Bill C-37 · 38th Parliament · Paul Martin
An Act to amend the Telecommunications Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedDec. 13, 2004
- Debated in principleOct. 20, 2005
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberOct. 24, 2005
- Passed the second chamberNov. 23, 2005
- Became lawNov. 25, 2005
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Paul MartinPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
77% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (2,093 words introduced, 2,967 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent narrowed
The core framework for a national do-not-call list was retained but narrowed by adding explicit exemptions for charities, political calls, surveys and newspapers. New annual reporting duties to the Minister and Parliament were also inserted.
- Added requirement for annual report on the do-not-call list.
After: “41.6 (1) The Commission shall, within six months after the end of each fiscal year, deliver a report to the Minister on the operation of the national do not call list in that fiscal year.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill supplies exact dollar amounts, 18-month windows, 30-day deadlines and an enumerated list of exemptions. Yet the Commission's foundational power hinges on its own view of what is 'necessary' to avoid 'undue' nuisance while giving 'due regard' to expression.
Open to argument
“to the extent that the Commission considers it necessary to prevent undue inconvenience or nuisance, giving due regard to freedom of expression.”
Relies on the Commission's subjective assessment and undefined standards of 'undue' and 'due regard'.“believes on reasonable grounds there is any document, information or thing relevant”
Inspection power turns on an official's personal belief rather than an objective factual trigger.
Clear-cut
“in the case of an individual, to an administrative monetary penalty of up to $1,500; or (b) in the case of a corporation, to an administrative monetary penalty of up to $15,000.”
Fixed maximum penalties stated in dollar figures.“made for the sole purpose of collecting information for a survey of members of the public; or (g) made for the sole purpose of soliciting a subscription for a newspaper of general circulation.”
Exemptions defined by narrow, purpose-specific language.
Discretion. The Commission may delegate powers, set or pre-approve rates charged by delegates, designate who issues notices, and decide what information systems to maintain.
Challenging the law itself. The open-ended 'considers necessary' and 'undue nuisance' language in section 41 could be attacked for vagueness or overbreadth under Charter section 2(b).
Disputing a charge under it. Precise definitions and lists make many factual disputes straightforward, but arguments can still arise over 'reasonable grounds' or whether a caller properly identified itself.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.