Industry Committee on Oct. 21st, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Order, please.

Good afternoon. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology and to our 38th meeting on this day, October 21, 2009.

We're here pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, May 8, 2009, concerning Bill C-27, otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Protection Act.

Today, we will be going clause by clause on this bill. So without further ado, we'll begin.

Before I do, I just want to recognize our three departmental officials here. We have Madam DiFrancesco, who is director general of the electronic commerce branch; we have Mr. Palmer, who is the senior general counsel of the legal services group; and we have Monsieur André Leduc, who is the policy analyst with the e-commerce policy group.

I believe I have an intervention from Mr. Lake.

Go ahead.

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

It's just a point of order to take a moment to congratulate our chair on the birth of his third son, Cameron, I believe on Monday or Tuesday?

[Voices]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Monday night.

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

Congratulations. I'm surprised to see you here two days later.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Well, we're getting discharged from the hospital, and as a matter of fact I still have my hospital bracelet on. After this meeting I will be going home to pick up Carrie and the baby.

Thank you very much.

We're going to begin clause-by-clause on this bill. We're going to stand clause 2 for procedural reasons.

Consideration of clause 1, as per the rules in the Standing Orders, is postponed. Clause 2 will be stood to the end of the meeting so that we can consider clause 3 and onward first.

(Clause 2 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 6--Unsolicited electronic messages)

We have a government amendment for clause 6, G-6.1 in the package that has been distributed to you.

Could I have a mover for G-6.1?

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

I so move.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We now will consider the Bloc amendment to clause 6, BQ-1.1 in your package.

Is there any debate on Bloc amendment 1.1?

Mr. Lake.

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

Actually, I'd ask the witnesses to maybe give some clarification of what this would mean.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Leduc.

[André Leduc, Policy Analyst, E-Commerce Policy, Department of Industry]

I think the clause may be somewhat redundant insofar as the act only applies to commercial activity, and it would not be a regular course of business for a political party to engage in commercial activity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Leduc.

Is there any further debate on Bloc amendment 1.1?

Monsieur Bouchard.

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

It's true that a political party does not engage in commercial activities. On the other hand, it can organize activities such as meetings or dinners for which admission fees are charged. They may then become activities of a financial nature. I would like to hear you say that political parties are not concerned by this provision.

[André Leduc]

That depends on the party's interpretation. If it's a party fund-raiser, then there's no profit, no commercial activity; it doesn't apply.

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

But when a political party organizes fund-raising activities, that generates a profit. A cost is attached to the activity and an amount is requested from members or clients. So there is a profit. I would like you to reassure me by saying that political parties are not concerned by this provision.

[André Leduc]

They aren't completely excluded. If they engage in commercial activities, the provision applies, but if they're involved in fund-raisers for the party or a charity, it doesn't apply.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Give me an example of fund-raising.

[André Leduc]

A political party sends an e-mail to its members to organize a fund-raiser for the party. The idea is to organize a dinner—

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Unless I misunderstand the act, I think that if it organizes a fund-raising dinner, the idea is to raise funds.

[André Leduc]

That's correct. It's precisely for that reason that this is taken into account in subclause 10(6) of the bill, which concerns non-business relationships involving charities, political parties or religious groups.

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

As a precaution, since we belong to political parties, I would ask my colleagues to speak. I believe it would be prudent to include this kind of provision so as to rule out any ambiguity or any potential reprisals against political parties. I would like to point out to my colleagues the importance of adding this kind of provision, which is not very elaborate but would constitute a safety measure for each of our political parties. I would like to hear my colleagues' reactions on that subject.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard.

Seeing no further debate, I'll call the question.

Shall Bloc amendment 1.1 carry?

(Amendment negatived)

Shall clause 6 as amended...?

Just one moment, Mr. Gaudet.

Perhaps people could pay attention when I call the votes.

Go ahead, Mr. Gaudet.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I don't want to make trouble for anyone, but we can take the example of the Conservative government, which, in its ads, shows a t-shirt bearing the "C" of the Conservatives. That could be the Bloc Québécois or even others. For that reason, I think you put it on or you don't. You can say that one party will be good and the other won't. That's false.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Leduc will answer next, Mr. Chairman.