Industry Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you Mr. Bouchard.

Now to Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The $12.5 million is less than half for the new census that's being rolled out.

Is that annual funding that has been established? Could you provide us with details as to what types of positions are going to be created out of that to make this job successful?

[Janet DiFrancesco]

Yes, that is annual funding, and the vast majority of that funding is going to the three enforcement agencies so they can hire additional staff to pursue investigations under FISA.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

How many investigators will we have? One of the things, for example, that we're seeing, say for the Investment Canada Act, is actually only nine people to review hundreds of files that come in annually. How many investigators do we get, and what type of expertise will they have?

I'm supportive of the bill. We got some of the changes, as you know, from the last round, but what I'm worried about is that we have a bill that can't delve into some of the repercussions if somebody violates the bill.

[André Leduc]

For the CRTC, it's estimated they'll have over 20 new personnel on board. Almost the same goes for the Competition Bureau. The OPC will hire six new investigators, and contract out their cyber-forensics side of the equation to academia, etc. They're only planning on hiring six full-time people, then using expertise that exists out there to hire specific investigators for specific investigations, as they did with Facebook.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Have there been any guesstimates, in terms of our studies related to compliance levels? I'd be interested to know what we're expecting to see from the community as this rolls out.

[André Leduc]

There are a few things there. This was based on best practices from our partners internationally. We've spoken to our counterparts in places like Australia. They said in order to be able to do this much, you'll need this much money. We bumped that up a little bit. So we've looked at it from their regimes.

In terms of compliance, there are a number of vehicles that the three enforcement agencies will be able to take. By having a spam reporting centre, when we receive 25 to 30 complaints about the same spam e-mail, the same individual, we shoot them off a notice of warning to say we've had a number of complaints about them. It says “Cease and desist this type of activity. Should you continue on, you may be pointed in an investigation and you may be served notice of a violation”, etc. That's the type of practice they have in Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and they do it in the United States. They've seen a great reduction in home-born spam. Because of that, the Japanese recently at an international event stated that they see a 70% compliance rate, simply with the notices of warning. So they shoot them off a notice and they see that this functions quite well.

A 70% response rate to a notice of warning is an excellent vehicle for us to take, and it doesn't use up a lot of resources in terms of actually completing an investigation. Notably, we've heard from some of the private sector experts in terms of data that Canadian-born spamming has been volatile over the last few months. I think they're starting to notice that this legislation is coming down the pipe. They're moving offshore, they're going further underground. So we've already seen the effect of this legislation.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

You people have done a really good job on the bill and also of describing what's happening in North America. It's funny; I was going to lead to that.

Do we expect some of the Canadian spammers to then go to the United States? If that's the case, are we working with the United States or other countries to identify them or to share information? What has been taking place?

[André Leduc]

I guess that was part of the rationale for using the three enforcement agencies: it's an extension of what they're already doing, in most cases. Folks such as the Competition Bureau already have agreements and arrangements set up with folks such as the FTC, so we're plugged in almost by default. The FTC and other countries are very anxious to see this legislation brought to fruition so that they can work with us on international cases.

What sets this spam legislation apart from everybody else's is clauses 8 and 9, which are new pretty much to the world. Whereas we've learned from the rest of the world, in this particular case the rest of the world will be learning from us over the next few years.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'm trying to recall the fine penalty. I think it's $10 million a day, or is it per...?

[André Leduc]

It's a maximum penalty of $1 million per violation for individuals, $10 million for all other entities of all other persons, which are enterprises.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Now, for the public record can you explain the process in terms of penalties and fining? Will there be warnings first?

I'm on the side of not putting up with some of this stuff and moving more harshly, but at the same time, there are probably going to be some grace dates for those who are spamming; I don't know. What's the goal for enforcement?

[André Leduc]

There's no obligation under the legislation that we provide a letter of warning. If we see something that is fairly malicious, we can enter right into an investigation and investigate that individual.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

There's nothing in the regulations for it either, then?

[André Leduc]

No. It's a best practice to ensure compliance. It's a regulatory regime built upon compliance; however, if we see a more egregious spammer, we don't have to serve him a notice of warning. We can go straight into the investigation, go in with a notice of violation, provide him with a significant monetary penalty, and see where the courts take us thereafter.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

It could also be a her—

[André Leduc]

Yes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

—given the Internet world these days.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I have just one last quick question. I noticed that the short title of the bill has been amended. We've had some things around that. Who suggested that the short title be changed?

[Janet DiFrancesco]

The short title of the bill was provided to us.

I also can't tell you why they dropped a letter out of it. I don't what happened to the “W” to go with the initials FISA, but that was the acronym they also gave us when it was tabled.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I suspected as much.

Thank you very much for your answers. I appreciate them.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm all done.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

Now we go on to the Conservative Party for your questions.

Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't have any questions, actually. We had 12 meetings on this, so we got most of the questions answered that we needed during those meetings.

I just want to commend you for the work that you've done, for very clearly communicating what it is that we're doing here. I think I can speak for all the members when I say that as a committee we really appreciate the clarity with which you've communicated, not only in this meeting but in the other 12 meetings that we had.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I think he's looking for a free lunch from our officials.