Evidence of meeting #38 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Senior General Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Industry
I'm talking about the CRTC, the Competition Bureau—
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Exactly who are you talking about when you say authorities? Could you clarify that?
5:20 p.m.
Senior General Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Industry
First of all, people from our own department, but also from the CRTC and from the Competition Bureau asked questions and clarified points on what had to be done with regard to these provisions.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Roger Gaudet Bloc Montcalm, QC
I didn't get an answer, but I'm going to ask my question all the same.
If, for example, I have a company and I send out 5,000 e-mails a day and that's not permitted, I'll be fined $1 million. Can you explain to me how that works?
5:20 p.m.
Policy Analyst, E-Commerce Policy, Department of Industry
That's for a civil proceeding, so there is—
5:20 p.m.
Policy Analyst, E-Commerce Policy, Department of Industry
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 that commit an offence to comply with the act.
5:20 p.m.
Policy Analyst, E-Commerce Policy, Department of Industry
It's $200 per e-mail.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Roger Gaudet Bloc Montcalm, QC
That's what I was saying. If you send out 5,000 e-mails, at $200 an e-mail, that equals a fine of $1 million a day.
5:20 p.m.
Policy Analyst, E-Commerce Policy, Department of Industry
Indeed, you would have to send out 5,000.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Thank you.
I'll hand over to Mr. Lake first of all. Then it will be Mr. Bouchard's turn.
Mr. Lake, go ahead.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Just to give some clarity to this, because the honourable member hasn't really been on the committee during the hearings and everything, the numbers are in the original text of the bill. They're consistent. While this amendment may look long, the numbers referred to are in the original text of the bill. It's just been expanded to deal with different circumstances.
I don't know if that lends some clarity or not, but I'll just put that on the table.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Mr. Chairman, I find it surprising that we've received the document at the last minute, even though I think it's very interesting. However, I would like to introduce a motion. We've studied a lot of documents over a number of hours and days. We've carefully examined all the other clauses. We've devoted a lot of time to this. Now a document is being submitted to us and we're being given explanations. I find those explanations interesting, but I would like to introduce a motion that we study this aspect at the next meeting; that will be a point that we could study. We have to have the time to look at it. I move that we not adopt it today, but that we defer to the next meeting.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
We're clearly not going to finish clause-by-clause of this bill today. I suggest we adjourn the meeting presently and continue with debate on G-43.1 at the beginning of Monday's meeting.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I wonder if we might move past this and take the seven minutes we have left to get through a few more so we'll have enough time to finish on Monday.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Okay. I will consult with the legislative clerk.
There's nothing contingent on the deliberations on clause 51, so I will stand clause 51 to the end of our clause-by-clause considerations.
(Clause 51 allowed to stand)
(Clauses 52 to 54 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 55--Liability)
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
There is one amendment, G-44.1, moved by Mr. Lake.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 55 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 56 and 57 agreed to)
(On clause 58--Disclosure by Commission)
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Clause 58 has one government amendment, government amendment 45, moved by Mr. Lake.
Is there any discussion on government amendment 45?
Monsieur Leduc, do you have a comment on government amendment 45?
5:25 p.m.
Policy Analyst, E-Commerce Policy, Department of Industry
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”.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Okay. Thank you very much for that clarification.
Government amendment 45 is corrected by Monsieur Leduc. Is there any further debate?
Seeing none, I will call the question.
Go ahead, Mr. Lake.