Industry Committee on Oct. 21st, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

There is one government amendment for clause 25, government amendment 28. It's moved by Mr. Lake.

Is there any discussion on government amendment 28?

Seeing no discussion, I'll call the question on government amendment 28.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 25 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 26—Restraining orders)

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

There are two government amendments for clause 26, beginning with government amendment 29, moved by Mr. Lake.

Is there any discussion of government amendment 29?

Seeing none, I'll call the question.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Government amendment 30 is moved by Mr. Lake. Is there any discussion on government amendment 30?

Seeing none, I'll call the question.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 26 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 27—Appeal to Federal Court of Appeal)

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

There is government amendment 31, moved by Mr. Lake.

Is there any discussion or debate on government amendment 31?

Monsieur Bouchard.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Page G-31, clause 27, refers to the time limit for appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal. Is that time limit standard?

[Philip Palmer]

No, and that's a problem. There is no standard time limit. That is why we decided to set a reasonable time limit comparable with those of other similar acts.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Was that reasonable time limit easy to find? Did you consider various days or periods? What was the justification?

[Philip Palmer]

We did a little research. The appeals from the Trade Tribunal's decisions are very similar. In addition, the CRTC's decisions are now subject to a similar time limit. So we found that limit reasonable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Are there any other questions or comments?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 27 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 28 to 33 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 34--Questions of law and fact )

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

There is one amendment to clause 34, which is amendment G-32. It is moved by Mr. Lake.

For members of the committee to note, a vote on G-32 will also apply to G-33, G-34, and G-35.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 34 as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Amendment G-32 has carried, as have amendments G-33, G-34, and G-35.

(Clause 35 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 36 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 37 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 38--Evidence)

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

There is one government amendment to clause 38. It's G-36, which is moved by Mr. Lake.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 38 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 39--Information may be made public)

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

There is one government amendment to clause 39, G-37, which is moved by Mr. Lake.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 39 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 40--Enforcement)

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

There is a government amendment, G-38, on clause 40, which is moved by Mr. Lake.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 40 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 41 to 46 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 47—Application)

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

There are three government amendments for clause 47. We will begin with government amendment G-38.1, as moved by Mr. Lake.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We now go to the consideration of government amendment G-39.1, moved by Mr. Lake.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We now go to the consideration of government amendment G-40.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 47 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 48—Limitation)

There are two government amendments to clause 48. We will begin with government amendment G-41, moved by Mr. Lake.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now go to the consideration of government amendment G-42, moved by Mr. Lake.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 48 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 49 and 50 agreed to)

(On clause 51—Order)

There are three government amendments, beginning with government amendment G-42.1, moved by Mr. Lake.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

My understanding is that Mr. Lake is moving amendment G-43.1. It is a new amendment to clause 51. All members of the committee should have this document.

Are there any questions or comments about this new amendment?

Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I gave a heads-up to the members of the committee that this was coming. There has been some change to the original amendment G-43. It's a pretty technical and long amendment, so we'll let the officials speak to it.

[André Leduc]

This has to do with the statutory damages. The original amendment is to bring clause 9 into statutory damages and follow the money. In making this amendment, we saw an omission of statutory damages in a private right of action for the Competition Act and PIPEDA. This addition is to make sure we are not limiting the statutory damages in a private right of action to clauses 6 through 9, but it also applies to the Competition Act and PIPEDA.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Bouchard, do you have any questions?

Mr. Gaudet?

Mr. Gaudet, I think Mr. Bouchard has some questions to ask. Then it will be your turn.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

If I understand correctly, committee members have just obtained this document. We hadn't seen it before this evening. In the circumstances, it seems to me that the reasons and explanations you gave us were not very long. It would be appropriate for you to give us more. I'm open to the idea of studying this document and of being in favour of it, but we would need to hear a little more comment and justification.

[Philip Palmer]

Yes, of course. We apologize for providing these amendments so late. It must be said that this is a bit complicated. That's why we made a mistake at the outset, when we started amending this clause. Briefly, we have always contemplated damages for victims covered by the Competition Act and PIPEDA, but when we made our changes, we forgot that aspect. That's why we made this change to paragraph (a) of the amendment. Paragraph (b), it should be said, explains in detail how the courts must interpret this clause and states the maximum amounts that can be imposed on a person who has contravened the act.

There are differences between the institutions and the nature of the contravention. That's why this is long. On the other hand, it corresponds to the objective that we had at the outset. Subclause (1.1) states:(1.1) The purpose of an order under paragraph (I)(b) is not to punish but to promote compliance with this Act...

That's entirely similar to what is found in the provisions under clause 20, which have already been approved. We made this clarification to avoid giving the impression that it was a punitive measure rather than a corrective measure.

The purpose of paragraph (c), once again, is to import the terms of the Competition Act. That's also the case of paragraphs (d) and (e).

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

If I understand correctly, you've detailed the measures. This part of Bill C-27 was originally much more restricted. What was presented to us at the outset included no explanation. It was really an addition. Are you providing more details, clarification, or are you making changes?

[Philip Palmer]

It's a clarification. Some of our partners have raised the question of the application of this clause, and particularly of the need to draw a distinction between a contravention under clause 6 and a contravention under clauses 7 and 8. A contravention under the latter two clauses can be much more dangerous, in one sense, for the businesses and individuals concerned. That's why we've limited the damages in the case of a single message to $200. That can't really apply to clauses 7 and 8 because the nature of the contravention could have much more serious consequences than simply receiving an e-mail.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Also, does what you're proposing stem from the testimony we've heard, from the consultations you've had or from suggestions by officials? I would like to know that detail. Does this proposal come from groups or individuals in your department? Could you enlighten us on that point?

[Philip Palmer]

This aspect was brought to our attention by government authorities. We made these changes in light of their comments. That's the explanation. This aspect had not been raised in the evidence heard before the committee.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

When you say authorities, are you talking about the Competition Bureau?