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.
3:50 p.m.
Policy Analyst, Electronic Commerce Policy, Department of Industry
They would not necessarily prove that there is fault. They would have to first prove the materiality of the information that's in that subject header.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
Is that not a precaution that would be worth putting in?
3:50 p.m.
Policy Analyst, Electronic Commerce Policy, Department of Industry
It's almost understood under the act, but there wouldn't be a burden of proof on the bureau to have to do this. If we add the language in, they would have to do it.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
My concern is when you say it's “almost understood”. That could be left wide open. It's almost a presumption of guilt prior to proving that anything has been done wrong. I would like to think we have some kind of proof. It's almost like you would have to prove there's something wrong. What is the role of the prosecutors? Can you explain it? Maybe I'm missing something here, but it doesn't really make much sense. You're proving guilty prior to having any proof.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
October 26th, 2009 / 3:50 p.m.
Philip Palmer Senior General Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Industry
The amendment requires that the information stated in the header--centre information or subject line--is false and misleading. I don't know, when we're talking about the very bare-bones material we have in the header and centre information, that we could expect that the information could be anything other than material.
One of the fundamental concepts is that if you represent yourself as being the Royal Bank, for instance, your e-mail will be treated differently from badguysbank.com. One of the major problems that we encounter, of course, is that there are a lot of e-mails these days representing themselves--spoofing, as it's called. On their face they strike one as being material without further proof. That was really the idea of this. We do have to prove that the statement is false or misleading.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Thank you, Mr. Palmer.
We'll go to Mr. Lake and then back to Madam Coady.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
That's good, because I'm wondering if Madam Coady can describe a problem that would be solved by making the change that she's making here.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
I can give you one instance.
If you received an e-mail from a catalogue company that you're doing business with all the time, and in the subject line they say “free shipping”, but because the subject line is not long enough they might say, “free shipping on boots”, and then in the body of the e-mail it says, “free shipping on three items or more”. A competitor or somebody else could actually make a complaint, because they can under this particular act. The Competition Bureau would have no discretion to be able to say no to pursuing this further. Normally under the Competition Act there is.
Also, if we make this change it makes it consistent with the other provisions in the Competition Act. We are making changes now to the Competition Act. That's what this particular section is doing. It has nothing to do really with the body or the intent of the bill. It has more to do with how the Competition Act pursues changes in the subject line or headers.
We think we should have some discretion built into the Competition Bureau to allow them to pursue some things that are material, that are not trivial, and to allow them the necessary discretion in order to pursue things that are actually important. That's the reason we should make this change.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I'd like to come back to the officials to comment on the example. She gave the free shipping example.
3:55 p.m.
Senior General Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Industry
I think the chief thing to bring to the committee's attention is the fact that section 52.01 is a mens rea offence. We have to actually prove that the person knowingly, willingly, and intentionally did the act. So there is a lot of comfort there, in that trivial cases will not be brought forward.
Secondly, the due diligence as a defence is available for the civil remedies.
Thirdly, there is no requirement that the bureau proceed and prosecute every allegation or complaint made to it. It has the discretion and enforcement policies that help determine the priority in which it will take cases. And obviously, if it is something such as free shipping and then it turns out it's free shipping for three items or more, I doubt the Competition Bureau is going to be spending its time on that kind of a complaint.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
But we did hear from witnesses, including the Canadian Bar Association, that felt that without putting in the words “in a material respect”, it would lead to the Competition Bureau being required to pursue anything brought before it. That's why they were asking for the words “in a material respect”.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Thank you, Madam Coady.
Clearly, the department's view is different from what we've heard from other witnesses.
Is there any further debate or discussion on amendment L-4.1?
(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Amendment L-4.1 has not carried, and that vote will apply to amendments L-4.2, L-4.3, and L-4.4.
Thank you, Madam Coady, for speaking to those amendments.
We now go to amendment G-52, which is moved by Mr. Lake.
Does anyone wish to speak to amendment G-52?
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 71 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 72 agreed to)
(On clause 73)
We now move to the consideration of clause 73, for which, I understand, there is one amendment. It's amendment G-53, moved by Mr. Lake.
Is there any discussion of amendment G-53?
Monsieur Bouchard. Allons-y.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
I would like some explanation from the officials about clause 73. It deals with “... false or misleading representations in a material respect...“ in the sender information or subject matter information of an electronic message.
Could you explain that a little more simply?
3:55 p.m.
Senior General Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Industry
Previously, we had provisions in the law that prohibited the use of false or misleading representations in hard copy, in newspapers, for example, or advertising or telemarketing. But we had no means of prohibiting false representations in electronic communications such as e-mail. The goal of this amendment specifically is to create a level playing field that includes technology. So misleading representations are contrary to the provisions of the act whether they be oral, written or by e-mail. In broad terms, that is the goal.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
One moment, please. We're on government amendment 53, is that correct?
Mr. Palmer, what were you just speaking to?
4 p.m.
Senior General Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Industry
I was actually speaking to clause 73.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
In general. I understand.
We're presently considering government amendment 53. Is there any further discussion of government amendment 53?
Monsieur Vincent.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
We are dealing with government amendment 53.
Then we will go to clause 73.
Is there any further discussion of government amendment 53?
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
4 p.m.
Conservative
