The Federal Government has published the Industry Minister’s remarks at the Bloomberg Canada Economic Summit in Toronto on May 8, 2012. Some of the highlights of the Minister’s speech include Federal economic initiatives over the past six years, foreign investment in Canada (according to the Minister, 95 new foreign businesses and expansion projects), trade and tariff elimination initiatives, Telecommunication Act amendments to lift foreign ownership restrictions for small telecom companies and recently tabled proposed amendments to the Investment Canada Act (Bill C-38) aimed at increasing transparency in the Canadian foreign investment review process.
For the Minister’s remarks and related news release see:
The following are a few advertising and regulatory law developments that caught my eye today:
The CRTC has published final regulations to regulate loud television commercials: CRTC moves a step closer to making loud TV ads a thing of the past. Slaw.ca posted an interesting note by David Canton on the use of social media and Facebook for operating online contests: Commercial Users of Social Media Need to Check Terms of Use. The U.S. FTC published tips to protect information and computers from online scammers: Secure Your Computer. The Minister of Public Safety addressed trade, security and competition in remarks at the Can/Am Border Trade Alliance Conference: Speaking Notes for the Honourable Vic Toews Minister of Public Safety at the Can/Am Border Trade Alliance Conference. The Globe published an interesting article on fraudulent advertising and phishing in relation to bank log-in websites: Phishing, other malicious websites soar in Canada.
The Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) and Australian Industry Group (Ai Group) have issued a joint statement and two reports that recommend a range of policy measures to increase and promote bilateral trade and investment between Canada and Australia.
In making the announcement, the CCCE said:
“In recent years there has been a significant expansion in two-way investment between Australia and Canada, particularly in the natural resources and financial sectors. In view of that, and given Canada’s interest in joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement negotiations (TPP), the two business organisations concluded that both countries would benefit from a better understanding of the potential for enhanced trade and investment.”
The proposed changes include eliminating tariffs on bilateral trade, improving labour mobility, a bilateral agreement for reciprocal treatment under Canadian and Australian foreign investment review systems and exploring the development of a bilateral competition policy framework that would replace anti-dumping actions.
For the CCCE’s and Ai’s news releases, joint statement and reports see:
On May 8, 2012, hearings began before the Competition Tribunal (Tribunal) in the Visa/MasterCard price maintenance case. The case, filed by the Competition Bureau in late 2010, is the first civil price maintenance case to be heard by the Tribunal following amendments to the Competition Act in 2009 that included the repeal of former criminal price maintenance offences.
In brief, the Bureau is alleging that Visa and MasterCard merchant agreements discourage consumers from using lower-cost methods of payment (e.g., cash, debit cards, etc.) and prevent retailers from declining certain higher fee cards, which has led to an increase in card service fees paid by retailers and corresponding higher retail prices for goods and services.
Section 76 of the Competition Act now makes it a reviewable civil practice for a supplier to influence a customer or reseller to raise prices (or discourage the reduction of prices), including by agreement, where the conduct has an adverse effect on competition. While formerly a “per se” criminal offence with no competitive effects requirement, price maintenance is now a civil reviewable practice that allows the Tribunal to make remedial orders – for example, for conduct to stop or in some cases for supply to be resumed – where it is shown that competition has been adversely affected. Private parties may now also make price maintenance applications for Tribunal orders (with leave from the Tribunal).
Some of the restraints being challenged by the Bureau in this case include restrictions on merchants promoting or encouraging the use of credit cards with lower fees, discouraging the use (or refusing to accept) cards with higher fees and requirements to accept all Visa/MasterCard credit cards.
The Commissioner is seeking an order prohibiting Visa and MasterCard from enforcing agreements preventing merchants from encouraging the use of lower-cost payment methods, including rules preventing retailers from discouraging the use of higher-cost credit cards or refusing to accept certain Visa/MasterCard cards.
For more information about the hearings, pleadings and parties’ cases see:
On May 4, 2012, Reuters, the Globe and Mail, the Wall Street Journal and others reported that Glencore International PLC received a no action letter from the Competition Bureau that the Bureau will not challenge Glencore’s $6 billion bid for Canada’s largest grain handler Viterra Inc.
No action letters are one of two forms of clearance available to merging parties under the Competition Act (along with advance ruling certificates) and state that the Commissioner does not intend when issued to challenge a transaction under the merger review provisions of the Act, although has the power to challenge a merger for up to one year post-completion).
The quick clearance by the Bureau is not very surprising given that, among other things, Glencore’s offer was not conditional on subsequent transactions involving the sale of Viterra port terminal, grain handling and retail assets to Agrium and Richardson and the absence of competitive overlap between Glencore and Viterra (indeed the transaction appears to be structured to achieve this relatively effortless first-stage clearance).
It will be interesting, however, to see how the Bureau will review and assess the subsequent second stage Glencore sales to Agrium and Richardson, particularly given that there appears there will be some Glencore/Agrium and Glencore/Richardson overlaps in the retail (crop protection products, fertilizer, seed, small equipment, etc.) and port terminal grain handling markets. Having said that, the parties have indicated in public statements that they have chosen to allocate the later sale of assets carefully to tiptoe through potential concentration issues and reduce possible competition concerns.
Carswell has recently published several new regulatory law related books including: Finding and Managing Legal Information on the Internet (2nd ed.) (David Whelan), Computer, Internet and Electronic Commerce Terms (Barry Sookman) and Canadian Customs Law (D. Kiselbach, A. Xilinas, K. Xilinas).
For more information see:
The University of Toronto Law School will be holding an event on May 12th entitled “lawTechcamp”, intended to be an event to integrate legal professionals with new media and technology enthusiasts (CPD credits are also apparently available):
“lawTechCamp is a BarCamp-style community UnConference for new media and technology enthusiasts and legal professionals including bloggers, twitters, legal-technology lawyers, social networkers, and anyone curious about new media and the law. LawTechCampTO will be the first such event held worldwide.
lawTechCamp is not just for lawyers. If you are interested in the intersection of law and technology, such as legal issues facing startups, access to justice issues, or someone just interested in technology or law, then please join us – and bring a friend or colleague.”
On May 4, 2012, the Competition Bureau announced that Maxzone Auto Parts (Canada) Corp. has pleaded guilty for participating in an international price-fixing cartel relating to the sale of aftermarket replacement automobile lights and was fined Cdn. $1.5 million.
In making the announcement the Bureau said:
“Following a Bureau investigation, Maxzone Canada admitted to implementing an agreement with competitors to set the price of aftermarket automotive replacement lights in Canada from January 2004 to September 2008. The products, mainly headlights and tail lights, were primarily purchased by auto parts supply companies in Canada for use as replacement parts.
Today’s charges are the first to arise from this investigation and anyone with information relating to this cartel investigation is encouraged to contact the Bureau.”
This case is part of an ongoing global auto parts cartel investigation. According to the Bureau, it is relying on its Immunity and Leniency Programs as part of its investigation.
Under the Bureau’s Immunity Program, companies or individuals implicated in criminal conduct under the Competition Act may offer to cooperate with the Bureau in its investigation and request immunity (i.e., full immunity from prosecution for criminal offences under the Act).
Under the Bureau’s Leniency Program, parties that have contravened criminal provisions of the Act that are not entitled to full immunity – for example, are not “first in” as immunity is a race – may nevertheless be eligible for leniency in sentencing.
Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada
Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)
