Information & Ethics Committee on May 9th, 2017

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you.

I have one last question for the CRTC officials

You said you were imposing a penalty that could range from $1 million to $10 million, I believe. Is that correct?

It seems to me that there is a discretionary aspect. As you said, section 20 of the anti-spam legislation deals with that, but I still think there is that discretion. It depends on the context and the extent. Are you relying on a percentage? Is the percentage of sales taken into account?

[Daniel Roussy]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Dubourg.

I would like to make a clarification. Penalties of up to $1 million apply to individuals. As far as companies are concerned, penalties can be as high as $10 million.

As far as penalties are concerned, there is no percentage. As I explained earlier, the legislation is quite specific about the recipe to follow and the indications to come up with a figure. In addition, there are a number of Federal Court decisions that have provided guidance on the amounts to be imposed. So it’s not a matter of a percentage. There is some flexibility that allows us to do our work.

I would like to come back to the fact that an administrative monetary penalty is just one of many tools. It is used in combination with other tools. You see, for the system to work, a number of things must come together.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Along the lines of what Ms. Campbell said, the purpose of these penalties is to ensure that people or organizations comply with the legislation. They are not intended to be punitive.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

I would like to thank our witnesses for being here. We appreciate your advice and counsel. If there's any testimony, in hindsight, that you wish you had given, please make a submission to the clerk. These things often happen. I usually think of the best things that I should have said days after.

We're going to move in camera very shortly, and I'll ask anybody in the room who's not supposed to be here to please excuse themselves.

Colleagues, as we prepare to move in camera to discuss a bit of committee business, we do have some outstanding business that we should take care of publicly. With the changing of some of the committee's makeup, the committee finds itself in a situation where it only has one vice-chair. Normally, a committee has two vice-chairs. I would be looking for somebody to nominate our vice-chair, the vacant seat that was left by Mr. Blaikie when he left the committee.

Mr. Kelly, would you like to move a motion?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

I move that Ms. Trudel be the vice-chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Normally, we have 10-minute speeches from people seeking these positions, but we won't do that to Ms. Trudel today.

The motion is moved, and I'll turn it over to the clerk point.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Hugues La Rue]

Moved by Mr. Kelly that Ms. Trudel be elected second vice-chair of the committee.

Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

Ms. Trudel is duly elected second vice-chair of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Very good, Madame Trudel.

Unlike your predecessor, that was unanimous. I'm kidding, of course.

Madame Trudel.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

I would like to thank Mr. Kelly for the nomination and for his wonderful remarks. Thank you very much.

I'm just passing through. By June, someone else might take my place.

Thank you for welcoming me. I will do my best to be a good vice-chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Colleagues, I'll suspend the meeting for a moment and we'll move in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]