Senator Goldstein has reintroduced his anti-spam bill in the Senate, as of last month. It is now Bill S-202. A similar bill (I have not compared them) was on the order paper before the last election. (It’s interesting that Senate bills die too when elections are called, considering that the Senate is not elected and the Senators all continue in office despite elections for the House of Commons. Yes, I understand the principle, but its application is not inevitable – though it is not going to change, either.)
You can read the Senator’s comments as he began second reading debate on November 25th, adjourned after his remarks.
There are a lot of things in here, from the definition of spam to the rules for sending it, the need for consent of the addressee, the exceptions, the penalties, a civil remedy against spammers, the right of telecom service providers to cancel spammers’ accounts, and so on. I have not compared it – but perhaps someone has, or the predecessor bill – with the report of the Anti-Spam Task Force that reported in 2005.
I wonder if all the civil remedy provisions would be proper federal jurisdiction, as ancillary to regulating cross-border communications.
What do you think? Should this be passed as is, or with (what) amendments?
[Merci beaucoup Patrick Gingras]