we added five extra weeks of benefits. Second, we extended the work-sharing program by 14 weeks and froze contribution rates.
Alexandra Mendes: Mr. Speaker, the government still has its head in the sand when it comes to problems with employment insurance.
We are in the middle of a full-blown crisis, and more and more people are becoming self-employed because there is a shortage of regular paying jobs.
On page 13 of the Conservatives' last election platform, they promised to let self-employed workers participate in the employment insurance program.
When will they acknowledge that they have not kept their promise?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, our economic action plan is beginning to bear fruit. That is very good news. Statistics prove that the trend is reversing. Over 39,400 jobs were created in Canada, including 22,000 full-time jobs in Quebec.
The unemployment rate is stabilizing, and we will continue to work toward the goals in our economic action plan because it has been shown to be very effective.
The EconomyMr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since October, 321,000 jobs have been lost in Canada, two thirds of them in manufacturing, construction and natural resources. This sad reality shows just what a poor response the Conservative budget is to the current crisis. That is why the Bloc Québécois voted against the budget. 
Will the government wake up to the seriousness of the crisis? Unemployment is at its highest level in seven years. Will the government table a real action plan this time?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, we have always remained confident, unlike the Bloc Québécois, which tells its horror stories to whoever will listen.
We have invited all the economic stakeholders to work with us for months, and thanks to the concrete measures our government has put in place, the Canadian economy has been recovering since April.
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives need to realize how urgent the situation is. The Bloc Québécois has made proposals to improve employment insurance, stimulate investment and employment and help Quebec and the provinces with their recovery plan.
Do the Conservatives not understand that if they wait until the fall, it will be too late?
The time to act is now, and what is needed now is a recovery plan that includes the Bloc's proposals.
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, governing means planning, and we are continuing to implement our economic action plan. It is a very bold plan, and it is getting results.
Yet the Bloc Québécois voted against that plan.
Employment InsuranceMrs. Josée Beaudin (Saint-Lambert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 1.5 million people are currently unemployed in Canada, and there are only 600,000 employment insurance recipients. This means that about six out of ten unemployed workers are not receiving benefits. This is proof that we must improve access to employment insurance. 
Why does the government refuse to set the eligibility threshold at 360 hours for everyone, which would give more people access to employment insurance, and would stimulate the economy at the same time?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, again I remind the House that the Bloc Québécois voted against our economic action plan. The very purpose of this plan was to stimulate the economy and create jobs.
In addition, there are measures to support employment insurance recipients. First, we increased the number of eligible weeks by five, and we also added 14 weeks to the work sharing program and froze the premium rate. These are excellent measures for employment insurance recipients.
Josée Beaudin: Mr. Speaker, although young people represent only 16% of the labour force, 28% of unemployed workers are under the age of 25. But they are the ones who have the toughest time qualifying for employment insurance because they need to have worked sometimes up to 910 hours.
Will the government understand that a threshold of 360 hours for everyone would be fair to young people and would be an effective way to stimulate the economy?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, we have invested in training the labour force so that young workers are better trained for the future, and they are paid to take that training.
The facts speak for themselves. Statistics Canada reported that in April we started to turn the corner, and that not only is the unemployment rate stabilizing, but new jobs are also being created across Canada. 
The Bloc voted against all these measures.
The EconomyMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is Canadian workers who are bearing the brunt of the government's conservative ideology. If it is not lowering corporate taxes, it is hell-bent on driving down the wages of Canadian workers. It proved it yesterday. Auto workers have already given huge concessions, yet the Conservatives are ordering them to give up even more or get no help at all.
GM workers need a solution that is fair and equitable. Why is the government not advocating for a balanced approach for these workers who need help?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the government's economic action plan is putting more money into the economy. We are cutting taxes. That has a positive effect. We are making major investments on infrastructure in every corner of this country. 
At every stage of the way we can count on the NDP to not look at the plan and to vote against it, and that is an absolute disgrace.
AbitibiBowaterLibby Davies: Mr. Speaker, it is not just workers that are getting squeezed by the government. It is also retirees.
A Quebec Superior Court ruled yesterday that AbitibiBowater can cease paying pension liabilities, putting pensioners at the back of the line. Yet at the height of the crisis this same company thanked its CEO with a whopping $17.5 million pat on the back.
These workers have paid into their pensions for years, and now they are behind the banks and the hedge funds.
When will the government commit to protecting the retirement savings of Canadians?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, we respect provincial jurisdiction, and obviously it is a real concern for any Canadian when they have challenges in their economic circumstances.
That is why, though, it is absolutely essential that our government take a balanced approach, that we continue to cut taxes and put more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians.
This government has come forward with many initiatives to cut taxes, particularly for senior citizens, particularly for those relating to retirement income, such as pension splitting. Those initiatives are tremendously important.
What we cannot do is change the course and do as the Liberal leader would have us do, raise taxes and take a bigger bite out of hard-working Canadian families.
Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP): Mr. Speaker, at the height of the crisis in the forestry sector, AbitibiBowater decided to reward its outgoing president with a large cheque for $17.5 million. The government did absolutely nothing to put a stop to excessive bonuses in the public sector, and it certainly has no intention of doing so in the private sector.
When will the government stand up and protect Canadian workers and their families, and put their interests first, before the interests of their friends on Bay Street?
Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, unlike the member's party over there who voted against the budget, an economic action plan that actually helped Canadians, we have put in place a proactive approach dealing with pensions.
However, I remind the hon. member that she should be speaking to her provincial colleague, because AbitibiBowater has a provincially regulated pension plan.
Foreign AffairsHon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government repeated the mantra that Abousfian Abdelrazik is on a UN watch list that prevents his return home. This watch list, however, expressly authorizes Canada to repatriate Mr. Abdelrazik, and the UN has made it clear that it is the government's own decision and not the watch list that is preventing Mr. Abdelrazik's return.
Why is the government continuing to breach the charter, violate Mr. Abdelrazik's rights and compound that parliamentary felony by misleading Parliament on the facts and on the law?
Mr. Laurie Hawn (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member opposite that Mr. Abdelrazik is on the resolution 1267 list as an individual associated with al-Qaeda. 
The UN resolution 1267 Al-Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee was established for the purpose of overseeing the implementation of sanctions imposed on people who are associated with terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, terrorists such as those who perpetrated the horrific acts of 9/11, which killed 25 Canadians.
This government strongly supports the fight against terrorism and takes seriously its responsibility for the safety and security of its citizens as well as our international obligations under the United Nations.
This matter is currently before the courts. We cannot comment further.
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, the only reason this case is even in court is because the government refuses to honour its obligations under the charter and refuses to protect a Canadian citizen. Canadians have a right to know why this government is not protecting its citizens and why it refuses to accept the findings of its own security services. Mr. Abdelrazik has nothing to hide.
Why is the government shirking its responsibilities and what is it trying to hide?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Abdelrazik's case is a complex matter. It began under the watch of the previous Liberal government.
Mr. Abdelrazik is on the United Nations Security Council resolution 1267 list as an individual associated with al-Qaeda and is therefore subject to a travel ban and asset freeze.
There is a process that allows Mr. Abdelrazik and his lawyer to seek his delisting. Mr. Abdelrazik is at our embassy in Sudan. We continue to provide him with consular assistance. 
As this matter is currently under litigation and is therefore before courts this week, we will not comment further.
RCMPMr. Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised RCMP officers pay parity with other police. He signed a contract and then ripped it up. He broke his word. The Prime Minister promised an additional 2,500 police on the street. He broke his promise. The Canadian Police Association called it a betrayal.
Then, yesterday, more. The Conservatives appealed a landmark case empowering RCMP officers with a choice of collective bargaining, blocking them from a democratic right held by every other police force.
When we count on them for so much, ask them to risk their lives, why does the government turn its back on our police?
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that issue is before the courts and so, I cannot comment on it. However, what I can comment on is what we are doing for the RCMP.
We are increasing the number of officers in the force, not laying them off like the Liberal government did in the 1990s. We have increased spending for training, not cut it like the Liberals. We have increased funding for cadets, again, something the Liberals did not get done. We have introduced tough new legislation designed to protect police officers in the line of duty, again, something the Liberals did not get done.
Mark Holland: Mr. Speaker, it is before the courts because the Conservatives put it there. They had a choice. That is where they sent it.
To police officers, trust is everything. Their word is their bond. The government broke that trust. It broke its promises and kicked police morale in the stomach.
How can we recruit new officers to the RCMP when we have a Prime Minister who says that they should not be paid as much, or even have the same democratic rights as every other police force? How can we ask police officers to keep our streets safe, to risk their lives to stand behind our communities when the government will not stand behind them?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, our party is proud to say that we have more former police officers standing on our side of the House than any other party.
That is a member of a party that said that police officers had no place on judicial advisory committees, that they did not have the right, like other Canadians, to have input there. That is a member who, with respect to issues on house arrest, would allow arsonists to burn down houses, and then go home and enjoy the comforts of their own homes.
The Liberals are the ones who are soft on crime. We are the ones who are taking action against criminals.
Privy CouncilMr. Robert Carrier (Alfred-Pellan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister might be happy about Wayne Wouters' appointment as Clerk of the Privy Council, but some of us remember the part he played in the 1994-95 cost-cutting plan that led to draconian cutbacks, particularly in transfers to Quebec and the provinces.
Does this appointment signal that the Prime Minister is getting ready to make deep cuts, like the Liberals did in 1995?
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question.
First, Mr. Wouters is a public servant who makes decisions according to government policy. As the hon. member mentioned, the Liberals were the ones who decided to cut transfers to Quebec and all of the provinces by slashing Canadians' health funding. The outcome of that has been disastrous.
I would like to thank Kevin Lynch, who was with us through many of our successes, including the reduction in taxes. We will not let his legacy of lower taxes under our government be reversed by the Liberals.
Mr. Nicolas Dufour (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the past is any indication of the future, this appointment is bad news and should give the post-secondary academic community cause for alarm. In 1995, the Liberals cut that sector's funding ruthlessly.
Does this government appointment not send Quebec a clear message that it should forget about the $800 million per year it wants to restore funding levels for post-secondary education and social services?
Hon. Gary Goodyear (Minister of State (Science and Technology), CPC): Mr. Speaker, let me remind the hon. member that this government put forward the Vanier Canadian graduate scholarship program for post-secondary education. In fact, I want to congratulate McGill University for getting 11 of these world-class scholars. Laval got 8, L'Université de Montréal got 11, and the list goes on. However, what these universities should know is that member and the Bloc voted no. They did not want them to get any of this stuff. We did.
Foreign AffairsMr. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the case of Omar Khadr, the government lawyers and legal advisors who are working to challenge his rights have so far spent more than 1,700 hours on the case. The Conservatives have assigned all these resources to the case solely to shirk their responsibilities.
How can the minister justify devoting so much effort to violating the basic rights of a Canadian citizen, a child soldier, but so little effort to enforcing his own laws and the international conventions that require that he repatriate Omar Khadr?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, our position on this has not changed. Mr. Khadr is facing very serious charges. There is a process that is underway in the United States. It is a process that President Obama has endorsed. It is a process that we intend to let continue to its conclusion. The matter is before the courts and we will say nothing further.
Serge Ménard: Mr. Speaker, Louise Arbour, the former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, has said, “The government is not meeting its obligations to Canadian citizens abroad whose right to return home is being denied.” She was referring to Mr. Khadr and Mr. Abdelrazik.
Will the Canadian government be smart enough to remove the obstacles to their returning to Canada? Section 6.(1) of the Charter clearly states: “Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.” There is no need to spend another half a million dollars on legal fees to realize that and act accordingly.
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, everybody is entitled to their opinion. The fact of the matter is that the situation has not changed. Mr. Khadr is receiving consular services. He is being attended to in a humane way. There is a process underway. We intend to let that process go to its conclusion. We will support the result of that process whenever it happens.
Employment InsuranceHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party has been calling on the Conservative government to act immediately to ensure regional fairness in employment insurance. Today we have one more advocate for that position.
 There are some complaints that there's too much of a patchwork (across the country). That's something we should be open to. 
Who said that? The member for Barrie, the Conservative in Barrie.
When will the government listen to unemployed Canadians and their own MPs, and make the necessary changes to EI?
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is the Liberal Party that created the EI program that we have today at a time when the unemployment rate was higher than it is today. We have improved that system.
Here is what others have to say about the Liberal record with respect to unemployment.
The Winnipeg Free Press said:
 --the Liberals were the architects of the distortions in the EI programs-- 
The Ottawa Sun said:
 The Grits gutted EI in the '90s. 
And this member has the tenacity to get up and speak about that here today.
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, the government continues to show an appalling lack of concern for unemployed Canadians. Now the Conservatives even ignore their own MPs and they ignore their own MPPs, the member from Whitby—Ajax, the spouse of the finance minister.
The member for Barrie has publicly stated that the EI system leaves too many unemployed workers out in the cold and discriminates against them based upon where they live. This is the government.
When will the minister and the government introduce EI fairness across the country?
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, I will indicate to this House what we will not do, and that is what the leader of the Liberal Party said and mused about, and that is raise taxes. We will not do that.
What we will do is increase benefits. We have done that by extending the EI benefits by five weeks, increasing the maximum from 45 weeks to 50 weeks. We have also extended the work sharing program which will help preserve about 93,000 jobs and more into the future.
Mrs. Lise Zarac (LaSalle—Émard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us take the example of the recent layoffs at Gurit in Magog. Many of the workers at this plant live in Magog, but others live 15 minutes away on Highway 10 in Sherbrooke. Because of the different regional eligibility thresholds for employment insurance, workers at the same plant are being treated differently.
Does this not prove that there needs to be a single EI eligibility threshold?
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the particular party that encouraged that system was the Liberal Party. We have taken that and we have enhanced the provisions for it. When the unemployment rate in a region goes up, the number of hours required to qualify goes down and the benefits are extended.
In addition to that, we have invested significant funds into training, into the billions of dollars, to ensure that those who do not even qualify for EI are able to receive training for the jobs of the future.
Lise Zarac: Mr. Speaker, that was then, this is now.
Whether these workers choose to live in Magog or Sherbrooke should have no bearing on their eligibility for employment insurance. The workers at the Gurit plant all paid the same employment insurance premiums. They lost their jobs at the same time. They should be entitled to the same treatment while they look for jobs in the same region.
Will the government change the employment insurance system so that all workers are treated equally?
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, it was her predecessor who had a lot to do with the system as it is now, but we can say that our unemployment rate today is lower than it was then.
That said, there is no question that we have done a number of things to enhance the benefits, such as extending the EI benefits by five weeks for everyone. We have ensured that the maximum has been raised from 45 weeks to 50 weeks. We have ensured that a number of dollars have been invested for training those who are unfortunately laid off. There is $1 billion for skills training through the EI program and $500 million for training, including those who do not qualify.
We are investing significantly to ensure people have jobs.
TaxationMr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it has been 24 days since the Liberal leader said, “We will have to raise taxes”.
In that time, he has neither retracted his statement nor provided any details about his promise to raise taxes. Most surprisingly, the ever-vigilant media that parses each and every Conservative word has refused to press him for details.
Could someone in the government please comment on the Liberal leader's promise that, “We will have to raise taxes”?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, during his three decades-plus in the United States, the Liberal leader distinguished himself as a debater and an academic. Now he needs to put those skills to work to explain what he meant when he said, “We will have to raise taxes”, or when he said, “I'm not going to take a GST hike off the table--”, or when he said, “I am a tax-and-spend, Pearsonian, Trudeau Liberal”. His verbal acumen permits him, indeed his sense of honour compels him, to explain who will pay more, how much, and which taxes he will raise.
RCMPMr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government's decision to appeal the rights of RCMP officers to organize is a smack in the face to our national police force. On April 6 the Ontario Superior Court upheld their right to collective bargaining and said to deny it was unconstitutional. 
The Liberal Party denied RCMP officers their rights for 13 years and now the Conservative government is carrying on that unjust legacy. This winter the government slashed RCMP wages and ripped up an agreement signed only six months before.
I have a simple question. Will the government allow RCMP officers to unionize if they choose, yes or no?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, this matter is before the courts and therefore I cannot comment on it. What I can say is that we are standing behind our RCMP officers. We are supporting them with new legislation to protect them in the line of duty. We are also spending more money on training and increasing the force by thousands of members. That is what we are doing for the RCMP. We are standing strong behind our men in uniform.
Don Davies: Mr. Speaker, we should let the RCMP officers protect themselves then.
Yesterday, we saw yet another Canadian die after being tasered by RCMP officers in Brooks, Alberta. A major part of the problem is the continuing failure by the RCMP commissioner to issue clear and responsible policies on taser use by officers in the field. This negligence is costing lives. This is the 27th death since 2003 from taser use. 
When will the minister instruct the RCMP commissioner to enforce clear and responsible policies on taser use and stop this avoidable pattern of deaths?
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, those were two questions and two radically different approaches. On the one hand, he tries to build up the RCMP, and on the other hand he tries to destroy the RCMP.
Quite frankly, the minister is aware of the issues that revolve around the taser. The commissioner has been before the committee. The member may or may not have known that. The issue is certainly one that is well known and police officers use their best discretion. This particular matter is currently under investigation. I think it is premature for him to make any suggestions as to what the issue is.
Agriculture and Agri-FoodMrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, regarding the issue of the “Product of Canada” label, the Minister of National Revenue is minimizing the problem and repeating that it is simply a matter of making a few adjustments to the regulations. The problem is not minor, as the minister claims. Cases are piling up: creamed corn, apple sauce, poultry and the chocolate made by the Trappist monks in Mistassini, just to name a few. 
Does the minister not agree that this is becoming a real problem and that he must change the regulations, which are completely ridiculous?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, Canadians had a legitimate concern about what was in their food. They wanted to know what was in their food. We delivered on that.
They know that it is unpalatable to have foreign products and foreign ingredients listed under a product of Canada label. The old Liberal system allowed that to happen. We have put a stop to that. We are working with producers and the industry to make sure this system works for them.
Ms. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this government's stubborn refusal to review the 98% rule could have unexpected negative effects. With such a high threshold, many producers will be completely unmotivated to use Canadian products and could turn to foreign products, which are often much cheaper.
Does the government realize that these regulations, which are meant to promote Canadian products, could have the exact opposite effect and undermine them instead?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, it is important that Canadians know what is in their food and where it has come from. It was left to us to solve this problem. The Liberals were in power for 13 years and never did anything about this. Canadians told us they wanted an answer to this problem. We have delivered on that. 
Let me read what the member for Malpeque, who fancies himself an agricultural specialist, said when we brought in these regulations. He said, “The new regulations provide consumers with honest information on the contents they purchase and the changes could also increase the consumption of Canadian products”. This is good for Canadian producers, good for Canadian industry.
Employment InsuranceHon. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, weeks have passed since the minister of unemployment promised an EI extension to assist fishermen due to severe ice conditions, saying a plan would indeed be announced soon. 
“The fishers do have special circumstances both within their employment and under the EI rules. That is why we are working with the Department of Fisheries to make sure that we are looking after these individuals, and we will be addressing that situation very soon”, she reported to the House on April 22. Now her own officials suggest the minister may have misled the House. 
What did the minister mean when she said she will look after these individuals, and what did the minister mean when she said “very soon”?
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, we will always be concerned and look after the interests of the fishers of our country. The minister said that we would look into the situation, that we would monitor the situation and that is exactly what we will do. We will report at the appropriate time and in due course.
Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, the appropriate time was several weeks ago.
Today, however, fisheries organizations throughout Atlantic Canada and Quebec have issued a joint call to the federal and provincial fisheries ministers to convene an emergency meeting to deal with the economic crisis in the fishery. Members of the FFAW, the MFU in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, the P.E.I. Fishermen's Association, Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels du sud de la Gaspésie in Quebec are urgently calling on the federal government to intervene.
Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, along with her seatmate, the minister of unemployment , commit to meet with these organizations in the next three days, or is she prepared to handle this by simply whistling past the graveyard?
Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in fact, our government has done a lot of things for the fishing industry. Even today, the fisheries minister is there on the ground. Her deputy minister was out there yesterday and is still out there. They are working together with provinces and organizations to develop a plan to combine with the economic action plan to provide increased access to credit. As well, we have assisted with marketing and all of those issues.
We understand it is a difficult issue and we are working on it.
InfrastructureNiki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, the government talks the talk about western Canada and rural communities, but it does not walk the walk.
For 30 years the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration has been making a positive impact for communities by providing flood protection and drainage support. Now it has been swallowed up by another organization, leaving a gap for rural communities like the ones I represent.
With all its talk of economic stimulus, why is the government slashing stable support for rural infrastructure? Why is it leaving rural and western Canadians in the cold?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, let me inform the member what we have done for western Canadian rural communities. We put $1 billion in the community adjustment for rural communities, $500 million in agriculture flexibility programs, and $50 million to strengthen the slaughterhouse capacity. We introduced changes to FINCLA to make it easier to get credit. We have provided $600 million to kickstart agri-stability, agri-recovery, agri-invest and agri-insurance. We have developed bankable, predictable and stable programs.
Every one of those things the NDP opposed.
Species at RiskMr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, since SARA, the Species at Risk Act, was introduced, not one fish species has ever been listed under SARA. In fact, off Canada's west coast, the great basking shark, which is Canada's largest fish, is down to about 95% of eradication.
My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. With regard to the great basking shark or any other fish species which is severely in danger of being lost to this country forever, why are none of those species listed under SARA?
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying it is regrettable that this magnificent creature has come to this situation. My colleague will know that the process starts with a recommendation from the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 
The legislation then requires consultation with affected stakeholders, including provincial and territorial governments and consultation with aboriginal organizations and industry, then analysis to provide input to the governor in council so that it can balance conservation issues with socio-economic impacts. That is the approach we are taking on the basking shark as well as other aquatic species.
The EconomyMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, while Liberals were hoping for more bad economic news, something happened today. We have been saying that Canada has the strongest economy in the G7 and that our economic action plan is the right plan to help create and save jobs. The Liberals laughed and talked down Canada's economy and our plan.
Well, what happened today? Statistics Canada reported 36,000 new jobs were created in April. Our plan is working. Canadians are staying at work and they are finding new jobs.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance please comment on the April job numbers?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga for his work in helping us roll out the economic action plan that is a part of this increase of 36,000 new jobs in April. We are encouraged by that increase.
I know hon. colleagues on the other side would like to talk it down. It is unbelievable how they can turn a good news story into a bad news story. They would do even worse if they had their way. The leader of the Liberal opposition would actually tax back some of that money from those 36,000 new jobs.
AbitibiBowaterMr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the AbitibiBowater mill in Grand Falls—Windsor, Newfoundland is now shut. Over 1,000 people have been affected. The Quebec courts ruled yesterday the company was allowed to suspend top-up payments to its pension program and laid-off workers are still without their severance payments.
In all of this, the Conservative government has been completely utterly absent from the issue. There has been barely a word or even a gesture of compassion, and this is what it calls standing up for Canadians.
 Have the Conservatives ever talked to the Grand Falls--Windsor town about this specific issue?
Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we conducted extensive consultations prior to the economic action plan being released in January of this year.
 In fact, our approach has been very clear and has been very effective. We are supporting the industry through making access to credit more available to them. We are supporting the industry through marketing and through innovation. 
Unfortunately, when we do have incidents as in Grand Falls where a mill closes, the government is there to ensure that both the community and the workers are supported through a $1 billion community adjustment fund and through EI reforms for the workers.
Official LanguagesMr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a Montreal company wants to bid on a tender issued by the Government of Canada through the MERX system, Canada's online tendering service and a leader in its field. The company asked for documents relating to the invitation to tender in French. The only response from MERX was that the documents have not yet been translated and that it depends on the situation.
Can the Minister of Public Works and Government Services explain to businesses in Quebec what is meant by “it depends on the situation”, and why they are not entitled to the same rights as English-language businesses?
Mr. Dean Del Mastro (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, obviously this government has held firm to our commitment to both official languages in this country. 
We support each and every Canadian regardless of which official language he or she chooses to work in, and we will continue to do so.
Foreign AffairsMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this past Monday the foreign affairs committee unanimously passed a motion inviting Abousfian Abdelrazik to appear before committee. The clerk of the committee has sent an invitation to Mr. Abdelrazik to appear, and by all counts he will accept.
As members know, yesterday the foreign affairs minister appeared to be unaware of the UN rules that allow for the return of citizens. It is crystal clear; those citizens are allowed to come back to their country.
Will the government allow Mr. Abdelrazik to come home, to come before committee, or is it going to break the rules? Will the government heed the words of Mr. Diefenbaker, who said, “Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong”. Is the government going to do right or do wrong?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Abdelrazik's case is a complex matter. It began under the watch of the previous Liberal government, as I have said. He is on the United Nations Security Council's 1267 list, associated with people like Osama Bin Laden from al-Qaeda. There is a process that will enable Mr. Abdelrazik and his lawyer to seek a delisting from that list. 
Mr. Abdelrazik is at the embassy in Sudan. He is getting consular service. He is being well taken care of in the embassy. 
The matter is currently under litigation, before the courts this week, and we cannot comment further.
InfrastructureMr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is delivering an economic action plan that stimulates the economy, that creates jobs, and that supports Canadian families across the country.
We are working with our provincial and municipal partners to improve our nation's infrastructure and to make our transportation systems more efficient.
Could the Minister of Transport tell the House how the government's significant investment in the national capital bridge system will benefit the people of Ottawa and the Outaouais?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Ottawa—Orléans has been building bridges between communities on both sides of the Ottawa River. 
We were very pleased to join the Minister of Foreign Affairs when we announced funding for the rehabilitation of the Alexandria Bridge and the restoration of the Chaudière crossing. Some 15,000 people depend on these bridges daily. People have wanted to see investments made in Hull-Aylmer for so long, and finally they have a government that is delivering.
Sealing IndustryMr. Scott Andrews (Avalon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, nearly 6,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians depend on the seal hunt for their livelihood. 
The Conservative government is failing Canadian sealers by not forcing the EU on this issue. Why can the government not tell the EU that all its trade with Canada depends on discussing the seal hunt during these free trade talks? The EU just cannot have its way.
My question is for the Minister of International Trade. The Government of Newfoundland is not endorsing free trade discussions between Canada and the EU. Does this mean anything to the Conservatives, or are they just turning their backs on Newfoundland and Labrador again?
Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as a Nova Scotian and as someone from Atlantic Canada, I can tell the member that this government and the Prime Minister have stood up for sealers both on the high seas and abroad, without question.
It is entirely wrong-headed not to be in negotiations with the European Union on the free trade agreement. The very reason we are at the table is so we can continue to discuss and to advocate on behalf of the sealing industry and Atlantic Canada.
Product SafetyJim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, as spring will soon turn to summer, Canadians will be enjoying the great outdoors, the fresh air and of course the sunshine. However, many commonly used sunscreen products contain harsh chemicals, such as oxybenzone and benzophenone-3, which dermatologists and researchers say can cause severe skin reactions in adults and children, which has actually happened to two of my constituents.
Could the Minister of Health assure Canadians that their sunscreen will protect them from the sun and that their sunscreen is even safe to use?
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the action we are taking to promote the health and safety of Canadians through the chemicals management plan.
Canadians expect action. We monitor these chemicals on a regular basis. We do act appropriately when complaints occur.

Routine Proceedings
North American Free Trade AgreementGerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 32(2), I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “Exchange of Letters constituting an Agreement between the Government of Canada, the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the United States of America rectifying Annex 300-B, Annex 308.1, Annex 401, Annex 403.1 and the Uniform Regulations for Chapter Four of the North American Free Trade Agreement, done at Washington, Mexico City and Ottawa on 9 April, 13 April and 24 April 2009.” An explanatory memorandum is included with the treaty.
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions.
Committees of the HouseMr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in relation to Bill C-16, An Act to amend certain Acts that relate to the environment and to enact provisions respecting the enforcement of certain Acts that relate to the environment. 
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. In accordance with its order of reference of Friday, April 3, your committee has considered Bill C-18, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, to validate certain calculations and to amend other Acts, and agreed on Thursday, May 7 to report it without amendment.
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities on Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Marine Liability Act and the Federal Courts Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
PetitionsJohn McKay: Mr. Speaker, I have three more petitions from constituents and residents of the Greater Toronto Area who are very concerned about the deteriorating situation in Sri Lanka, where the lives of many Sri Lankans are at risk.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to demand that the government of Sri Lanka immediately initiate a ceasefire, to call upon the United Nations to negotiate a permanent ceasefire of hostilities, to call upon the United Nations to provide immediate humanitarian relief and to demand that the government of Sri Lanka provide immediate, full and free access to the conflict zone for non-governmental organizations and international media.
Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition from my constituents in beautiful Langley, British Columbia. The petitioners note that the long gun registry was originally budgeted to cost Canadians $2 million, but the price tag has spiralled out of control to an estimated $2 billion a decade later. They also note that the registry has not saved one single life since it was introduced and that they would rather see their tax dollars getting guns out of the hands of criminals instead of trying to control law-abiding citizens.
 They call upon the House of Commons to support legislation to cancel the Canadian long gun registry.
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from my constituents in Langley. The petitioners say that there are a number of severe, potentially life-threatening conditions that do not qualify for disability programs because they are not necessarily permanent.
 They call upon the House of Commons to enact legislation to provide additional medical EI benefits to at least equal maternity EI benefits.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present petitions on behalf of the United for Peace petition. Thirteen hundred Canadians have signed this. I believe all four political parties have presented petitions on this in the House.
The petition deals with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, resolving the Israeli-Palestinian and Philippine conflicts and addressing the root causes of conflict in Colombia.
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table before the House two sets of petitions, both on asbestos.
Citizens from British Columbia, Manitoba and Ontario call upon the government to ban asbestos in all its forms, to institute a just transition program for asbestos workers in the communities they live in, to end all government subsidies to asbestos in Canada and abroad and to stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam Convention. 
The second set of petitions is from residents of Quebec. The residents of Quebec also call upon the government to ban asbestos in all its forms, to institute a just transition program for asbestos workers, to end all government subsidies and to stop blocking international health and safety conventions.
It is most noteworthy to the House that this petition comes from the residents of Quebec.
Kirsty Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I present a petition on behalf of my constituents. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to use every diplomatic means at its disposal to seek an immediate ceasefire, to work with the international community to pressure the government of Sri Lanka and its military to respect the human rights of the civilian Tamil population and the embargo on food, medicine and other essential items to the combat zone and to restore the unequivocal freedom of the press and freedom of movement for the UN and the international aid organizations throughout the whole of Sri Lanka.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: 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 (Mr. Barry Devolin): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Dennis Bevington:  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?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Jack Harris:  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?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Jack Harris:  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?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Jack Harris:  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?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Electronic Commerce Protection Act[Stage Direction]
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.
Nicolas Dufour: 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: 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?
[Interjection]
Nicolas Dufour: 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: 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?
[Interjection]
Nicolas Dufour: 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.
[Interjection]
Dennis Bevington: 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?
[Interjection]
Nicolas Dufour: 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: 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.
[Interjection]
Nicolas Dufour: 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: 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.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Is the House ready for the question? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.
 (Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee) 
[Interjection]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would ask that we see the clock at 1:30.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Is there consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Air Passengers' Bill of Rights[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from March 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-310, An Act to Provide Certain Rights to Air Passengers, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, the serious job of responding to the question of consumer protection of Canadian airline passengers must be of paramount importance to this particular Parliament. Our constituents are expecting it of us.
It was nearly one year ago, in the previous Parliament, that I tabled my private member's Motion No. 246, calling on the federal government to enact an airline passengers' bill of rights for Canadian consumers. My motion instructed the government to model its response to the already enacted airline passengers' bill of rights which is already in force within the European Union, and as well, on no less than four pieces of legislation that were being reviewed within the U.S. Congress. These were legally binding measures that would create greater consumer protection for U.S. passengers.
My motion called for the federal government to respond to the growing expectation by Canadian travellers that their basic rights as paying passengers be protected from the kind of arbitrary, and yes, often unethical decisions that were increasingly being made by an industry that, once the customer entered its care, used that control in an unfair way and seriously inconvenienced those passengers, costing them their time and their money.
Let us be clear. Airlines are in a position of total power and control over every choice and every decision of an airline passenger once they are under an airline's care.
In a feat that I have all too rarely seen in my 13-plus years in this place, my motion calling for this legislation passed unanimously, 249 to zero. Not only did I get the full support of my own Liberal caucus, but the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, and yes, the Conservative caucus stood together with me that day and said new laws and new regulations must be made to protect airline passengers in this country because the existing regulations were no longer working.
It was a proud moment for me and a historic moment for this House. Everyone agreed that something very substantial needed to be done, including both the former minister and the current Minister of Transport, both of whom that day stood up and agreed with me about the necessity of my plan, and they said so to the entire country.
This is even more relevant today than it was a year ago. The Prime Minister just announced that the government plans to sign the Canada-European Union comprehensive air transportation agreement and that a separate agreement will harmonize civil aviation safety regimes between our two jurisdictions.
What was missing, however, from the Prime Minister's announcement was a harmonization of consumer protection regimes between our two jurisdictions. The European Union has an airline passengers' bill of rights. Canada does not. If we are to have an integrated system for this proposal to work, obviously consumer protection has to be based on an equal footing between the two jurisdictions.
Therefore, why did we say this? Why did we initially call for this? What is the necessity of government-imposed consumer protection within the airline industry? Why not simply let the marketplace do the work? Why the government interference, some may ask?
The answer goes, however, even deeper than just the simple truth that the Canadian airline industries and the players therein operate with relatively little to no competition. The marketplace is not genuinely open to competition. It also goes further than the obvious point to any frequent flyer that customer care is increasingly being jettisoned by airlines in favour of cost cutting. It even goes beyond the realization that the airline industry today is more about selling tickets than it is about moving passengers.
There is a constant fact about this industry that parliamentarians must recognize will never change, even if a dozen new national airlines enter the Canadian marketplace. The fact of this matter is that no matter how sincere any particular airline's promise of better customer service in the future sounds today, there are currently no rules, no ways to complain, and no penalties to hold airlines to this standard.
The same airlines that now want to move in this enlightened direction just weeks ago refused to acknowledge that any problem ever indeed existed. That undeniable reality is that every airline holds total control and power over their customers once the boarding pass is issued, once bags are checked, and the passenger passes through security en route to the departure lounge to await boarding. This control is one-sided. It is a one-sided position of power fostered in part by government regulation.
The relationship between an airline and its customers is unlike any other. Once a ticket is purchased and a boarding pass has been issued, the reality is that every single option of personal choice is at that point immediately and effectively stripped from the customer and placed exclusively in the hands of the carrier. Here are some examples of what I mean.
A passenger arrives at the airport and is told the plane is delayed 30 minutes. Bags are checked, security is cleared, and the passenger sits and waits. Two hours later the passenger is told the plane is delayed for yet another hour, and then another hour. 
Realistically, I ask the question: Can that individual now just simply go to the next counter and buy yet another $1,000 ticket? No. The bags are in the cargo hold of the original airline. It is very difficult to get them out and put on the other aircraft. That passenger is, in effect, an economic hostage.
Picture this. A passenger is on a trip from Calgary to Halifax with a stop and an aircraft change in Toronto. Bags have been checked. The crew, however, is late arriving and boarding in Calgary is delayed by 30 minutes. When the crew does arrive, the plane is quickly boarded, and that plane, for all practical purposes, is on its way. However, the airline scheduled nine other aircraft to depart Calgary that same hour for various other destinations. The plane is number 13 in line for takeoff. However, it is held up for de-icing and sits for a full two hours more. This is a real problem. 
As a result of this two hour delay in taking off from Calgary, the plane lands in Toronto two hours late. The passenger discovers that the connecting flight to Halifax has left and is now disappointed and frustrated because he or she will not get to the intended destination for what is expected to be another while longer. 
The airline is approached, with the customer expecting some sort of meaningful customer service response. After all, the ticket was paid for and there is a contract with the airline to go back and forth on a specific date and time. It is the airline's responsibility, one would think, to honour its contract. That is very far from reality. 
Forget about the 30 minute delay due to the airline not having staff on the plane because that, according to the airline, is not a factor. What counts to the airline is that the delay was caused by de-icing, ice, and ice is caused by a drop in temperature, and a drop in temperature is a weather delay. The airline says it is not responsible for weather delays.
Forget the fact that the airline chose to schedule an entire fleet of planes to leave at the exact same time in the middle of a Canadian winter thereby causing 13 planes to show up for de-icing at the same time. Apparently, that is not considered management incompetence. That is weather, and because it is weather the airline does not have to ensure that a passenger gets the next convenient flight. The airline can put that passenger on the next flight that is convenient to it. It goes on.
From that, the passenger discovers that the next convenient flight will be in seven days. The passenger will arrive in Halifax seven days later, three days after supposedly leaving to go back home. For those seven days, waiting in Toronto for the next flight that was re-booked, the passenger is responsible for hotel bills at $150 a night, meals at $50 a day, and taxi fares to and from the airport. The original $1,000 trip to Halifax is now about to cost less than the $1,500 trip to Toronto that was never wanted. The airline can just say that it was not it's problem. 
That is why we need an airline passengers' bill of rights, and it has to be initiated by this Parliament, not by the airlines. The government attempted something 48 hours before the last election call. It was called flight rights Canada, a totally voluntary initiative, which had no teeth whatsoever. Even the airlines today recognize it was not worth the paper it was written on, and they are now scrambling to devise tariff structures which would respond to customer needs.
This Parliament needs to protect Canadian airline passengers while the airlines want to save money each and every day by not treating customers well.
In 2007 Mr. Robert Milton of Air Canada made $42 million in salary. That was more than any level of compensation paid by that airline to its passengers. That is not right and that is why this Parliament must act. 
I am supporting Bill C-310.
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to debate this particular bill on an airline passengers' bill of rights. I should also let the House know that I may have been the only person who has served 18 and a half years in the airline industry itself. I served nine and a half in Watson Lake, Yukon and nine in the Halifax area.
When I joined CP Air in 1979, it was one of the greatest days of my life. In fact, in the industry, I am known as what is called an orange tail. Working at Watson Lake, Yukon, we tried to provide the best possible service for people who would come up to Yukon, not just to visit our wonderful territory and northern B.C. but for all the miners, expediters, tourists, hunters, trappers and all the people who would come through there.
The type of service we would provide was absolutely wonderful. We started with two flights a day: flight 18, which would go north, and then flight 19, which would turn around at Whitehorse and then come back. It was called the “milk run” in those days. Out of Watson Lake, we would serve a nice meal with beverages. There was no charge for wine and beer back in those days. Everything was there.
The reality is that the people who work for the airline industry must always look over their shoulder to see if they have jobs the following day. I have yet to meet one airline agent of any airline who caused an airline to fall or have problems. I have seen a tremendous amount of managers and board directors that simply do not know how to run an airline. We had top-quality customer service, probably some of the best in the world. Now, with the conglomeration with Air Canada, we have some of the worst.
I certainly do not for one second want my comments to infer that the agents on the ground handling either the luggage or the customers are in any way, shape or form responsible. The head of Air Canada, Robert Milton, leaves the airline and takes $42 million in salary with him. Then, Monty Brewer leaves after him and takes millions of dollars with him. Then, the airline turns around and says to these agents and retirees that they are not sure about their pension plans anymore.
When people go to work looking over their shoulders, they see their deductions. First, they are wondering if they are going to have jobs. Second, they are wondering if they will have pensions. These are the people that customers meet. Through all of that, they still provide friendly customer service from all the other carriers as well.
Why is it that we had Bruce Hood as the complaints commissioner for the airlines many years ago? Why did the government have to institute that type of individual? It is because the airlines have been nickel-and-diming their customers slowly but surely. 
I will give a few inside tips on what the airlines used to do. Whether they still do it, I do not know, but I have a hunch that they may. We used to have maybe six or seven flights to a particular destination from point A to point B. If, at around 10 o'clock, a flight was showing two or three people on it and the 12 o'clock flight had maybe eight people, there was a good chance that the 10 o'clock flight would be cancelled. Why? It was mechanical. I love that answer. That is what we told our customers. We moved them over to the 12 o'clock flight.
First, one saves crew time, because the crews only get paid when they are in the air. Then, of course, one saves on fuel and other expenses. The aircraft that was supposed to leave Halifax to go to Charlottetown had to pick people up from Charlottetown and come back. They were also disrupted. Why? It was mechanical. As an airline agent, I never believed that one. At times it was, but the reality is that we used to cancel flights like that just to save money. If that is a management decision, fine. However, we should be honest and tell the people why we did it. We should not mislead them.
I want to provide a classic example of what happened. I was working at Canadian Airlines on Christmas Day many years ago at Halifax Airport. Our friends over at Air Canada had a flight leaving at around 12 o'clock in the afternoon from Halifax to Bermuda. We were rather jealous because we would have loved to have had that service. Many people were there. This was their Christmas holiday. This was Christmas Day. A lot of them saved up all year. A lot of them had anniversaries. This was their trip: to leave the cold of Halifax and go to Bermuda.
Everybody got out and checked in on time. At about 11:30, when the people should have been boarding, it was announced that the flight was going to be delayed by an hour because of a slight mechanical problem. Okay. No worries. No sweat. It was Christmas. They were on holidays. Everyone was happy.
At about 12:50 p.m., when that flight should have been ready to close the doors, they made an announcement telling us they had another delay until 2:30 p.m. In the industry we call that a staggered delay. It creeps. It is like bracket creep in taxes; it creeps up.
They just said it was mechanical. They did not tell the people anything else. I went to the ramp and found out exactly what was wrong, but because I worked at the other airline, it was not my position or right to tell the customers what was happening. 
What happened was that there was a no-go item on the aircraft. They had to have it, but it was not in Halifax. That part was in Toronto. In order for the plane to leave Halifax, they had to get that part from Toronto to Halifax. They did not tell the people that until 2:30 p.m. They announced a further delay and then told them what happened. They said the flight may leave at 4:00 p.m. or 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m., that they were waiting for a part to come in from Toronto. 
 Fine, they did the right thing. They fed everybody. They got a nice turkey meal in for everyone, because it was Christmas. Everyone said, “Okay, we will be in Bermuda later on this evening. We will be all right.” 
Guess what? A part was brought in from Toronto, and it was the wrong part. No go. What did they do? They said, “We are further delayed. We have to get another part.”
The fact is there were no other aircraft to bring in that part. They did not tell the people that. At 9 o'clock at night, they finally announced, “Ladies and gentlemen, we regret to inform you that the flight to Bermuda is now cancelled.”
I was very fearful for the customer agent. She immediately broke into tears, because these people were verbally violent towards her. They were very, very angry. They demanded to see the managers. And where were the managers? They were at home, enjoying Christmas.
That is just one example of many I could tell from my experience in the airline industry. If they had only told the people the honest truth, yes, they would have been disappointed, but the fact is they would have understood. It was a legitimate mechanical problem. Because of the Christmas schedule and the crew times and everything, they would have understood that they simply would not be able to do it that day.
At least they could have gone home or gone somewhere to enjoy that Christmas day and flown out the following day, which they did. Why did they have to mislead them time and time again?
When I leave today, there might be a flight scheduled to leave at 2:30 p.m. They want everyone on that aircraft at least 10 minutes prior to departure. Everyone up, doors bolted down, let us go. But there is a very good chance, in many cases, that at about 2:15 p.m., we will not have boarded yet. There will be no announcements, no signs. People will be saying, “What is going on here? Should we not have already boarded?” Sure enough, they will already be into a delay. Why do they not come out and say something?
During the hassles in Halifax a couple of Christmases ago, people demanded to see the managers. It was during the daytime. There were tremendous lineups because of the weather problems. They were told, “Here is the 1-800 number for your customer service.” The agents were too busy, so people wanted to speak to the managers. Where were the managers? They were upstairs on the third floor, not wanting to come out of their offices. 
This passenger airline bill of rights would once and for all tell the people who buy the tickets, use their hard-earned money to travel on business or vacation that this House has turned around and respected their will.
As an airline agent, I have seen customer service go to all-time low levels. If the airlines stopped nickel-and-diming their customers and treated them with respect, we would not have to have a bill of rights. But because of what the airlines have done to customers in this country, we are following the lead. My hon. colleague from Elmwood—Transcona is right. We want to follow the lead of the Americans and Europeans to make sure our customers are treated with the respect, dignity and the honour they deserve. It is no less and no more than that.
As an airline employee for 18 and a half years, I was proud to serve my airline and proud to serve the customers. The fact is that as a frequent traveller myself, I have witnessed the diminishing of customer service. It is time to bring it back, and this bill of rights will do just that.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to contribute to the debate on the private member's bill introduced by the member for Elmwood—Transcona. 
This government shares the member's concern over travellers' best interests. We understand there are sometimes stresses associated with air travel, particularly around holidays. The combination of an increased number of travellers and the harsh winter weather can often cause grief for travellers, airlines and airports alike.
This past winter, weather-related delays were all too common for far too many. That said, in a winter country such as ours, it seems unfair to punish airline companies for factors beyond their control. That is what this bill would do.
At the outset, before the member becomes too excited, let me share with him some good news. There is a high degree of support for the intent of this bill. No one has spoken against the desire to continue to improve consumer protection. In fact, I commend the member for his passion in that area, and I commend the member for bringing this debate forward, as well as other members who have done the same.
At the same time, several members, as I just pointed out, in the last Parliament unanimously passed a motion by the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte on similar issues. There is a strong degree of consensus from all members that something needs to be done.
With that in mind, during the first hour of debate on this bill many members have also indicated they have some reservations about this bill. For example, the Liberal member for Eglinton—Lawrence said:
 Is the European experience the one to follow? Is the American experience the one to follow? Is it one that would nurture the business that would stimulate the Canadian economy and at the same time ensure we enjoy a level of service that everyone should take for granted? 
These are all good questions from my Liberal colleague. They are excellent questions, in fact, but I would suggest they should be raised in the broader context of looking at the different experiences around the world. One, for example, is the European system, on which I believe this bill is to some degree modelled. The problem with it is that its penalties go beyond those in the European Union.
The Americas, I would remind the House, have no such penalties for delays or other passenger inconveniences. Under the open skies regime that has been in place for several years now, consumers have enjoyed greater choice. More U.S. airlines have increased their service to Canada and Canadian cities. 
However, if this bill were to pass, we could expect to see the number of American carriers serving in Canada decrease. They would have to weigh the costs and the benefits of serving the Canadian market and the risks that would certainly increase as a result of penalties included in this bill. Is that what we want for Canadian consumers, to reduce competition and therefore consumer choice? 
On this side of the House we want better service, but with this bill we risk decreasing the competition that can lead to that better service. 
These are just a few of the concerns that come to mind when we remember the excellent questions posed by members opposite.
On this side of the House, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities pointed out that it is not only airline industry stakeholders that have strong reservations about this bill, the tourism industry has the same kinds of reservations. They both believe this bill is too narrow and punitive and that it could have serious impacts on the overall economy.
There are many potential pitfalls in this bill. I do not believe it has been carefully enough debated at this point, nor do I think that the advice and input of stakeholders is contained in the final product. We need to listen to consumers, to the industry and to experts on travel and tourism as we move forward.
We want to do more to protect consumers, and I believe the hon. member who sponsored this bill does want to do more.
There should be appropriate consultations with industry and consumers. This would ensure a good balance between a strong consumer protection regime on the one hand and continued viability for the airline industry on the other.
The fact is the measures put forward in Bill C-310 raise some serious concerns for Canadians. They have the possibility to hurt airlines in our country and put Canadian jobs at risk. We need to be mindful of this in a time of economic uncertainty. Punitive measures, like the ones outlined in the bill, will not solve the problem. Paying the passengers $500 for every hour their plane is stuck on the tarmac does not get the plane up in the air any faster. It seems especially punitive when we consider that many of these delays are associated with weather and are outside the control of the airline or the airport. It is not fair to risk air carriers and put them out of business because Canada happens to be a country where we have severe weather conditions.
I know this legislation is based upon the model put forward in Europe. However, solutions like these may be appropriate across the ocean, on a different continent, but not in a country that gets blizzards and severe thunderstorms in summer, as we do. Not only is our weather severe, I am sure the member and his colleagues opposite would agree, it is also fairly unpredictable in Canada.
I know all members in the House would like to find ways to promote air passengers' rights. We have all heard the horror stories. In fact, we have all lived these horrors stories. As members of Parliament, we are all travellers, by necessity of our job. However, at the same time, we have to ask ourselves whether the bill before us is the best way to deal with the problem. 
Our government is open to suggestions on how to improve air travel for Canadians. I am looking forward to hearing the ideas that are brought forward in this debate.
Earlier this week, we saw the four major airlines, Air Canada, Air Transat, Jazz air and WestJet, through the National Airlines Council of Canada, come forward with major changes to increase airline passenger rights in our country by leaps and bounds. This proposal follows the flight rights program that was introduced by our government in 2008. It takes the voluntary codes outlined in the program and makes them a binding part of the tariffs. This is a good first step, and I think all members would agree that that is a good first step.
We are encouraged by such positive action taken by the industry. It is always good to see an industry or a private company step up to the plate and take the necessary action to fix the problem. We look forward to working with the airline industry and with airports to ensure that these are enforced and abided.
Although the member for Elmwood—Transcona should be commended for his dedication to protecting the Canadian air traveller, a bill with such wide-reaching implications for the travel industry and our economy should require further consultation with stakeholders. 
I hope members will join with me in voting against this bill in particular. I urge them to join with me in working toward a better system for passengers' rights.
 Once again, I will reiterate that our government is very much interested in hearing additional thoughts from the member for Elmwood—Transcona. He has clearly put a lot of time and effort into the subject. Though we have come to different conclusions than has he, I believe he has much to contribute to this debate. We thank him for advancing his bill.
Mr. Colin Mayes (Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to contribute to the debate on Bill C-310, An Act to Provide Certain Rights to Air Passengers.
This bill was introduced by the member for Elmwood—Transcona, and at the outset, I would like to commend him for the intent of this bill. All members, including those on this side of the House, share his concern for strong consumer protection, whether for airline passengers or for other consumers.
Pressure has been mounting from many different sources for parliamentarians to address consumers' complaints against the airline industry. As a member of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, I can tell the House that we have received a number of pieces of correspondence from airline industry representatives and other Canadians regarding this issue, and this private member's bill in particular.
Complaints have become even more frequent and action is more urgently needed. Given the delays many air travellers have faced in the past two Christmas seasons, and by the travellers who encountered difficulty in leaving Mexico following the H1N1 crisis, while many of their stories are unfortunate, both of these instances serve as reminders that there are many aspects of air travel, including blizzards and outbreaks of disease, which are completely out of our control.
The bill before us proposes that we address these concerns by imposing a range of obligations on air carriers, as well as stiff penalties should the carriers fail to meet those obligations.
The bill is well meaning for consumers, in the sense that it clearly intends to address some of the concerns that they have raised, but well meaning is where it ends. Its appeal to populism is punitive and it is potentially devastating to Canada's airline industry.
This bill would place some very serious financial constraints and penalties on airlines in this country. We on this side of the House have a duty to be mindful of this during a time of economic uncertainty.
At the transport committee, we have heard from a number of airlines and other industry representatives, many of whom believe that Bill C-310 is highly punitive and will cause adverse consequences. For example, the Air Transport Association of Canada, which has approximately 185 members, had this to say about Bill C-310:
 The financial “compensation” paragraphs of Bill C-310...bears no relationship to the economic realities of air transport in Canada. Where is the equality in paying a customer who purchased a $99.00 ticket to Florida $1200.00 in “compensation”? Canada has an open market place. If a particular carrier routinely delays or cancels flights there generally are alternatives available to customers. There are no similar strictures on other transport modes that have delays or cancellations. Why air transport? Why not let passengers vote with their wallets? 
The Air Transport Association of Canada went on to say that if this legislation moves forward, we can expect to see the following consequences: it will lower passenger safety in Canada by encouraging more risk taking; air carriers will have to increase ticket prices substantially in order to recover costs contemplated by this bill; and service to some communities, mostly remote, and segments of the population, for example, unaccompanied children, will be reduced or eliminated.
These serious concerns from industry should make it very obvious that this legislation was drafted without consultation with the industry.
There is an old saying that we should beware of what we wish for. Should we pass this legislation, I believe we may well find that consumers will not be better off. In fact, they may face bigger problems.
There are many unanswered questions still lingering about this bill. What would it cost for the airline industry to implement the provisions? What would the consequences of their implementation be? Who would enforce these provisions? Because of this uncertainty, our government cannot support this bill. 
We have heard from industry. The Canadian Airports Council specifically said, “Passage of C-310 would directly add costs to air carriers that would have to be passed on to consumers”. This is counter to the intention of the bill. Consumers would not be better off with higher fares. 
I would also point out that if Canada were to adopt the provisions in Bill C-310, we would be seriously out of sync with the regulatory regimes of our trading partners at a time when we should be seeking regulatory harmony.
The penalties in the bill are harsher than those in the European Union air passenger bill of rights. The United States, our largest trading partner, does not impose such strict obligations and harsh penalties on its carriers.
The member for Elmwood—Transcona has at heart the same interest that we share on this side of the House. We all want better consumer protection for air travellers, but ultimately, the bill before us would not serve the best interest of the consumer. This bill would almost certainly result in the unintended consequences of fewer choices and higher prices. Moreover, it could produce an air transportation system that is less safe.
We need a more thoughtful and nuanced approach to passengers' rights. I am sure that members on both sides of the House join me in supporting the intent of the bill. However, due to its adverse consequences, I would ask that all members join me in voting against Bill C-310.
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, things have developed much the way I expected they would with the bill. We have just heard two speeches from members opposite who basically regurgitated all of the misinformation the airlines council has been trying to get out, I would say more unsuccessfully than not. 
I know members are used to one-page private member's bills, but this is only 11 pages long. The bill is very simple to read and I am going to go through some of the exemptions we gave to the airlines, but obviously those members do not recognize them as such.
I sent a letter to one of the newspapers the other day and I sent a copy to MPs today. The letter reads:
 There is a great deal of misinformation about the air passenger bill of rights being circulated by Canada's airlines in a bid to scare the public. I would like to set the record straight on a few key points. 
 Currently, there are no provisions for monetary compensation for flight delays in Bill C-310. 
The Conservatives say there are monetary penalties and compensation for flight delays. There are none.
 However, the Bill does require, in case of delay of two hours or more, that the airline provide meals and refreshments. 
That is reasonable.
 If a delay requires an overnight stay, accommodation and local transportation must be provided. 
That is reasonable, and is already done in many cases.
 The passenger also has the option of receiving a full refund for a delay of five hours or more. 
That is new. That is taken from the European Union legislation. I think it is reasonable that if people have been waiting for five hours and they want their money back, they should be able to get it back. Most people will not ask for their money back. Most people will stay and wait a few hours longer. Their bags are packed and they are ready to go. They will stay longer. Maybe at least the airline would be nicer to them, maybe give them an extra meal voucher to keep them there so that they will not cash in the ticket. However, people would have the right to get their money back after five hours and that is reasonable.
 In the case of passengers who have had flights to Mexico cancelled by the airline, Bill C-310 would require the airline to offer reimbursement of the full fare, which some airlines are currently refusing to do. Under the extraordinary circumstances exclusion in the bill, airlines would not have to pay compensation, just refund the cost of the ticket. 
Those great consumer advocates in the airlines, while making their big announcement on Monday, are refusing to give back fares that passengers have paid to go to Mexico as we speak. The bill would not offer any compensation. It would say to reimburse them the money, which is what they should do, but in terms of compensation, there is no compensation payable. Why? Because it is an extraordinary circumstance exclusion. Weather is an extraordinary circumstance as would be the flu situation in Mexico. There would not be compensation for those.
 Overbooking involves airlines selling your seat to someone else. If you're not allowed to board a flight because your seat has been sold, why shouldn't you get $500, $800 or $1200 in compensation for the inconvenience? Air Canada has been paying customers these amounts for 4 years in Europe. 
Actually, that has been occurring since 1991, but at a lower amount.
 Why should Canadian passengers receive lesser treatment? 
 As regards the tarmac delays, airlines are given an exclusion if it is unsafe to disembark from the aircraft. 
Why do they not recognize that?
 As you can see, there is plenty of leeway for the airlines under the bill if they would take the time to read its provisions rather than trying to scare the public. 
I am going to deal with the exclusions because that seems to be the key to this whole situation. All they have to do is look at subclause 4(c) on page 3 of the bill. It states:
 (iii) the air carrier can prove that the cancellation of the flight was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. 
We leave it wide open. The airlines do not have to pay a cent. If they follow the rules, they would not pay a cent in any event. 
Let us deal with the tarmac delays. They love to get on this. Subclause 6(1)(d) states:
 (d) an opportunity to disembark from the aircraft if it is possible to do so without causing any undue risk to the health or safety of the passengers or any other person or the safe operation of the aircraft or any other aircraft. 
That is their exclusion. If it is a weather problem, they can say it is unsafe to get off the plane. What is the problem?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Is the House ready for the question? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  In my opinion the nays have it.
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 13, 2009, immediately before the time provided for private members' business. 
It being 1:45 p.m., this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:45 p.m.)