INDU Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

Meeting No. 38

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology met at 3:33 p.m. this day, in Room 209, West Block, the Chair, the Hon. Michael D.Chong, presiding.

Members of the Committee present: Robert Bouchard, Gordon Brown, Hon. Michael D. Chong, Siobhan Coady, Mike Lake, Brian Masse, Anthony Rota, Dave Van Kesteren, Robert Vincent and Chris Warkentin.

Acting Members present: Steven Blaney for Mike Wallace, Roger Gaudet for Robert Vincent and Michelle Simson for Marc Garneau.

In attendance: Library of Parliament: Alysia Davies, Analyst ; Dan Shaw, Analyst ; Dillan Theckedath, Analyst . House of Commons: Wayne Cole, Legislative Clerk.

Witnesses: Department of Industry: Janet DiFrancesco, Director General, Electronic Commerce Branch; André Leduc, Policy Analyst, Electronic Commerce Policy; Philip Palmer, Senior General Counsel, Legal Services.

Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Friday, May 8, 2009, the Committee resumed consideration of Bill C-27, An Act to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, and to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Competition Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act.

The witnesses answered questions.

The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of Clause 1 is postponed.

The Chair called Clause 2.

By unanimous consent, Clause 2 was allowed to stand.

Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive carried severally.

On Clause 6,

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 6, be amended by

(a) replacing line 11 on page 6 with the following:

“(a) that is sent by or on behalf of an individual to another”

(b) adding after line 20 on page 6 the following:

“(5.1) Paragraph (1)(a) does not apply to a commercial electronic message that solely

(a) provides a quote or estimate for the supply of a product, goods, a service, land or an interest or right in land, if the quote or estimate was requested by the person to whom the message is sent;

(b) facilitates, completes or confirms a commercial transaction that the person to whom the message is sent previously agreed to enter into with the person who sent the message or the person — if different — on whose behalf it is sent;

(c) provides warranty information, product recall information or safety or security information about a product, goods or a service that the person to whom the message is sent uses, has used or has purchased;

(d) provides notification of factual information about

(i) the ongoing use or ongoing purchase by the person to whom the message is sent of a product, goods or a service offered under a subscription, membership, account, loan or similar relationship by the person who sent the message or the person — if different — on whose behalf it is sent, or

(ii) the ongoing subscription, membership, account, loan or similar relationship of the person to whom the message is sent;

(e) provides information directly related to an employment relationship or related benefit plan in which the person to whom the message is sent is currently involved, is currently participating or is currently enrolled;

(f) delivers a product, goods or a service, including product updates or upgrades, that the person to whom the message is sent is entitled to receive under the terms of a transaction that they have previously entered into with the person who sent the message or the person — if different — on whose behalf it is sent; or

(g) communicates for a purpose specified in the regulations.”

Robert Bouchard moved, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 6, be amended by adding after line 34 on page 6 the following:

“(8) For the purposes of this section, an electronic message that is sent by a political party or organization, or by a person who is a candidate — as defined in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province —for publicly elected office, is not considered to be a commercial electronic message.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Robert Bouchard and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 6, as amended, carried.

On Clause 7,

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 7 with the following:

“express consent of the sender or the person to whom the message is sent, or is made in accordance”

Clause 7, as amended, carried.

On Clause 8,

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 16 on page 7 with the following:

“authorized user of the computer system or is”

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 7 with the following:

“the time when they give the directions.”

Clause 8, as amended, carried.

Clause 9 carried.

On Clause 10,

Mike Lake moved, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 39 on page 7 the following:

“(1.1) Despite paragraph (1)(b), for the purposes of section 6, if a person is seeking express consent on behalf of a person whose identity is not known,

(a) the only information that is required to be provided under that paragraph is prescribed information that identifies the person seeking consent; and

(b) the person seeking consent must comply with the regulations in respect of the use that may be made of the consent and the conditions on which the consent may be used.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mike Lake and it was agreed to.

Mike Lake moved, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 42 on page 7 to line 4 on page 8 with the following:

“when requesting consent, also, in addition to setting out any other prescribed information, clearly and simply describe, in general terms, the function and purpose of the computer program that is to be installed if the consent is given.

(2.1) In addition to the requirements set out in subsections (1) and (2), if the computer program that is to be installed performs one or more of the functions described in subsection (2.2), the person who seeks express consent must, when requesting consent, clearly and prominently, and separately and apart from the licence agreement,

(a) describe the program’s material elements that perform the function or functions, including the nature and purpose of those elements and their reasonably foreseeable impact on the operation of the computer system; and

(b) bring those elements to the attention of the person from whom consent is being sought in the prescribed manner.

(2.2) A function referred to in subsection (2.1) is any of the following functions that the person who seeks express consent knows and intends will cause the computer system to operate in a manner that is contrary to the reasonable expectations of the owner or an authorized user of the computer system:

(a) collecting personal information stored on the computer system;

(b) interfering with the owner’s or an authorized user’s control of the computer system;

(c) changing or interfering with settings, preferences or commands already installed or stored on the computer system without the knowledge of the owner or an authorized user of the computer system;

(d) changing or interfering with data that is stored on the computer system in a manner that obstructs, interrupts or interferes with lawful access to or use of that data by the owner or an authorized user of the computer system;

(e) causing the computer system to communicate with another computer system, or other device, without the authorization of the owner or an authorized user of the computer system;

(f) installing a computer program that may be activated by a third party without the knowledge of the owner or an authorized user of the computer system; and

(g) performing any other function specified in the regulations.

(2.3) Subsection (2.1) does not apply in respect of a computer program that performs a function described in subsection (2.2) if that function only collects, uses or communicates transmission data or performs an operation specified in the regulations.

(2.4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in respect of the installation of an update or upgrade to a computer program the installation or use of which was expressly consented to in accordance with subsections (1) and (2) if the person who gave the consent is entitled to receive the update or upgrade under the terms of the express consent and the update or upgrade is installed in accordance with those terms.

(2.5) A person is considered to expressly consent to the installation of a computer program if

(a) the program is

(i) a cookie,

(ii) HTML code,

(iii) Java Scripts,

(iv) an operating system,

(v) any other program that is executable only through the use of another computer program whose installation or use the person has previously expressly consented to, or

(vi) any other program specified in the regulations; and

(b) the person’s conduct is such that it is reasonable to believe that they consent to the program’s installation.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mike Lake and it was agreed to.

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 12 on page 8 with the following:

“section 6 only if

(a) the person who sends the message, the person who causes it to be sent or the person who permits it to be sent has an existing business relationship or an existing non-business relationship with the person to whom it is sent;

(b) the person to whom the message is sent has conspicuously published, or has caused to be conspicuously published, the electronic address to which the message is sent, the publication is not accompanied by a statement that the person does not wish to receive unsolicited commercial electronic messages at the electronic address and the message is relevant to the person’s business, role, functions or duties in a business or official capacity;

(c) the person to whom the message is sent has disclosed, to the person who sends the message, the person who causes it to be sent or the person who permits it to be sent, the electronic address to which the message is sent without indicating a wish not to receive unsolicited commercial electronic messages at the electronic address, and the message is relevant to the person’s business, role, functions or duties in a business or official capacity; or

(d) the message is sent in the circumstances set out in the regulations.”

Robert Bouchard moved, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 8 with the following:

“within the two-year period immediately”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Robert Bouchard and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 14 on page 9 the following:

“(5.1) If a person has an existing business relationship with another person in accordance with subsection (4), and the business is sold, the person who purchases the business is considered to have, in respect of that business, an existing business relationship with that other person. ”

Robert Bouchard moved, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 9 with the following:

“other persons within the two-year period”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Robert Bouchard and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 1.

The Chair ruled that the following two (2) amendments were consequential to the previous amendment and therefore they were also adopted:

That Bill C-27, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 37 on page 9 with the following:

“two-year period immediately preceding the”

That Bill C-27, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 10 with the following:

“two-year period immediately preceding the”

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 40 on page 9 with the following:

“c) d’une adhésion, au sens des règlements,”

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 10 the following:

“(7) Where a period is specified in subsection (4) or (6) in relation to the purchase or lease of a product, goods, a service, land or an interest or right in land, or in relation to a donation, gift or membership,

(a) in the case of a purchase, lease, donation or gift, if it involves an ongoing use or ongoing purchase under a subscription, account, loan or similar relationship, the period is considered to commence on the day that the subscription, account, loan or other relationship terminates; and

(b) in the case of a membership, the period is considered to commence on the day that the membership terminates.”

Clause 10, as amended, carried.

On Clause 11,

Mike Lake moved, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 11, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 11 to 22 on page 10 with the following:

“(a) enable the person to whom the commercial electronic message is sent to indicate, at no cost to them, the wish to no longer receive any commercial electronic messages, or any specified class of such messages, from the person who sent the message or the person — if different — on whose behalf the message is sent, using

(i) the same electronic means by which the message was sent, or

(ii) if using those means is not practicable, any other electronic means that will enable the person to indicate the wish; and

(b) specify an electronic address, or link to a page on the World Wide Web that can be accessed through a web browser, to which the indication may be sent.”

(b) replacing line 26 on page 10 with the following:

“the electronic address or World Wide Web page referred to in”

“in accordance with paragraph (1)(b) without delay, and in any event no later than 10 business days after the indication has been sent,”

(d) replacing lines 3 and 4 on page 11 with the following:

“electronic address to which they may send”

(e) replacing line 7 on page 11 with the following:

“withdrawal of consent sent in”

(f) replacing line 9 on page 11 with the following:

“but in any event no later than 10 business days after”

(g) replacing line 15 on page 11 with the following:

“computer program that performs one or more of the functions described in subsection 10(2.2) but not referred to in subsection 10(2.3) is installed under the”

(h) replacing line 25 on page 11 with the following:

“description of the material elements of the function or functions described in subsection 10(2.2)”

Robert Bouchard moved, — That the amendment be amended by

(a) replacing in paragraph (c) the words “10 business days” with the words “30 days”

(b) replacing in paragraph (f) the words “10 business days” with the words “30 days”

After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Robert Bouchard and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mike Lake and it was agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, carried.

On Clause 12,

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 11 with the following:

“12. (1) A person contravenes section 6 only if a computer system located in Canada is used to send or access the electronic message.

(2) A person contravenes section 7 only”

Clause 12, as amended, carried.

Clauses 13 and 14 carried severally.

On Clause 15,

Mike Lake moved, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 15, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 25 to 28 on page 12 with the following:

“demand only for the purpose of

(a) verifying compliance with this Act;

(b) determining whether any of sections 6 to 9 has been contravened; or

(c) assisting an investigation or proceeding in respect of a contravention of the laws of a foreign state that address conduct that is substantially similar to conduct prohibited under any of sections 6 to 9.”

(b) replacing lines 34 and 35 on page 12 with the following:

“would jeopardize the conduct of

(a) an investigation under this Act; or

(b) an investigation or proceeding in respect of a contravention of the laws of a foreign state that address conduct that is substantially similar to conduct prohibited under any of sections 6 to 9.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mike Lake and it was agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, carried.

On Clause 16,

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 13 with the following:

“16. (1) Within five business days after the day on”

Mike Lake moved, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 44 on page 13 with the following:

“(2) After considering any representations made by the telecommunications service provider and by the person designated for the purposes of section 15, the Commission may allow the application, deny the application or vary the demand, or any condition imposed in it, in any manner that the Commission considers reasonable in the circumstances.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mike Lake and it was agreed to.

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 14 with the following:

“service provider together with a notice of their right to appeal.”

Clause 16, as amended, carried.

On Clause 17,

Mike Lake moved, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 17, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 25 to 28 on page 14 with the following:

“notice only for the purpose of

(a) verifying compliance with this Act;

(b) determining whether any of sections 6 to 9 has been contravened; or

(b) replacing lines 37 and 38 on page 14 with the following:

“disclosure would jeopardize the conduct of

(a) an investigation under this Act; or

The question was put on the amendment of Mike Lake and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 1.

Clause 17, as amended, carried.

On Clause 18,

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 21 to 35 on page 15 with the following:

“(3) After considering any representations made by the applicant and by the person designated for the purposes of section 17, the Commission may

(a) allow the application;

(b) deny the application; or

(i) the requirement to produce, or prepare and produce, a document, or

(ii) any condition imposed in the notice.”

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 16 with the following:

“decision to be served on the person together with a notice of their right to appeal.”

Clause 18, as amended, carried.

On Clause 19,

Mike Lake moved, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 19, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 9 to 12 on page 16 with the following:

“(a) entry to the place is necessary to

(i) verify compliance with this Act,

(ii) determine whether any of sections 6 to 9 has been contravened, or

(iii) assist an investigation or proceeding in respect of a contravention of the laws of a foreign state that address conduct that is substantially similar to conduct prohibited under any of sections 6 to 9; and”

(b) replacing lines 23 to 26 on page 16 with the following:

“nated person may, for any purpose set out in subparagraphs (1)(a)(i) to (iii),”

“person to execute the warrant and shall provide any documents,”

After debate, it was agreed, — That the amendment be amended by replacing, in the French version, in paragraph c), the number “4” with the number “6”.

The question was put on the amendment of Mike Lake, as amended, and it was agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, carried.

Siobhan Coady moved, — That Bill C-27 be amended by adding after line 33 on page 17 the following new clause:

“19.1 The information collected under sections 17 and 19 is confidential and shall be used only for the purpose of this Act.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Siobhan Coady and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clauses 20 to 22 inclusive carried severally.

On Clause 23,

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 23, be amended by

(a) replacing, in the English version, line 18 on page 20 with the following:

“proceeding became known to a person designated under section 14.”

(b) replacing, in the English version, lines 22 and 23 on page 20 with the following:

“any proceedings became known to a person designated under section 14, is admissible in evidence without proof of”

Clause 23, as amended, carried.

On Clause 24,

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing line 37 on page 20 with the following:

“pay the penalty and do not make representations”

Clause 24, as amended, carried.

On Clause 25,

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 25, be amended by replacing line 44 on page 20 with the following:

“notice of violation, may reduce or waive the penalty, or may suspend payment of the penalty subject to any conditions that the Commission considers necessary to ensure compliance with this Act.”

Clause 25, as amended, carried.

On Clause 26,

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 10 on page 21 with the following:

“enjoindre à celle-ci de”

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 26, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 21 the following:

“(2) The Commission shall cause a copy of its order to be served on the person together with a notice of their right to appeal.”

Clause 26, as amended, carried.

On Clause 27,

Mike Lake moved, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 27, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 11 to 14 on page 21 with the following:

“27. (1) Subject to subsection (2), an appeal may be brought in the Federal Court of Appeal from a decision made under section 16, 18 or 25 or an order made under section 26 within 30 days after the day on which the decision or order, as the case may be, is made.”

(b) replacing line 19 on page 21 with the following:

“Appeal, an application for which must be made within 30 days after the day on which the decision or order, as the case may be, is made. The appeal may not be brought later than 30 days after the day on which leave to appeal is granted.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mike Lake and it was agreed to.

Clause 27, as amended, carried.

Clauses 28 to 33 inclusive carried severally.

On Clause 34,

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 34, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 23 with the following:

“this Act.”

The Chair ruled that the following three (3) amendments were consequential to the previous amendment and therefore they were also adopted:

That Bill C-27, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing lines 13 and 14 on page 23 with the following:

“35. In a proceeding under this Act, the Commission has the powers of a”

That Bill C-27, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 23 with the following:

“this Act.”

That Bill C-27, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing line 39 on page 23 with the following:

“this Act.”

Clause 34, as amended, carried.

Clause 35, as amended, carried.

Clause 36, as amended, carried.

Clause 37, as amended, carried.

On Clause 38,

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 38, be amended by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 24 with the following:

“a notice of violation under section 22, a copy of a decision under section 16, 18 or 25 or an order of the Commission under section 26, that”

Clause 38, as amended, carried.

On Clause 39,

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 39, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 22 on page 24 with the following:

“dispositions en cause et, le cas échéant, le”

Clause 39, as amended, carried.

On Clause 40,

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 24 with the following:

“in the case of a demand, notice or order, or entered into, in the case of an undertaking.”

Clause 40, as amended, carried.

Clauses 41 to 46 inclusive carried severally.

On Clause 47,

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 12 and 13 on page 27 with the following:

“provision, act or omission at issue and any”

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 16 to 20 on page 27 with the following:

“demandeur prétend avoir subi une perte ou des dommages ou avoir engagé des dépenses par suite de la contravention ou du comportement susceptible d’examen, la nature et le montant de ces perte, dommages ou dépenses.”

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 26 on page 27 with the following:

“conduct that is reviewable under section 74.011 of the Competi-”

Clause 47, as amended, carried.

On Clause 48,

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 48, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 28 with the following:

“sought, the Commission shall, within 10 business days”

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 48, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 18 on page 28 with the following:

“la demande visant à obtenir l’ordonnance”

Clause 48, as amended, carried.

Clauses 49 and 50 carried severally.

On Clause 51,

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 51, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 29 with the following:

“the application or engaged in conduct that is reviewable under section 74.011 of the Competition Act, the court may order the person”

Mike Lake moved, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 51, be amended by

(a) replacing line 18 on page 29 with the following:

“the application or engaged in conduct that is reviewable under section 74.011 of the Competition Act, the court may order the person”

(b) replacing lines 24 to 27 on page 29 with the following:

“(b) a maximum of

(i) in the case of a contravention of section 6, $200 for each contravention of that provision, not exceeding $1,000,000 for each day on which a contravention occurred,

(ii) in the case of a contravention of section 7 or 8, $1,000,000 for each day on which a contravention occurred,

(iii) subject to subparagraphs (iv) and (v), in the case of a contravention of section 9, $1,000,000 for each contravention of that provision,

(iv) in the case of a contravention of section 9 resulting from procuring, or causing to be procured, the doing of an act contrary to section 6, and if a contravention of section 6 has resulted, $200 for each such contravention of section 6, not exceeding $1,000,000 for each day on which a contravention of section 6 occurred,

(v) in the case of a contravention of section 9 resulting from procuring, or causing to be procured, the doing of an act contrary to section 7 or 8, and if a contravention of either of those sections has resulted, $1,000,000 for each day on which a contravention of section 7 or 8, as the case may be, occurred,

(vi) in the case of a contravention of section 5 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, $200 for each contravention of that provision, not exceeding $1,000,000 for each day on which a contravention occurred, and

(vii) in the case of conduct that is reviewable under section 74.011 of the Competition Act, $200 for each occurrence of the conduct, not exceeding $1,000,000 for each day on which the conduct occurred.

(1.1) The purpose of an order under paragraph (1)(b) is not to punish but to promote compliance with this Act or section 5 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, or conduct that is in conformity with the purposes of section 74.011 of the Competition Act, as the case may be.”

“under paragraph (1)(b) for each contravention or each occurrence of the reviewable conduct;

(a) the purpose of the order;

(a.1) the nature and scope of the contravention or reviewable conduct;”

(d) replacing line 11 on page 30 with the following:

“contravention or from engaging in the reviewable conduct;”

(e) replacing line 16 on page 30 with the following:

“tion or the reviewable conduct.”

After debate, by unanimous consent, the amendment of Mike Lake and Clause 51 were allowed to stand.

Clauses 52 to 54 inclusive carried severally.

On Clause 55,

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 55, be amended by replacing lines 7 to 11 on page 31 with the following:

“in an application under subsection 47(1) or to have engaged in conduct that is reviewable under section 74.011 of the Competition Act, those persons are jointly and severally, or solidarily, liable for the payment of the amounts ordered to be paid under subsection 51(1) in respect of the contravention or the reviewable conduct.”

Clause 55, as amended, carried.

Clauses 56 and 57 carried severally.

On Clause 58,

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 58, be amended by

(a) replacing, in the English version, line 16 on page 33 with the following:

“powers under Part I of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act if the”

(b) replacing, in the English version, line 22 on page 33 with the following:

“not conduct an investigation or to discontinue an investigation,”

Clause 58, as amended, carried.

Clause 59 carried.

On Clause 60,

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 60, be amended by

(a) replacing, in the French version, line 20 on page 34 with the following:

“communiqués aux termes d’accords ou d’ententes conclus”

(b) replacing, in the French version, line 40 on page 35 with the following:

“(2) Les accords et ententes mentionnés au paragraphe (1) :”

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27, in Clause 60, be amended by

(a) replacing line 43 on page 35 with the following:

“conduct referred to in any of subparagraphs (1)(a)(i) to (iv); and”

(b) adding after line 5 on page 36 the following:

“(2.1) An arrangement referred to in subsection (1) entered into by the Commission or the Privacy Commissioner may be in respect only of contraventions of the laws of a foreign state that have consequences that would not be considered penal under Canadian law.”

“(a) obtained in the course of assisting an investigation or proceeding in respect of a contravention of the laws of a foreign state that address conduct that is substantially similar to conduct referred to in any of subparagraphs (1)(a)(i) to (iv); or

(b) obtained in the course of the activities described in any of subparagraphs (1)(b)(i) to (iv).

(4) For the purposes of this section, an arrangement may be created by the acceptance, by the Government of Canada, the Commission, the Commissioner of Competition or the Privacy Commissioner, of a written request for assistance from the government of a foreign state, an international organization of states or an international organization established by the governments of states, or any institution of any such government or organization, if the request is accompanied by a declaration that the party making the request will provide assistance to the party to whom the request is made on a reciprocal basis.”

Clause 60, as amended, carried.

On new Clause 60.1,

On motion of Mike Lake, it was agreed, — That Bill C-27 be amended by adding after line 9 on page 36 the following new clause:

“60.1 The Commission, the Commissioner of Competition and the Privacy Commissioner shall provide the Minister of Industry with any reports that he or she requests for the purpose of coordinating the implementation of sections 6 to 9 of this Act, sections 52.01 and 74.011 of the Competition Act and section 7.1 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.”

Clauses 61 and 62 carried severally.

At 5:32 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.

Michelle Tittley
Clerk of the Committee

2009/10/29 2:19 p.m.