The press release from the UCP on bill 59 is a fun read. It's got all the Orwellian hits, and fun name calling like "eco-extremists," "lawless government," and doing things "without apology". Good stuff!
Quote:
“The federal Liberal and NDP coalition has passed draconian legislation that will irreparably harm Canadian’s ability to hear the truth about the energy industry and Alberta’s successes in reducing global emissions.
Quote:
“Bill C-59, when it receives royal assent, will prevent private entities from sharing truthful and evidence-based information
I thought bill 59 meant they couldn't lie, so if they aren't lying, what's the problem?
The press release from the UCP on bill 59 is a fun read. It's got all the Orwellian hits, and fun name calling like "eco-extremists," "lawless government," and doing things "without apology". Good stuff!
I thought bill 59 meant they couldn't lie, so if they aren't lying, what's the problem?
Bill 59, or the sections pertaining to this issue on climate change is a chilling piece of legislation that should be fired into the sun. Smith can go along for the ride but it’s a really bad piece of work by the liberals.
In essence, companies which are required to do esg reporting today, could actually be then charged against this legislation.
Last edited by Whynotnow; 06-21-2024 at 09:07 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Whynotnow For This Useful Post:
Bill 59, or the sections pertaining to this issue on climate change is a chilling piece of legislation that should be fired into the sun. Smith can go along for the ride but it’s a really bad piece of work by the liberals.
In essence, companies which are required to do esg reporting today, could actually be then charged against this legislation.
From what I've read, it's pretty mild legislation, in that if the competition board says "that sounds like bull####, provide facts, or remove it" and then the company can remove it with no consequence. This all seems...reasonable? Or do we just welcome so much BS these days it gets scary when corporations are held to not lying to us? Maybe one day we can get governments up to the same standard.
From what I've read, it's pretty mild legislation, in that if the competition board says "that sounds like bull####, provide facts, or remove it" and then the company can remove it with no consequence. This all seems...reasonable? Or do we just welcome so much BS these days it gets scary when corporations are held to not lying to us? Maybe one day we can get governments up to the same standard.
Except the bar for that sounds like bs is very unclear and undefined, as would be the bar for making a complaint and the penalty is a 3 percent tax on global profits. It’s yet another swing at the Canadian energy sector who provides what is today a life saving and needed commodity world wide. We are literally one of the best at what we do and yet we continue to want to harm the industry. Investment is already moving elsewhere, it makes way more sense to do carbon capture and sequestration projects in the US. Same with renewables.
The Following User Says Thank You to Whynotnow For This Useful Post:
Yeah the problem with C-59 is that it refers to an unknown 'internationally recognized standards', and has massive potential fines with the onus on the reporting entities to prove adherence to this unknown standard.
It is not clear what disclosure would be allowed vs illegal, so companies are not going to risk it. It will have fallout throughout the industry as banks and governments want more transparent reporting from companies but now it is unclear if they are allowed to provide it.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to puckedoff For This Useful Post:
Yeah the problem with C-59 is that it refers to an unknown 'internationally recognized standards', and has massive potential fines with the onus on the reporting entities to prove adherence to this unknown standard.
It is not clear what disclosure would be allowed vs illegal, so companies are not going to risk it. It will have fallout throughout the industry as banks and governments want more transparent reporting from companies but now it is unclear if they are allowed to provide it.
There's a lot of uncertainty in how things can be interpreted. A lot of research organizations supporting studies on greenhouse gas reduction technologies have pulled down their websites too until there is clarity - even if they are confident in their positions no one wants the expense and hassle of being the first case in the courts.
So has anybody been imprisoned over pronouns yet, or was that just a bunch of hysteria?
I'll admit I have not read deeply into this issue, but on the surface I think it is an excellent idea. It's time to start pushing back on this descent into disinformation idiocracy. Whether this is the best place to start I don't know, but it does not seem unreasonable to me.
We already have laws related to deceptive marketing, but I suspect enforcement is consumer driven, which does not apply very well to some of this.
If companies are rushing to take down information, that suggests to me that there is likely a lot of snake oil out there. While it would be a burden to deal with, there would also be no better marketing than to successfully defend yourself against this - especially as one of the first cases. I would be excited - not scared by this (if I were legitimate).
The Following User Says Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
So has anybody been imprisoned over pronouns yet, or was that just a bunch of hysteria?
I'll admit I have not read deeply into this issue, but on the surface I think it is an excellent idea. It's time to start pushing back on this descent into disinformation idiocracy. Whether this is the best place to start I don't know, but it does not seem unreasonable to me.
We already have laws related to deceptive marketing, but I suspect enforcement is consumer driven, which does not apply very well to some of this.
If companies are rushing to take down information, that suggests to me that there is likely a lot of snake oil out there. While it would be a burden to deal with, there would also be no better marketing than to successfully defend yourself against this - especially as one of the first cases. I would be excited - not scared by this (if I were legitimate).
That’s not always the case that there was so much disinformation out there, it can be, and is in this case that the legislation was written with such a bias and open end that nobody is really sure where the ground is now.
Believe it or not there are good companies out there, trying to do good work in emissions reduction who don’t know what they are able to say right now. That’s a bad state to be in and the Feds caused this.
The Following User Says Thank You to Whynotnow For This Useful Post:
That’s not always the case that there was so much disinformation out there, it can be, and is in this case that the legislation was written with such a bias and open end that nobody is really sure where the ground is now.
Believe it or not there are good companies out there, trying to do good work in emissions reduction who don’t know what they are able to say right now. That’s a bad state to be in and the Feds caused this.
How so?
Why don't we look at it in context, and tell me how it differs from the rest of 74.01:
Previous Law:
Spoiler!
Quote:
74.01 (1) A person engages in reviewable conduct who, for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, the supply or use of a product or for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, any business interest, by any means whatever,
(a) makes a representation to the public that is false or misleading in a material respect;
(b) makes a representation to the public in the form of a statement, warranty or guarantee of the performance, efficacy or length of life of a product that is not based on an adequate and proper test thereof, the proof of which lies on the person making the representation; or
(c) makes a representation to the public in a form that purports to be
(i) a warranty or guarantee of a product, or
(ii) a promise to replace, maintain or repair an article or any part thereof or to repeat or continue a service until it has achieved a specified result,
if the form of purported warranty or guarantee or promise is materially misleading or if there is no reasonable prospect that it will be carried out.
New Law:
Spoiler!
Quote:
74.01 (1) A person engages in reviewable conduct who, for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, the supply or use of a product or for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, any business interest, by any means whatever,
(a) makes a representation to the public that is false or misleading in a material respect;
(b) makes a representation to the public in the form of a statement, warranty or guarantee of the performance, efficacy or length of life of a product that is not based on an adequate and proper test thereof, the proof of which lies on the person making the representation; or
(b.#1) makes a representation to the public in the form of a statement, warranty or guarantee of a product’s benefits for protecting or restoring the environment or mitigating the environmental, social and ecological causes or effects of climate change that is not based on an adequate and proper test, the proof of which lies on the person making the representation;
(b.#2) makes a representation to the public with respect to the benefits of a business or business activity for protecting or restoring the environment or mitigating the environmental and ecological causes or effects of climate change that is not based on adequate and proper substantiation in accordance with internationally recognized methodology, the proof of which lies on the person making the representation; or
(c) makes a representation to the public in a form that purports to be
(i) a warranty or guarantee of a product, or
(ii) a promise to replace, maintain or repair an article or any part thereof or to repeat or continue a service until it has achieved a specified result,
if the form of purported warranty or guarantee or promise is materially misleading or if there is no reasonable prospect that it will be carried out.
[QUOTE]
I wonder if companies panicked and removed all of their marketing when 74.01 (b) was initially introduced? Or did they just make sure the claims they weren't marketing were not total BS? Or if they had marketing statements that were 'technically true' but you know - not really honestly true in good faith - did they simply go ahead and adjust those statements or had *fine text caveats?
And those penalties are nothing new...they've already applied to the other subsections of 74.01
Spoiler!
Quote:
Under the civil provisions, practices are brought before the Competition Tribunal, the Federal Court, or the superior court of a province or territory. For the practices to be found in violation requires that each element of the conduct be proven “on a balance of probabilities.”
...
The court may order the person: to stop engaging in such conduct, to publish a corrective notice, and/or to pay an administrative monetary penalty.
For individuals, the penalty for first-time violations is up to the greater of:
$750,000 ($1 million for each subsequent violation); and
three times the value of the benefit derived from the deceptive conduct, if that amount can be reasonably determined.
For corporations, the penalty for a first-time violation is up to the greater of:
$10 million ($15 million for each subsequent violation); and
three times the value of the benefit derived from the deceptive conduct, or, if that amount cannot be reasonably determined, 3% of the corporation’s annual worldwide gross revenue.
In situations where a person has made materially false or misleading representations about a product, and therefore violated paragraph 74.01(1)(a) of the Competition Act (which includes drip pricing), the court may also make an order for restitution that requires the person to pay an amount, not exceeding the total of the amounts paid to the person for the products in respect of which the conduct was engaged in, to be distributed among the persons to whom the products were sold and, in certain cases, may issue an interim injunction to freeze assets.
Totally reasonable to assume that the bolded won't apply, and it'll be straight to millions in penalties. Because that totally must have happened a lot with the other paragraphs under 74.01 and I'm sure some folks will chime in with numerous examples. Please. I looked at couldn't find them.
But actually there is zero reason to believe that good faith behaviour that happens to not absolutely nail a 100% perfectly honestly and technically true standard will feel any more repercussions than Honey Nut Cheerios currently get for telling me how good they are for my heart. Which is nothing. Or maybe someday they'll be forced to change it to "not as bad for your heart as the other #### we sell with even more sugar"
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
So it's OK to have a provincially funded propaganda department to deceive us, but not OK to have Federal laws in place to protect us from the deception?
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
So it's OK to have a provincially funded propaganda department to deceive us, but not OK to have Federal laws in place to protect us from the deception?
No, both examples we are talking about are bad in my opinion.