Evidence of meeting #39 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 list.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Next is consideration of clause 82, for which I understand there is one amendment, G-57, moved by Mr. Lake.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 82 as amended agreed to)
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
We will now go to consideration of clauses 83, 84, 85, 86, and 87, for which I understand there are no amendments.
Mr. Bouchard.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Okay. So we'll go to consideration of clauses 83, 84, and 85.
(Clauses 83 to 85 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 86)
We now go to consideration of clause 86.
Mr. Bouchard, do you have a question?
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
I would like the department representatives to tell me if this clause deals with abolishing the National Do Not Call List.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
I would like to thank the Conservative Party for allowing me to bring this matter up. We have just seen that we could have debated a question on clause 64. But I am going to talk about clause 86 exclusively. I have some questions for the department representatives.
You seem determined to abolish the National Do Not Call List. Why do you want to include the provisions allowing it to be abolished in Bill C-27?
4:45 p.m.
Senior General Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Industry
It is not really a matter of doing away with it. Rather we just want to have the ability to replace this regulatory regime in the years ahead, if need be. Technology-wise, there are already some inconsistencies between the National Do Not Call List and the corresponding legislation. Then there are administrative issues.
For now, we do not intend to do away with the National Do Not Call List, but we want to see what future developments will bring. In other words, it would be possible to respond to those developments by doing away with the program, if necessary. Such cases would then be covered by the Electronic Commerce Protection Act. Whether those provisions will be enacted is by no means a foregone conclusion. But, given the technological and administrative issues we are seeing, we included those measures. We want to make sure that we have the tools we need to address situations that may arise in the future.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
To summarize what you just said, you do not intend to do away with the National Do Not Call List. You are waiting to see how things develop. That being said, we can assume there is some uncertainty on your part.
Why include a provision in Bill C-27 to deal with something that may never happen?
4:45 p.m.
Senior General Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Industry
We tried to find a technological difference between the National Do Not Call List and what is in Bill C-27, the provisions dealing with spam and others. In the end, it was impossible to separate the two. In light of developments such as Voice Over Internet Protocol, we were fully aware that we might have to act fairly swiftly in certain situations to ensure that there is always a regime in place to protect Canadians.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that this list is a measure that the government put in place a year or so ago. Is that correct?
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Do you agree that having to meet those requirements was costly for businesses?
4:50 p.m.
Senior General Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Industry
No doubt. That is why extensive consultations will certainly be held before the provisions are enacted. That is necessary. In fact, we could not even enact the provisions if the regulations were not in place. As you know, there are certain requirements involved, such as public consultations, public announcements, feedback and meetings with private stakeholders. I am sure that these provisions will not be enacted without a fairly extensive consultation process that will allow for discussion of costs, time frames and so forth.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
If I may, Mr. Chair, I have another question.
Does the bill set out the obligation to hold consultations before the provision about eliminating the list is added to Bill C-27?
4:50 p.m.
Senior General Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Industry
In the regulations....
4:50 p.m.
Senior General Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Industry
No, it is not in Bill C-27. But based on our knowledge of other legislation, we can assure the committee that consultations on the necessary regulations will take place before the provisions come into force, prior to the transition.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC
Yes.
Despite holding consultations, could this amendment or provision in the bill hamstring the recommendation? In other words, even with consultations, would the final decision be made by the department or by the government? Would the decision depend on the outcome of the consultations or on the minister's will?
4:50 p.m.
Senior General Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Industry
It is my sense that the minister would be very reluctant to impose measures that would give rise to such costs without first holding extensive consultations. That is practically a standard requirement today.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC
If the consultations show that there is a consensus to keep the National Do Not Call List, would the department go along with that, or would it go with its own position, do you think?
4:50 p.m.
Senior General Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Industry
Ministers are very sensitive to public opinion.