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.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
No, I do not have unanimous consent. So I'm going to rule this amendment out of order. If you wish to have the page reference from Marleau-Montpetit establishing that convention, it's page 656 of chapter 16.
Just to clarify, we've adopted a new clause in which there will be two sections as passed by NDP-1 and G-51.1.
3:40 p.m.
A voice
Three new clauses.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Clauses 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, and 70 have no amendments that I am aware of. Unless members say otherwise, I am going to call the question on all these clauses.
[Clauses 64 to 70 inclusive agreed to]
(On clause 71--False or misleading representation—sender or subject matter information)
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
We will now go to consideration of clause 71. There are three amendments for this clause, beginning with Liberal-4.1. I will note that the vote on Liberal amendment 4.1 will also apply to Liberal amendments 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4. Amendment 4.1 and 4.2 amend clause 71, and 4.3 and 4.4 amend clause 73.
Do I have a mover for Liberal amendment 4.1? Moved by Madam Coady.
Is there any discussion on Liberal amendment 4.1?
Madam Coady.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
This amendment puts in the words “material respect”. The way the wording currently exists, it leaves no option. If there is a complaint put before the Competition Bureau, it would have to act. If an error was made, or if the matter was plainly trivial, the Competition Bureau would not have the flexibility to forbear to take action. They would have to act.
We do not think putting in the words “material respect” detracts from the force of the bill. It doesn't change anything in the bill itself, but it gives the Competition Bureau the flexibility to abstain from considering a matter it judges to be unimportant. It will help to keep the system from clogging up if we put in the words “material respect”. So we don't think it does any harm to the bill itself. It merely allows the Competition Bureau to take relevance into account before acting.
October 26th, 2009 / 3:40 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Mr. Chair, we discussed clause 64 very quickly. Can we come back to it after clause-by-clause study? I think that it is an important point because it deals with the National Do Not Call List. I had my hand up, but you moved on to something else.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
If there is unanimous consent to look at clause 64 again, we can do so. If not, it is not possible.
I have to have unanimous consent to reopen clause 64.
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Let me say a few words. I would like to ask my colleagues what they consider acceptable. Clearly, I see clause 64 as relatively important. I would like to ask some questions about the National Do Not Call List. The list has only been in effect for a year. This bill takes us back to square one. I put up my hand, but you had already moved on to another clause.
Would members of the committee agree to look at clause 64 when we have finished this study? I would like to ask some questions. I think it would be useful for members from all parties, because the National Do Not Call List is included in an act that came into effect scarcely a year ago. It has cost a lot of businesses a lot of money. Now, we are in the process of changing it. I would like to ask some more detailed questions, so that we are all better informed about the implications of clause 64 as it appears in Bill C-27.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard.
The committee has adopted clause 64. If you want to revisit that clause, you must have the consent of all members of the committee.
Go ahead, Mr. Lake.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Can I just make a suggestion?
Since this just came up and I don't want to give unanimous consent at this point, can you formally move that motion at the end and then we can decide? Let's go through the rest of this stuff and just at the end maybe move that and we can then decide what we want to do?
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Okay, so moving on to the business under consideration, we just heard Madam Coady speak to Liberal amendment 4.1. Do you wish to further speak to it?
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
I just would say that this amendment would allow for the bill to ensure that you wouldn't automatically face potential criminal prosecution or civil action under the Competition Act every time someone assserts that subject matter information in a business e-mail they send is somehow misleading. It would allow for the Competition Bureau to actually review this to make sure it's not trivial or misleading but will still capture anything that is harmful or material.
Thank you.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Thank you, Madam Coady.
Mr. Masse was on the list. Do you wish to speak to this?
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Can I have the department comment on these amendments?
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
André Leduc Policy Analyst, Electronic Commerce Policy, Department of Industry
My first point is there is nothing in the proposed act that would force the Competition Bureau to investigate something that would seem more like a mistake or an oversight in the header of an e-mail.
Secondly, it would increase the burden on the Competition Bureau to have to prove the materiality of the information described in the header information. And as is the case with most everything in the act, there is a due diligence defence on the civil side for these violations, and if you bring frivolous cases forward, as it is in the Canadian legal system, you run the risk of having to pay for the legal fees and the costs of the defendant. So we don't see this as a problem. We don't see it as an issue. So in our view this is somewhat frivolous.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Thank you.
If this does no harm, because all material representations will be caught, then there is no reason not to put it in the bill.
3:45 p.m.
Policy Analyst, Electronic Commerce Policy, Department of Industry
Yes, the reason would be that it places an extra burden of proof on the Competition Bureau in the course of their investigations that they would have to prove the materiality of every subject line and header rather than just go on it by face value.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
3:45 p.m.
Policy Analyst, Electronic Commerce Policy, Department of Industry
Just by reading what it says in the header and having an understanding. They would have to prove the materiality of the comments or the issue raised in the subject line or the header.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
I'd like to clarify, if you don't mind.
What you're saying is that at face value they would look at it, and it really doesn't matter, they'd go ahead with it regardless. With what Ms. Coady is proposing, they would have to prove that there is fault there. Is that what I'm hearing?