Industry Committee on June 9th, 2009

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Can I take up a couple of examples? This is why I'm concerned.

For example, if I'm a business and I'm going to send an e-message concerning a product recall or a warranty, for example, with safety or security information, and if I hadn't been in contact for more than 18 months, because it had been purchased more than 18 months previously, we would not be allowed, as I understand it, to do that because it would be considered spam. That's quite a concern to me, because on a warranty or a product recall, it would be very, very important to be able to discuss that.

I have other examples.

Do you want to handle this?

[Richard Simpson]

Yes, thank you.

For the example you used of a warranty or some form of communication relevant to a product, there are two possibilities. First of all, there could have been express consent when someone bought the product that they always wanted to have information on warranties, or anything related to the safety of a product, or anything along those lines. But even if not, the implied consent in an existing business relationship would work in that situation. The 18-month time limit is just a way of trying to find some date certainty regarding when that business contact is stale. But that's a detail that can be looked at.

If I could go back, Mr. Chairman, to the question about the spam task force and the work that was done, I'm pretty familiar with the thinking of the group, having been involved in the working groups and the task force itself. It's interesting that people like Tom Copeland, president of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers—whom the minister mentioned earlier had expressed support for the legislation—was a member of the spam task force. Most of those members would see the bill as very much consistent with the framework they had put in place. However, there are aspects of the bill that you would see in the work of the spam task force that we need to develop, such as defining the practices that will be part of the regime of implied consent. The regulations the minister referred to are going to be used to pick up some of the details we need in order to make the bill work effectively in a business environment.

Specifically, in the spam task force report, there was a piece of work done by the Canadian Marketing Association—the president, John Gustavson, who was another member of the task force. The CMA has come out in support of the bill. The annex I'm talking about was a set of industry guidelines for commercial e-mail marketing.

Our intention has always been that those guidelines developed by the spam task force, and later adopted by the Canadian Marketing Association, and endorsed by a number of Canadian businesses, would be reflected in the regulations and therefore in the operating principles of Bill C-27 when it became law.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Simpson.

Thank you, Madame Coady.

Mr. Vincent, do you have any questions?

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Yes. I just have a quick question.

I am wondering about the problem we came up against around the end of last year or the beginning of this year having to do with the do not call list. It bothers me a bit. Some people have been able to purchase, via the Internet, the telephone numbers on the do not call list. Individuals on the list were contacted by telemarketers.

Given what happened, I understand what Mr. Clement was saying earlier, that is, there may be a similar list for email addresses, which would prevent certain people from sending spam. However, that list would definitely be available on the Internet. Thus, people from countries without spam legislation could buy the do not email list on the Internet, just as people did with the do not call list. Then they would be free to contact people on the list and send them spam and advertisements from abroad, from countries where they are not subject to any legislation.

I want to know how you plan to address that issue on the Internet. Here in Canada, people have been able to get a hold of the do not call list. If they can do it here, I would think that elsewhere in the world where such legislation does not exist, people could get the list by some other means to advertise on behalf of someone else.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

First of all, as I mentioned, it is of course impossible to have a bill that fully and completely protects Canadians from spam or other means of electronic communication. However, I think this bill is significant because it allows us to join the ranks of nations that address issues such as spam.

Helen, is there something else you want to add?

[Helen McDonald]

When we talk about the do-not-call list, it's an opt-out. You put your name onto a list to indicate you do not want to receive telemarketing calls. So there will not be an Internet list for opting out of spam. It's a different regime from opting in; there won't be a single list created of all Canadians who do not wish to get e-mail spam or unsolicited commercial text messages. So there's quite a difference between those two approaches.

On your point about the fact that there is a list and what would happen in other countries who might be able to see this list, I believe that happened at the beginning, but the CRTC is taking steps to try to prevent the purchase of the names on the do-not-call list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Madame McDonald.

Thank you, Mr. Simpson.

And thank you, Minister Clement, for appearing in front of our committee to explain this bill. We appreciate it. Your testimony will be helpful.

This meeting is adjourned.