Hon. Michael Chong - 15:30
Lib. (NL)
...More
When are we going to go back and deal with clause 51?
...Less
Hon. Michael Chong - 15:31
Hon. Michael Chong - 15:32
Lib. (NL)
...More
Just to speak to it for a second, I have an amendment that's coming for clause 63.1, which we haven't dealt with yet. So is it okay to move clause 63 without moving on to 63.1?
...Less
Hon. Michael Chong - 15:33
Hon. Michael Chong - 15:41
Lib. (NL)
...More
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.
...Less
Hon. Michael Chong - 15:44
Hon. Michael Chong - 15:47
Lib. (NL)
...More
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.
...Less
Hon. Michael Chong - 15:47
Hon. Michael Chong - 15:49
Lib. (NL)
...More
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.
...Less
André Leduc - 15:49
André Leduc - 15:49
Hon. Michael Chong - 15:53
Lib. (NL)
...More
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.
...Less
Hon. Michael Chong - 15:55
Hon. Michael Chong - 15:56
Lib. (NL)
...More
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”.
...Less
Hon. Michael Chong - 15:57
Hon. Michael Chong - 16:54
Lib. (NL)
...More
Thank you very much.
On a number of occasions at committee we've heard people calling for the removal of sections referring to the “do not call” list. Mr. Palmer is trying to clarify that while the sections under Bill C-27 will go forward, they will not be gazetted but will be available to be gazetted.
I appreciate your assurances of public consultation, but if you are willing to go through public consultations and seek the viewpoints of others who have only had this for 13 months and spent the last two years implementing it, why wouldn't you hold out until it's required and we can have some assurances that you will do public consultations and ensure that things happening to the “do not call list” are occurring, which would be effective for both the consumers as well as for businesses?
...Less
Hon. Michael Chong - 16:55
Hon. Michael Chong - 16:56
Lib. (NL)
...More
If you're concerned about the “do not call” legislation or that particular act and you're looking for a safety mechanism, why wouldn't you deal with it under that particular act? Just because of converging technologies you think you could put it in here? It's unusual to be dealing with another piece of legislation that you may be concerned with in the future, within this particular legislation.
...Less
Hon. Michael Chong - 16:57
Hon. Michael Chong - 17:11
Lib. (NL)
...More
I have some questions. Perhaps either Mr. Lake or the officials can answer them for me.
Why are we doubling up here? You have the new law itself and the Competition Act, and you're now doubling up on the fines. That's the way I'm reading it.
Was there a discussion, which I must have missed when we saw witnesses, to bring this forward? What's your rationale here?
...Less
Philip Palmer - 17:12
Lib. (NL)
...More
You've added the wording around subsection 74.01(1) of the Competition Act, and the way I'm reviewing this, it begs the question about whether you would then have a representation of the Competition Act and this act for the purposes of penalties. I'm not a lawyer, sir, but in talking to some lawyers, they are concerned about that.
I'm also concerned that it speaks to my earlier recommendation that we put in the words “in a material respect”. So here you now have an act that even for trivial matters could go forward, and the way I'm reading it is you'd have the possibility of retribution under the Competition Act and ECPA. Is that the way I'm reading it, sir?
...Less
Philip Palmer - 17:14
Lib. (NL)
...More
There may have been concerns from witnesses that could not have been brought forward because they didn't have that clarification. That's what I'm concerned about.
...Less
Hon. Michael Chong - 17:16