Skip to content
 

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications

Issue 7 - Evidence, December 14, 2010


OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 14, 2010

The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 9:31 a.m. to study Bill C-28, 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.

Senator Dennis Dawson (Chair) in the chair.

[Translation]

The Chair: Honourable Senators, I call the meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications to order. Thank you for being here today.

This morning, we are going to start the study that was referred to us on Bill C-28, 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.

[English]

This morning we are pleased to welcome two groups before the committee. We will begin with the representatives of Industry Canada, followed by those from the Information Technology Association of Canada. Here on behalf of Industry Canada are Janet DiFrancesco, Director General, Electronic Commerce Branch; André Leduc, Policy Advisor, E-Commerce Policy; and Philip Palmer, Senior General Counsel, Industry Canada Legal Services.

[Translation]

Ms. DiFrancesco, the floor is yours. We will then go to the question period.

[English]

Janet DiFrancesco, Director General, Electronic Commerce Branch, Industry Canada: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee to discuss Bill C-28, the proposed anti-spam legislation.

The Internet has become the central nervous system for the digital economy. It provides a common global platform for communication and commerce. Its use by businesses and consumers has led to the emergence of a borderless international marketplace.

In Canada, the value of the online economy has consistently grown at a double-digit pace since 2000. At that time, the value of the online economy was estimated at slightly under $6 billion in Canada. When last measured by Statistics Canada in 2007, the value of the online economy in our country was just under $63 billion.

Businesses and consumers have grown accustomed to using the Internet and they depend upon its safety and reliability. Unfortunately, spam and related online threats can erode trust and confidence in the Internet as a safe and reliable environment for electronic commerce. According to Spamhaus as of November 29, 2010, Canada ranks seventh on the list of the ten worst spam countries for the production and export of spam.

[Translation]

Spam is still the main vehicle for the propagation of online threats including spyware, computer viruses, false and misleading emails, the use of fraudulent websites, and the harvesting of electronic addresses. These threats are not just nuisances. Some are fraudulent. Some invade privacy. Some are used to infect and gain control over computers.

Bill C-28 puts in place important provisions that will protect Canadian consumers and businesses from the most damaging and deceptive forms of these electronic harms. It provides a regulatory regime to improve privacy and the personal security of Canadians in the online environment. It provides a clear set of rules that will benefit all Canadians. It will encourage confidence in online communications and e-commerce.

[English]

We have learned from approaches taken elsewhere that a civil administrative regime is more responsive and therefore more effective than using the criminal law to combat spam. Other countries, such as Australia, the United States and Japan, use regulatory authorities to enforce anti-spam legislation. With Bill C-28, Canada will have a comprehensive enforcement regime.

As recommended by the Task Force on Spam, this bill makes use of existing agencies and enables them to work with, and share, information with each other and with their international counterparts. The new law will be enforced by Canada's communications authority, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, as well as the Competition Bureau Canada and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

The CRTC will enforce the provisions against sending unsolicited commercial messages and will have responsibility for provisions that prohibit the altering of transmission data without authorization and the unauthorized installation of computer programs.

The Competition Bureau will address false and misleading representations online and deceptive marketplace practices, such as false headers and website content.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner will address the collection of personal information through illegal access to computer systems and the unauthorized compiling or supplying of lists of electronic addresses, commonly referred to as address harvesting.

The bill provides that both the CRTC and the Competition Bureau can seek administrative monetary penalties, AMPs, against violators. The maximum AMP for the CRTC is up to $1 million per violation for individuals and up to $10 million for businesses. The Competition Bureau, through application to the Competition Tribunal, may also seek AMPs under the current regime of the Competition Act. That regime envisages penalties of up to $750,000 for individuals with $1 million per subsequent violation, and up to $10 million for businesses with $15 million per subsequent violation. These penalties demonstrate that we are serious about driving spammers out of Canada.

[Translation]

Industry Canada will have oversight responsibilities and will ensure that the work of the three agencies is coordinated. A spam reporting centre will be established to help the three enforcement agencies in their investigations and prosecutions, and to give businesses and consumers a one-stop shop where they can file complaints and report spam and other online threats.

The bill strikes a balance between giving consumers control over their inboxes and not restricting online commerce. The rules require that the individual's consent be obtained before the sending of commercial electronic messages. Once consent has been expressed by an individual, it remains in effect until the individual "unsubscribes'' or revokes that consent.

[English]

I will point out to the committee two ways the bill differs from the former Bill C-27 introduced in the last session. First, section 2 deals with the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, PIPEDA. It provides that its provisions regarding the protection of personal information take precedence over other legislation, unless that other legislation includes a clear statement that it applies despite section 4(3) of that act.

The consent provisions in Bill C-28 are more targeted than those in PIPEDA, so this new section is necessary to ensure that in the event of a conflict between the two acts, the consent provisions in Bill C-28 prevail despite the privacy clause in PIPEDA.

Second, in section 82(3), the wording "without authorization'' has been changed to "in contravention of an act of Parliament'' when dealing with collecting and using personal information gathered from third party computer systems. Following the debates on the former Bill C-27, stakeholders raised the concern that the term "without authorization'' might jeopardize companies that gather information that is publicly available on the Internet. We believe that these amendments strengthen the bill even further, making a good bill even stronger.

A number of technical amendments were also introduced when Bill C-28 was retabled. These amendments are captured in the red line version of the bill provided to committee members. I welcome any questions you may have.

Senator Oliver: Thank you. I welcome this bill. It is time that Canada had an anti-spam bill. When we look at countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, and G8 countries, Canada is the last to bring in anti-spam legislation.

Once this bill is passed, how long do you think it will take for Canada to catch up to where it should have been five or six years ago because we waited so long to bring in this legislation? It cannot happen overnight, but how long before we will have these regimes in place?

Ms. DiFrancesco: Industry Canada has been working hard with the three enforcement agencies, and we are confident that with the passage of the bill, we have a solid piece of legislation that will bring Canada's legislative framework up to international standards and, in fact, surpass them. Of course, we have regulations that we need to put into force before the legislation —

Senator Oliver: Have they been drafted?

Ms. DiFrancesco: The drafting of the legislation is under way, and we hope to have the regulations published for consultation within a couple of months. We hope to have the legislation come into force within six to eight months of Royal Assent. The three enforcement agencies are working hard to ramp up and to be ready for the legislation as soon as it is in force.

Senator Oliver: Have you set aside extra monies to fund the new things that are included in this bill so we do not have to wait for another budget or more votes to provide the money?

Ms. DiFrancesco: Yes: The Government of Canada has committed a total of $43 million over four years. That funding equates to $12.5 million on an ongoing basis for Industry Canada and the enforcement agencies that will have new responsibilities under the legislation.

Senator Oliver: Where will most of that $12.5 million go?

Ms. DiFrancesco: The bulk of that money will go to the CRTC, to the Competition Bureau and to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. We anticipate, for example, that the CRTC and the Competition Bureau will hire as many as 20 investigators to work solely on this legislation.

Senator Johnson: Thank you. Welcome this morning. As my colleague said, this legislation is welcome.

In terms of the CRTC, they will have new powers and duties under Bill C-28, of course. I am interested to know about the human resources and the skill set needed with these new responsibilities; if human resources are needed, how many and in what areas?

Ms. DiFrancesco: I think the CRTC already has the skill sets required in terms of the type of legislation that we are talking about here, but they need additional resources. They have new violations to enforce. We anticipate that they will hire as many as 20 investigators to work on this legislation. They have the expertise, though, and I think the value of the legislation building on the enforcement agencies that currently operate in these areas is key in moving the enforcement forward quickly.

Senator Johnson: Do they have the funding to go with these new responsibilities?

Ms. DiFrancesco: The funding has been approved, and it is pending Royal Assent.

Senator Johnson: Why was the CRTC chosen as the oversight body when there is already investigative expertise at the Competition Bureau?

Ms. DiFrancesco: The Competition Bureau will also have new responsibilities under the legislation. They will be responsible for violations dealing with deceptive marketing practices. The CRTC is our telecommunications regulator, and their counterparts around the world are also charged with similar kinds of responsibilities. We think that having the CRTC as a primary enforcement body under this piece of legislation will facilitate international cooperation, and it models the approaches of other countries to this kind of legislation.

Senator Johnson: How have other countries handled it in that respect? Was there a model for you to follow?

André Leduc, Policy Advisor, E-Commerce Policy, Industry Canada: At least for the anti-spam provisions, we followed the Australian model. It has been seen as a best practice internationally. We talked to our counterparts in the Australian government and at the communications and media authority in Australia. We learned from them. We closed loopholes they might have had in their legislation. In choosing the resources, the CRTC has modelled their practices on what has gone down in Australia.

To respond further to Senator Oliver's question earlier, the Australian legislation saw a marked decrease in spam originating out of Australia literally the day after that legislation came into force. They were in the top 10 spamming nations, and they dropped to seventeenth. Now they are out of the top 20. We are hopeful this legislation will have the same effect.

Senator Johnson: Where are we in terms of spamming now?

Mr. Leduc: According to Spamhaus, as little as a week ago, we were seventh in spam originating countries.

Senator Johnson: Will other countries that do not have legislation now bring it in?

Mr. Leduc: There are a few countries left. We are one of only three OECD countries left without this legislation, and the last in the G8.

Senator Johnson: Thank you. It is a good thing we are moving ahead.

The Chair: I will use my privilege as chair and ask a question. Mostly I will make a comment.

I will support the bill. I think it is long overdue, and I encourage everyone who has worked on it — Senator Oliver has brought in private members' bills over the years to put pressure on the government to act, and I want to congratulate him for that.

At this committee a few years ago — I think Senator Johnson and Senator Mercer were there — we had a do not call list that was developed and sent over to the CRTC: Let us trust the CRTC, they know everything. It did not turn out as successful as we hoped because we gave telemarketers a tool for collecting more names. When people registered by saying, "I do not want to be called,'' people would say, "That is a nice list; let us call them.''

[Translation]

My scepticism towards the CRTC is well-known; that is what makes me sort of doubt the effectiveness of the bill. But, as I told you, I support the bill and I think it has been long overdue. But I would still like to know how we are going to use the lessons learned from the "do not call'' experience to make sure that the co-operation between the CRTC, Industry Canada and the Competition Bureau does not end up creating a monster, and that we are actually doing something that corresponds to the objective of the bill and not the objective of those who are in the habit of circumventing laws.

Mr. Leduc: First, Industry Canada has powers entrenched in the bill and can ask the CRTC not only what they do with the money, but also how many investigations they carry out each year and how they will pursue those who break the law. The "do not call'' approach and the approach of this bill are completely different. The "do not call'' approach can be described as an "opt-out'' list; people get on a list to say "I don't want to receive any more calls.'' In this case, there is no list. Every Canadian will be automatically on the list, so there is no need for a list. This is about getting the express or implied consent of Canadians to send them e-mails or messages, and the companies or people who send those messages need to have proof of that. In addition, the CRTC has funds and, as a result, its investigative powers are completely different from those in the "do not call'' approach.

Also, we have learned our lessons from our international counterparts, like Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Korea and so on, and we are forming partnerships. As you know, most of our investigations will be international in scope.

We must partner with our international counterparts. The bill has the right tools for the CRTC, the Competition Bureau and the Privacy Commissioner to be able to get their counterparts involved and to make arrangements to conduct investigations internationally.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Leduc.

[English]

Senator Martin: You have answered some of the questions I wanted to ask. I am curious about the reintroduction of this bill and the amendments that were made to assure industry that the online marketplace will be encouraged versus discouraged with the added enforcement and safeguards. What have you heard from industry, and what are some of the changes that were made?

Ms. DiFrancesco: We have had a lot of positive feedback from industry concerning the bill as it now stands. As a result of the study at the House of Commons committee and through amendments that were made when the bill was reintroduced, we have taken steps to ensure that the bill protects the online marketplace but does not inhibit legitimate business.

As I indicated in my opening remarks, we heard from industry that there were concerns about the language in clause 82(3). It initially talked about not being able to access unauthorized information. There was concern that that language was too broad, so we have amended that to change the word "unauthorized'' to "in contravention of an act of Parliament,'' which makes it clear that information that is available on the public Internet is accessible and that information contained on a person's own PC or on a personal internet is protected. That is an important amendment.

We have also done a number of things to ensure that ongoing business relationships can continue. The legislation provides a definition of an existing business relationship as well as an existing non-business relationship to ensure that the legislation facilitates electronic commerce to the extent possible while targeting harmful and malicious activities.

Senator Martin: I assume that over the course of developing the regulations, industry will be consulted on an ongoing basis, as it has been up to this point.

Ms. DiFrancesco: Yes: The regulations will be published in the Canada Gazette for a 60-day consultation period, and we will seek the views of stakeholders in a manner consistent with the way in which the legislation was developed.

Senator Martin: Three agencies will enforce the provisions of this act, and you mentioned a spam reporting centre. Will you speak a little about the centre?

Ms. DiFrancesco: Once the bill has received Royal Assent, Industry Canada will establish a spam reporting centre that is intended to be a national clearing house or repository of information related to spam. We anticipate that the spam reporting centre will be housed somewhat at arm's length from government, so not within Industry Canada. Rather, it will be an external body that will work closely with the Internet service providers and receive complaints from Canadian citizens about spam and some of the most malicious ongoing threats.

The role of the reporting centre will be to provide information to support the three enforcement agencies in their roles in terms of investigation, and also to facilitate public awareness and help Canadians understand that everyone has a role in protecting their personal information online. Understanding what the threats are and how to protect oneself are important elements of this legislation.

Senator Martin: What plans are there for educating the public on this new centre and the services that it will provide?

Ms. DiFrancesco: There are plans through the spam reporting centre. We are also working closely with the Office of Consumer Affairs to establish a website that will provide information on the legislation as well as information on how consumers, and Canadians in general, can protect themselves online.

Senator Martin: Thank you. I support this bill.

Senator Mercer: Thank you, witnesses, for being here this morning.

It seems that we are developing quite an industry here. I believe you said that there will be 20 new people conducting investigations at the CRTC. You did not mention the number that might be employed at the Competition Bureau, and perhaps you can tell me that number. In addition, we will have this spam reporting centre, which obviously will require staffing and support.

How many people will the government need to hire in these other two areas?

Ms. DiFrancesco: We anticipate that the Competition Bureau will hire up to 20 new investigators and that the spam reporting centre will need 10 to 12 individuals. It will depend on the service that the spam reporting centre provides, but their role is to gather data. The centre will need specialized software that will enable them to collect millions of reports.

As I am sure everyone is aware, despite the nuisance that spam is in an inbox, Internet service providers are successful in filtering out a lot spam. Millions of pieces of data or reports will be available to this agency potentially, and we anticipate a highly sophisticated analytical capacity within the centre to track trends and provide case studies and information to the enforcement agency. It is much more technology-intensive than people-intensive, so technology will be a key investment element of creating the spam reporting centre.

Senator Mercer: The 52 new jobs that will be created will be a significant cost. It will be interesting to review this situation in a couple of years to see if there are only 52 people.

Some of us feel that there have been difficulties with the CRTC in the past. The chair mentioned the do not call list, which was a big problem when it started. The CRTC has a reputation of turning small mistakes in legislation into nightmares, and becoming a policy-maker as opposed to a regulator or administrator of legislation.

We will probably give this bill Royal Assent this week, and it will be implemented within six months with regulations. Do we have a schedule to review whether the legislation has worked and whether the players — the CRTC, the Competition Bureau and the spam reporting centre — are working to the capacity we are hoping for?

Ms. DiFrancesco: There are two important oversight mechanisms built into the legislation. The first is the three-year legislative review of the act. There will be a parliamentary review in three years to look at how the act and the enforcement agencies responsible for the violations contained in the act are performing.

Second, Industry Canada, and more specifically my branch, also has a responsibility in terms of coordinating the work of this initiative. We want to ensure that the three enforcement agencies are working together and with their international counterparts. Industry Canada will play an oversight role in ensuring that the coordination is available and will be responsible to report back to central agencies on the success of the initiative.

Senator Mercer: I expect that one reason for the three-year review is that there will be technology in 2013 that has not been developed yet, as this industry changes so quickly. Who will monitor the technological advances that we have not anticipated?

Ms. DiFrancesco: The three-year review will be useful in looking at emerging threats and technologies. We have taken a lot of care to make this legislation as technology-neutral as possible in order that it can deal with emerging trends.

We anticipate that the spam reporting centre will also play an important role in looking at the trends and emerging threats, and being able to provide that information back to policy-makers and Parliament in the context of that three- year review.

The Chair: Senators, we have another witness coming in at ten o'clock. Do senators have any further questions for these witnesses?

[Translation]

I would like to thank the witnesses, Ms. DiFrancesco, Mr. Leduc and Mr. Palmer.

[English]

Thank you for your presentation.

The committee is studying "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.'' That is the short title. The other short title is the Anti-spam Bill.

[Translation]

Mr. Courtois is from the Information Technology Association of Canada. Mr. Courtois, the floor is yours. We will then move on to questions till 10:30 a.m.

Bernard Courtois, President and Chief Executive Officer, Information Technology Association of Canada: Mr. Chair, I will start off by explaining briefly what our association is all about. We are the national association of the Canadian information and communication technologies industry.

That means that we focus on technologies that cover a large spectrum, including computers, software, information technology management services, microprocessors, as well as Internet access services and Internet transaction and commerce services.

[English]

Our industry represents the people who supply what is needed to make the Internet work and allow e-commerce to function; we are in contact with the users who make use of these technologies. Also, our members are heavy users of e- commerce themselves because the world is moving more and more to the sale of products through the Internet, which includes software and other products of our industry.

We appear before you this morning to say we support the passage of this bill. I, personally, was a member of the task force that produced its report in 2005 recommending such a bill. At that time, we had clear ideas of where we would go in the area of spam, and had other legislation around the world to look at. We also recommended that the bill cover malware and other forms of intrusion into computers where there was much less legislative precedent around the world.

The task force at that time represented not only the technology people and people who were conversant with spam but also the academic world, as well as consumers and businesses that made use of commerce through the Internet.

As a group, we recommended an opt-in approach, which is reflected in this bill. In other words, users do not have to say no if they do not want something. In principle, they will receive commercial communications only if they have either explicitly consented to it or, as it turns out in the bill, they have developed a number of specific provisions that recognize the normal commercial circumstances where they would expect to receive communication.

You will not be surprised that we as an industry are interested in a digital economy strategy and in Canada's leadership in the digital economy. We are interested both as suppliers and users in promoting the development of digital commerce. We think this legislation serves that purpose; it is extremely important, in our view, to keep fighting activities that can undermine the legitimate commercial use of the Internet and digital technologies.

At the same time, a lot of work has been done on the bill to work out all the reasonable circumstances where one would expect a person to accept and be comfortable with receiving commercial electronic communications, as well as the numerous circumstances where downloads take place on a computer in a manner entirely in the customer's interest and that the customer expects to occur without having to give explicit consent every time.

A lot of work has been done on the bill to ensure that it maintains the principles of protecting the public and instilling confidence while, at the same time, allowing the normal, reasonable commercial circumstances that everyone accepts to continue to take place.

Those are my opening comments and they are simply to say, we support passage of the bill and we think it will contribute to the development of the digital economy.

Senator Mercer: Thank you for coming. Some of us expressed to the previous panel concerns about the continued growth of the power of the CRTC in terms of the industry. Do you have any such concerns?

Mr. Courtois: We are normally more concerned about the encroachment of regulation on economic terms and letting the marketplace work, particularly in an industry that is as dynamic as ours. Here we are talking about catching the bad guys and punishing them. To us, this is like having police fight crime. We were under-equipped as a nation in that area, and in this case, we support those powers.

Senator Mercer: There will now be three different groups. There were two regulators, CRTC and the Competition Bureau, and now the Spam Reporting Centre. Regulation has grown significantly.

Do you see the Spam Reporting Centre as an opportunity for your association to participate in that centre's development to help clean up the industry? I am not suggesting that it is the fault of your industry, but it is through your technology that these problems have arisen.

Mr. Courtois: Yes: One approach could have been to create a huge bureaucracy to cover a whole range of things. We, as business, supported the idea of figuring out which jurisdiction belongs in which place, and leave regulation there as an add-on to what they are doing now rather than create a new entity.

In terms of the CRTC, they weighed in where their normal powers are most appropriate. The same thing happened with the Competition Bureau. The Spam Reporting Centre is a problem area that requires the sharing and accumulation of knowledge and cooperation, both on the international level and the domestic level.

When we started work on the Task Force on Spam, the industry of people who connect people to the Internet, came together. Their security people came together and they have made great strides in shutting out more than 90 per cent of the spam and malware. However, that is through collaboration and trying to find out where the trouble is coming from and what reactions they can take industry-wide to address an emerging problem.

It is good that the government will have a centre where information is being accumulated and people can go to one place: where the experts can then discuss how to address the evolution of the problem.

Senator Mercer: This was developed without government involvement, so everything was timely.

Mr. Courtois: What developed without government involvement was companies sharing what they could do amongst themselves in terms of security. They all agreed there was a lack of a central place where the information and expertise could be brought together.

The Chair: I have a short question.

[Translation]

Given how long it has been taking to pass this legislation, do you think that there is a mechanism within the legislative process that can keep up with technological advancements and the people using the technology? We know that in two or three years, people will find other ways to get around the law.

After reviewing the bill and with your participation and the participation of your members in this process to make sure we are not falling behind, we feel we have made progress and we have caught up with the best countries in the world, but is there a mechanism through which we can be reassured that our surveillance will be modernized in the next few years?

Mr. Courtois: There are mechanisms in place precisely for monitoring and for gathering information, but the best way to do so is by designing the bill so that it is neutral in terms of technology and it can adapt to new tactics. And there are two ways to do that. First, we need to use an approach based on principle and provide for an evolution through regulations in some places rather than through legislative amendments, and then we can review the legislation afterwards.

There appears to be no change in the way the current digital and technological world is advancing. Things have happened since the bill was introduced. There have been many advancements. And presently, the evolution is happening in networks that are a bit more closed than the web. Will that allow us to better control the problems? Many things are being transferred wirelessly, where the ability to control used to be better.

All I can say is that the mechanisms in this bill seem capable of adapting to the advancements we are currently experiencing, and we can often anticipate developments one year or two ahead of time.

[English]

Senator Cochrane: A good deal of spam originates outside of Canada. Given that fact, do you think Bill C-28 will be effective, or is Canada dependent on how other countries where spam originates prosecute their offenders?

Mr. Courtois: It is a bit of both. Spam is bounced around the world, so where it originates from can be routed through former Soviet Bloc countries to Asia, back to Europe, Canada and the U.S., and back and forth. As it turns out, we have been told that there are substantial spammers that reside in Canada. They need a country that has good broadband access and advanced computer capabilities, and from there, those capabilities can serve fraudsters based anywhere in the world.

Spam is a problem around the world. It is a problem that requires cooperation, but one that requires advanced countries like ours to have their own spam legislation to be able to catch and deal with those people who are on our territory.

The Chair: Mr. Courtois and Mr. Glauser, thank you very much for your presence today.

I remind people who are watching on television that the committee is studying Bill C-28, the long title is long. I will repeat it in a few minutes, but the bill is anti-spam legislation.

If it is agreed, the committee will proceed to the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-28, 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.

Shall the title stand postponed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Is it agreeable to the committee to group clauses according to different parts of the legislation?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clauses 6 to 13 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 14 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

[Translation]

The Chair: Shall clauses 15 and 16 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Carried.

Shall clauses 17 and 18 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Carried.

[English]

Clause 19 was lost in translation. I will stick to one page at a time. Coming back to clause 19, is it carried?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 20 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 21 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clauses 22 and 23 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clauses 24 to 26 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 27 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clauses 28 and 29 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clauses 30 to 33 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clauses 34 to 40 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 41 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clauses 42 to 46 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clauses 47 to 49 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clauses 50 and 51 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clauses 52 to 55 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clauses 56 to 61 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

[Translation]

Shall clauses 62 to 65 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Carried.

Shall clauses 66 and 67 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Carried.

Shall clause 68 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Carried.

Shall clause 69 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Carried.

Shall clauses 70 to 81 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Carried.

Shall clauses 82 to 87 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Carried.

Shall clauses 88 to 90 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Carried.

Shall clause 91 carry?

Carried.

[English]

Shall the title carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry without amendments?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the Senate?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: I will probably report it this afternoon, if everyone is agreed.

Unless there are other questions or comments, the spirit of Christmas is so strong with us, I hope everyone has a nice break. We will see each other probably at the end of January, beginning of February on the transport aviation study, and we might have our first meeting at the airport, as was discussed at the last meeting. We stand adjourned.

(The committee adjourned.)


Back to top