Industry committee  I won't add to what Mr. Fraser said; I certainly agree with his comments. I would just turn it the other way to say that we would agree that the fact it was solicited may not mean it was wanted in the end, because you're not quite sure what is going to come from any particular company in the next 18 months.

Industry committee  Mr. Vincent, I beg to differ, first of all, with respect to Mr. Fewer's comments. I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever that you could point to that would suggest that business would not be harmed by the increased costs that would accompany being forced to revert back to using letter mail, if that's in fact what the result is.

Industry committee  Another way of putting it is that because in the Competition Act it has always been the case that the concern has been about representations that are false or misleading in a material respect, as soon as you put in a provision that no longer requires in a material respect, then it says that they can be false or misleading in a completely immaterial respect.

Industry committee  I think you're catching it. You don't like my example, so I'll have to come up with a better one. I picked that one because it's an example of what some, but not all, people would regard to be playful hyperbole, puffery. We see it in ads all the time. We think it's cute, interesting.

Industry committee  It was “in a material respect”.

Industry committee  That's correct.

Industry committee  That's correct. Perhaps I can give you an example that's closer to your TD example. It's technical, and I'm not speaking to the probability of it being pursued, but if a subsidiary of TD who's not actually TD sends the message and says it's TD sending the message, is that false?

Industry committee  In my earlier comments?

Industry committee  The second point concerns the standard that is applied under the Competition Act for a temporary order issued by a court to stop certain conduct that is allegedly reviewable conduct, alleged by the commissioner of competition--

Industry committee  To be specific, currently under the relevant section in the Competition Act, subsection 74.11(1), to issue one of these orders, a court must find “a strong prima facie case” of reviewable conduct and then be satisfied that serious harm would otherwise result--and some other factors--so that the balance of convenience favours the issuing of the order.

Industry committee  —but the standard that a judge must look to in evidence really matters when the judge is considering whether an order will issue or not issue.

Industry committee  I'd like to answer briefly from the Competition Act point of view. I've mentioned this is my opening comments, but in terms of consistency it's a real concern to us that the commissioner of competition will be enforcing one standard on header or URL information--locator information--with respect to the Competition Act and claims of false or misleading representations, and a different standard on the content of an e-mail or any other advertising or marketing communications.

Industry committee  Thank you. In addition to the concerns raised by Mr. Fraser, we have two concerns that relate specifically to the way in which Bill C-27 proposes to amend the Competition Act. The first concern is, in essence, a concern about a single word, or at least a single phrase. It's only a single phrase, but we think you will agree that it's a very important one.