Industry committee  Yes, the reason would be that it places an extra burden of proof on the Competition Bureau in the course of their investigations that they would have to prove the materiality of every subject line and header rather than just go on it by face value.

Industry committee  My first point is there is nothing in the proposed act that would force the Competition Bureau to investigate something that would seem more like a mistake or an oversight in the header of an e-mail. Secondly, it would increase the burden on the Competition Bureau to have to pr

Industry committee  I want to enter that there's at least one “to”!

Industry committee  It's simply a grammatical clarification. Instead of “not to conduct an investigation or to discontinue an investigation”, we should add the words “to not conduct an investigation or to discontinue”; it's just to add the word “to” in front of “not conduct an investigation”.

Industry committee  That's for a civil proceeding, so there is—

Industry committee  It's $200 per e-mail.

Industry committee  Indeed, you would have to send out 5,000.

Industry committee  That's a private law action. It enables a private group to obtain an amount equal to the amount of the loss or damages suffered or expenses incurred and pre-established damages for each contravention. Those damages correspond to the CRTC's fines. The purpose is to push businesses

Industry committee  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

Industry committee  What I was saying was that the provisions in the Access to Information Act are enough to protect sensitive information and information that is personal in nature from an access to information request.

Industry committee  It's our understanding that personal or sensitive business information is already protected under the Access to Information Act.

Industry committee  No. We want to strip out the old subclause 18(3) and replace it with new subclause 18(3). The same goes for the French.

Industry committee  No.

Industry committee  We know we are the last G8 country to introduce this kind of bill. Only three OECD countries do not have this kind of act. I don't know the exact number—I don't know the acts and bills of all the countries—but I know there are a number. We're lagging behind.

Industry committee  No, we weren't looking at it from a technological standpoint; we were looking at it from a regulatory standpoint, where they would have to follow that set of rules under the “do not call” already. It would be a more facilitated transition into this. The time periods are all model