Industry committee  I would like to add that solicitation or communication with people in your riding is totally legal. This does not affect political activities, fundraising, in other words, asking for money. It only affects the sale of products or the offer of services, which is part of the commercial domain.

Industry committee  Precisely. Some of our considerations were prompted by the Canadian Bar Association, which suggested some small changes. After due consideration, we made these changes, but they are very minor and very technical.

Industry committee  The subject matter is covered now in subclauses 10.(2.1) and 10.(2.2), where really we've elaborated in the interior of that consent regime instances when enhanced information is required prior to the installation of software on a computer. It serves much the same function of distinguishing between what I've taken to calling “benign ware” and “malware”.

Industry committee  The provision is not a doubling-up. The clause essentially functions the same way that it did as introduced. We consider the amendments to be technical rather than of a policy nature. The private right of action in this case for violations of PIPEDA and the Competition Act are all in clause 50.

Industry committee  You're not reading it incorrectly. But the amendment has nothing to do with that. The amendment does not change the underlying provisions of either the Competition Act or ECPA. It simply clarifies what was perhaps not initially obvious. We were concerned to make it clear, both for the purposes of persons who have to comply with the act and for people who have to adjudicate under the act, that the appropriate remedies be available for similar types of harms or civil wrongs, if you will.

Industry committee  Not really. We are well aware of the fact that technological convergence is happening more quickly and that it is impossible to really differentiate technologically between the telephone and email communication. From a technological standpoint, they are identical. So there is already a bit of an issue in terms of implementing the legislation.

Industry committee  I think it's difficult to cast in words easily, but one of the issues is simply that the Telecommunications Act is perhaps not the best place to have this kind of regime, in any event. When you look at the “do not call” list today, it is a somewhat awkward fit with the Telecommunications Act.

Industry committee  In the regulations....

Industry committee  Ministers are very sensitive to public opinion.

Industry committee  Yes.

Industry committee  No doubt. That is why extensive consultations will certainly be held before the provisions are enacted. That is necessary. In fact, we could not even enact the provisions if the regulations were not in place. As you know, there are certain requirements involved, such as public consultations, public announcements, feedback and meetings with private stakeholders.

Industry committee  No, it is not in Bill C-27. But based on our knowledge of other legislation, we can assure the committee that consultations on the necessary regulations will take place before the provisions come into force, prior to the transition.

Industry committee  It is my sense that the minister would be very reluctant to impose measures that would give rise to such costs without first holding extensive consultations. That is practically a standard requirement today.

Industry committee  It is not really a matter of doing away with it. Rather we just want to have the ability to replace this regulatory regime in the years ahead, if need be. Technology-wise, there are already some inconsistencies between the National Do Not Call List and the corresponding legislation.

Industry committee  We tried to find a technological difference between the National Do Not Call List and what is in Bill C-27, the provisions dealing with spam and others. In the end, it was impossible to separate the two. In light of developments such as Voice Over Internet Protocol, we were fully aware that we might have to act fairly swiftly in certain situations to ensure that there is always a regime in place to protect Canadians.