Industry Committee on June 9th, 2009

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

Let me answer the question there. We talked a little bit about clause 8 and the anti-spyware provisions, and we talked about express consent and installation of computer programs, whether there's consent or no consent, that kind of thing. Certainly under subclause 10(2), for instance, there's some language there that could perhaps be tightened up a little bit that would be--

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Are you providing us with that wording, or do we make that up on the fly? What happens? That's my question.

[Helen McDonald]

We're looking at that wording ourselves because we're also hearing from some groups asking if that would capture the security upgrades and so on. So we're looking at that, but I think, depending on the witnesses you're calling before committee, they may also be probing into that.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay. I appreciate that.

For clarification, my understanding, based on my review of this--I think it's clause 6, but correct me if I'm wrong--is that business to business, not business to consumer but business to business, is actually exempt, virtually exempt. So if company A wants to talk to company B, who is in the software business, or anybody in the software business, they can send their unsolicited e-mail to absolutely everybody and this legislation does not cover that. Is that a correct statement?

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

That is correct.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay.

[Richard Simpson]

Clause 6, yes, you're correct. Paragraph 6(5)(b) talks about an exception when the e-mail is sent to a person who is engaged in a commercial activity and consists solely of an inquiry or application related to that activity. So I simply point out the qualification there, that this has to be a commercial activity in which there is a purpose that is, I guess, mutually shared between the two individuals. You can't necessarily, because it's a commercial activity, then send it out to every business in Canada.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Wallace.

Monsieur Bouchard.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, since the Internet is a worldwide network, spam can come from Quebec, Canada or abroad. Earlier we talked about three organizations: the CRTC, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and the Competition Bureau. Who will have the authority to intervene?

Say I am fed up with receiving emails from outside Canada, and I did not give my consent to receive spam. Which organization do I complain to? What will they do about the spam I receive from abroad? Can they take any effective measures? Can these organizations take action outside Canada?

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

Yes, it is more effective than what we have right now. This bill contains a provision whereby the CRTC will have the authority, as will the Competition Bureau and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, to share information and evidence with their international counterparts, if similar laws exist in other countries. In addition, Interpol handles these matters in the international arena. It is possible to have partnerships on this issue. Right now, it is hard for other countries to establish a partnership with Canada because, without a law, there is no way for them to work with us.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you. I completely understand. So, in Canada, the legislation would undoubtedly give more authority and be more effective, but abroad, it would be subject to agreements and partnerships with other countries. So it still needs to be done.

I want to discuss something else. We know that e-commerce is important. Many merchants offer services on the Internet. Once the legislation is in effect, every merchant wanting to offer a service to Internet users will first have to obtain permission to contact them. Once the legislation is in effect, someone who receives spam and who has not previously consented to receiving that spam will be able to complain.

Which organization can that person complain to? What will happen? Their complaint will be received, and an investigation will be conducted. Will the person be notified of the outcome?

[Helen McDonald]

If we're talking about spam, then you could either complain to the CRTC or you could complain to the spam reporting centre, an organization that we have yet to set up, but it would be complementary to this legislation. So if you don't know who to phone, don't worry about it. You can call or e-mail the spam reporting centre, and between the three organizations, they will figure out who is best positioned to take action on this.

As you know, a lot of these organizations—at least the CRTC does—carry on quasi-public proceedings. You would find out what is happening to your complaint from them. They also have the ability to publish the results when they find someone has violated the act and there has been a penalty extracted. They have the ability to publish that information for you as well, so you can see that they are being effective.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Ms. McDonald.

Merci, Monsieur Bouchard.

We now have Mr. Van Kesteren.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for appearing before us.

Mr. Minister, we're right in the middle of a very significant global economic crisis, and I'm curious why the government would choose this time to introduce this legislation. How will fighting spam contribute to Canada's economic recovery? In that light, how important is it that we get this legislation passed as quickly as possible?

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

Thank you.

Certainly, I respect this committee's willingness to tackle this legislation with us and to work with us to get the best legislation possible, but as I mentioned at the beginning, this spam costs Canadian businesses $3 billion a year. There's the cost of guarding against spam, of course. As businesses and consumers, we all get our anti-virus patches and continue the war that keeps expanding to the next level with the spammers, and that requires constant vigilance and upgrades and so on.

So it's expensive. I'm not saying it's all going to disappear with this legislation. Obviously, spammers, bad guys, are going to be around trying to get around the rules, but the fact of the matter is there's a big gaping hole in the world right now, and it's Canada. If you look at the top 25 spammers in the world, something like a third of them are in Canada. They're based in Canada because it's the wild west here.

So I think we have to do our part internationally. It's hard for us to work with Interpol. As I said to Monsieur Bouchard, it's hard for us to work with them if we have no legislation. We cannot come to the table with clean hands in that situation. We're not seen as a good partner right now. So we have to have legislation; it has to be as effective as possible.

Is it going to eliminate everything? No, I'm not here to say that. But the experiences of other countries has been...Australia is a good example. When they passed legislation, when they enforced their legislation, their indigenous spam, if you will, dropped by 40%. So it can have an impact, and that means savings for businesses and less frustration for consumers, and that's what we want.

Now is the best time to do this, in the wake of the world economic downturn.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

I suppose that leads me to the next part of my question: stakeholders. What kind of response have you received from stakeholders and the business community in general? Have they been supportive of this legislation?

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

We've had very positive feedback from the Canadian Marketing Association, for instance. I'm sure there's a whole list here somewhere.

Do you have it there, Helen?

[Helen McDonald]

The Canadian Association of Internet Providers has reacted quite favourably to this. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has reacted quite well. Mr. Perrin Beatty put out a statement after the bill was tabled.

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

Right.

There's a quote from a Telus spokesperson, who says, “...it provides a legal framework to stop Canadian-based spammers from bombarding Canadians with unsolicited messages and potentially dangerous malware.” Mr. Beatty said that he's been pressing the government for years. In a quote he says: “I'm pleased that the government is acting to make the Internet safer and more secure.”

That's the general impression out there. Certainly, as I say, if there's a way we can improve this in an expedited manner, I think we're willing to do that as well. But at some point the process of debate must stop. We've had that for years. We actually have to pass some legislation.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

What about a review date? Is there an automatic review date? Is it three years? Five years?

[Helen McDonald]

No.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Would it help to have a review? Is it something we should introduce?

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

If the committee felt strongly that that's important, I'm not going to throw myself in front of that train. If you think it's important to have good legislation, that's fine by us.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Okay. Thank you, sir. That's all.