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.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Yes, Mr. Chairman. Even though the Liberals have withdrawn amendment L-2, I would like to know whether the officials have made amendments taking amendment L-2 into account.
3:55 p.m.
Policy Analyst, E-Commerce Policy, Department of Industry
We wanted a functional consent system for clause 8. We considered what is currently being used and what will function well in terms of the consent required to install computer programs. We considered the lists in amendment L-2, and the government's suggestions, in other words, are found in the new subclause 10(2.5).
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Thank you, Mr. Leduc and Mr. Bouchard.
Is there any further debate on G-11.1?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On G-12, do I have a mover?
It is moved by Mr. Lake.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The next amendment under consideration is BQ-2.
Do I have a mover for BQ-2?
Monsieur Bouchard, thank you.
Would you like to speak to this amendment? Go ahead.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
The officials recommended 18 months at first. A lot of witnesses asked that that period be much longer. I believe one witness even mentioned six years. Since we're taking an important turn and this measure constitutes a major change, we're moving that it be two years rather than 18 months.
4 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I have a question for the officials about the 18 to 24 months. What will that change effectively for people?
4 p.m.
Policy Analyst, E-Commerce Policy, Department of Industry
From what I understand, BQ-2 extends the 18-month period to a two-year period. We proposed the 18-month period to be consistent with what is pre-existing in “do not call” to simplify regulations for enterprises in Canada. So that's why we went with the 18 months originally.
4 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
So it will effectively treat the “do not call” and the phone--the two sets of businesses and communications--differently.
4 p.m.
NDP
4 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Ultimately, we're suggesting 6 months more than what was contained in the initial bill, that is to say 18 months. It would now be 24 months. I would like to know whether you believe that will have any consequences and, if so, would they be significant?
4 p.m.
Policy Analyst, E-Commerce Policy, Department of Industry
It is possible that consumers may say that two years have elapsed since the discussion and transaction and ask why the business waited 24 months before sending the e-mail, when it could have done so in the first 18 months. In our view, a year and a half should be enough for businesses—even the smallest ones—to pursue a business relationship by e-mail.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Did you meet the witnesses? Did you read their comments? They presented a number of reasons. Did you consider the longer timeframes proposed? I remember that the Association des courtiers et agents immobiliers du Québec suggested a six-year period. What's your reasoning on that?
4:05 p.m.
Policy Analyst, E-Commerce Policy, Department of Industry
We did read the comments of the witnesses who appeared. They decided to propose a transition period of 6 years in their requests to help businesses, not to change the 18-month timeframe.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
They suggested extending the timeframe by six months because people told us things and spoke in a logical, polite and reasonable manner. We are attentive to the public and people who do business. It seems normal to me to be a little more open. I'm not proposing a 6-year timeframe, but to extend the timeframe to 24 months. Ultimately, that's six months more; it doesn't change much.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Thank you for your opinions and questions, Mr. Bouchard.
Mr. Blaney, go ahead.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief.
I'm in favour of this amendment. I wasn't here when the representatives of the Mouvement Desjardins appeared before the committee. However, I know they proposed a two and a half-year time bar, for insurance, for example. When you want to change insurance companies in the case of automobile insurance, you have to wait until the anniversary date of the premium, the expiry date, which can take six months. I find this timeframe is a good proposal and a good amendment.
Thank you.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
Since Mr. Blaney and the Conservatives will probably support it, I don't have any arguments. I agree on the 24-month timeframe.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I just have a further question.
Is part of the reason for the consistency that there's going to be a convergence with the technology as well—the “do not call” and the potential...?
4:05 p.m.
Policy Analyst, E-Commerce Policy, Department of Industry
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 modelled. These specific ones for existing business relationships are modelled after the “do not call” legislation.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative