Evidence of meeting #30 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was spam.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Elizabeth Denham  Assistant Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Duane Schippers  Deputy Commissioner of Competition, Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs Branch, Competition Bureau
Carman Baggaley  Strategic Policy Advisor, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Hedy Kirkby  Acting Senior Counsel, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Konrad W. von Finckenstein  Chairman, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Len Katz  Vice-Chairman, Telecommunications, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
John Traversy  Executive Director, Telecommunications, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Michael Chong

Thank you very much, Mr. Traversy.

Mr. Lake.

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB

I'll just follow up on that, because this is about the third or fourth time this list has come up in regard to this legislation. Of course, this is different legislation. This is an opt-in system. The only list is of those people who opt in for services from a company. The only organization that has that list is the company that those people opted in with. So it's not even an issue in this legislation anyway.

I want to go back to this proposed amendment that you've put forward. Just out of curiosity, in terms of the discussion you would have had with Industry, what feedback did you get?

6:10 p.m.

Chairman, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Konrad W. von Finckenstein

“Discussion” is a big word. I told them, “Look, you need this and we need this”, because there had to be a requirement in the act to instantly work with the FTC. They pointed me to the provision regarding it and said they'd addressed it. I told them, “Yes, but not in the way that I think is proper”, and they said, “If you want to put something forward, go ahead”.

So they didn't say yes or no, but I reminded them that the minister, when he appeared before you, suggested that he was open to constructive amendments. I think this falls in the category of constructive amendments. It's a good act; this makes it slightly better.

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB

Right.

Actually, I have to say that I appreciate it when any witness who comes forward actually puts forward or suggests an amendment in writing. It's always appreciated. It makes it a lot easier to wade through.

In regard to the suggested amendment, I would point out that in the bill, clause 60, which is being discussed, uses the word “arrangement” rather than the word “agreement”. I think it does so intentionally. It's less formal than the word “agreement”, which would intimate all sorts of formalities and cause some of the concern that you would have. The bill uses the word “arrangement” because it's by definition less formal and allows, to my understanding, the CRTC, the Competition Bureau, and the Privacy Commissioner's office to enter into bilateral arrangements with their counterparts and not necessarily require the formality that you're concerned about.

Maybe you could respond to that.

6:10 p.m.

Chairman, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Konrad W. von Finckenstein

The arrangement, then, obviously could encompass an exchange of letters or something. But also, as I mentioned to one other questioner--I don't know which one--I am worried about the attitude of the user-enforcer. They have legislation that says you can enter provided there is a reciprocal provision in the other country's legislation. We don't have it explicitly.

If I go to them and say here's my act, section 60A mirrors yours, it's reciprocal, so let's cooperate, there's no problem. If it doesn't, and we want to do an exchange over there, then they always worry about what's happening on their end. Are they within the focus of their legislation, or are they possibly exposed to people saying they are acting outside their scope? Are they divulging information that they shouldn't, or is this arrangement not sufficient, or not strong enough, because they're not speaking about the arrangements that we are?

Therefore, to overcome this, to put it all aside, we have to know how we both work. They want to see some legislation and then we'll feel free to operate and cooperate. Then we will have an exchange of information and we can both fight spam on both sides of the border. That's the reality we face, and that's why I'm suggesting here to put in section 60A. It will do the trick and we can work cooperatively right off the bat.

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB

I'll take a closer look at that after we get through the meeting and work on my thinking around that, but I just want to ask the question, does having the word “arrangement” versus the word “agreement” in clause 60 as it stands right now lend more flexibility, in your view, to at least doing the things that you would need to do under this act better than if it were confining you to specific agreements?

6:15 p.m.

Chairman, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Konrad W. von Finckenstein

Oh, absolutely. The word “arrangement” adds an element of flexibility, but I don't think it's sufficient for the reasons I just mentioned.

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB

Okay. Thank you very much.

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Michael Chong

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

Mr. McTeague.

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

Commissioner, I'm not what I consider an expert in Internet technology, but I do know there are some basics involved with receiving information, with applets that are sent to me to help me view something or that I may ask for and that basically make the system work. I wonder if you and the commission have given any thought, for instance, to access to YouTube.

I know that when I view something, it's possible that my colleague may have done something in that, whatever that may be, and what you will find is that a code would be embedded and stored in the computer's memory. Obviously, I didn't seek the consent, nor did YouTube have to provide me or furnish me the consent. Do you see this as a problem with respect to how modern applications of the Internet can be used? Might this in fact have the unintended effect of preventing it or making it technically impossible, if not commercially impossible, to do this?

6:15 p.m.

Chairman, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Konrad W. von Finckenstein

No. I don't want to specifically speak about YouTube or Google, but normally when you use a system, for whatever application you use, they send you an improved version. Let's say it's version 6.1. They ask you if you consent, yes or no, and underneath the “yes” are the terms of acceptance, which are usually two pages of fine print that nobody reads. But if you actually push “yes”, by having done that, you have given explicit consent.

That's how all responsible applications work. This legislation basically forces everybody to do the same thing. Before I can put something on your system, I need your consent. It's up to you to read the consent or not.

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

Well, even on something that doesn't require my consent, say, my HTML, if I'm looking to use that as a means by which to access the Internet, which we all use, that too would probably be captured, potentially negatively, by this legislation. Take away the whole point of consent. I don't need consent nor does HTML send me a consent. I need it to function. It's the gasoline that makes the engine go.

6:15 p.m.

Chairman, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Konrad W. von Finckenstein

Well, in that case, you give the consent. I mean, look at Adobe PDF. We all use it. That's how you read half your stuff. Adobe sends you a new version every six months or so. You consent to it. If you don't want to, you don't have to, but you do that it at your own peril, as it means you can't read new documents in the new format.

But it's your choice. All they are doing is giving you the choice. You decide what's more important to you: having access to the stuff from Adobe and Adobe offering you newer versions, or no, you want your privacy, and you pay the cost for it.

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

I just think that in the case of HTML it would be impossible to ask for consent. It's beyond.... I mean, I need it to access; it's part and parcel of what's there. Even before I can give consent, I need to have an HTML, so it's more than the chicken and the egg. But anyway, I'm hoping the commission may have given some thought to this in the process of deliberations.

Let me ask a final question, Chair, because it is one that I think goes to the core of what we're trying to achieve here.

There have been a number of summits in the past, with one in London and I think one in Asia-Pacific. To what extent is the CRTC involved with equivalent commissions beyond the United States? You talked specifically here about the Federal Trade Commission having the ability to work out a bilateral, but on a multilateral basis, what are the best fora and who shall speak for Canada in these kinds of organizations and these kinds of meetings? Is it one of the three departments or all three? Obviously, the Minister of Industry....

6:20 p.m.

Chairman, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Konrad W. von Finckenstein

No. The overall policy for spam for electronic commerce, etc., clearly rests with the Department of Industry, and it's stated in the act.

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

I understand that.

6:20 p.m.

Chairman, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Konrad W. von Finckenstein

It is the Department of Industry that usually goes to these fora. If an aspect is being discussed that is of particular relevance, let's say, to the CRTC, they might invite us to come and be part of their delegation, or we might ask to go with them, etc.

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

I'm just asking if it's you who would be discussing with the FTC that your recommendation should be adopted by this committee, or if it would be the Minister of Industry or the Minister of Trade.

6:20 p.m.

Chairman, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Konrad W. von Finckenstein

If my amendment were adopted, I would be talking to the FTC and saying that we have the same provisions and asking them to please investigate.

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Michael Chong

Thank you, Mr. McTeague.

Monsieur Bouchard.

6:20 p.m.

Bloc

Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. von Finckenstein, you answered my questions and those of my colleagues very well. Earlier, we talked about the coordination between these three institutions. It is very clear that an individual who wishes to file a complaint must do so with one of the institutions. That is all very well.

What would you say if the bill provided for a one-stop shop for those citizens who wish to file a complaint? Do you feel that this would be a good provision?

6:20 p.m.

Chairman, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Konrad W. von Finckenstein

When the government announced this bill, it said exactly what you have just said, namely, that there would be a one-stop shop for receiving complaints and forwarding them to the responsible organization.

As far as telephone complaints are concerned, we do have PhoneBusters. We could perhaps have some other organization, or PhoneBusters could be this one-stop shop for complaints. These complaints would be forwarded to us or to one of the other two responsible agencies. We would like to see this, but it is not part of the current bill. Perhaps the department will set up this one-stop shop.

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Michael Chong

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Thank you, Mr. von Finckenstein.

Mr. Lake, it is your turn.

Mr. Lake.

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB

I have a quick follow-up comment after listening to Mr. McTeague's question.

I think there's a little bit of confusion between the two things we're talking about. On one hand, we're talking about the automatic update system that deals with the software programs we all have. We've talked about that quite a bit. It seems as if the legislation covers that adequately.

But I think Mr. McTeague is talking about things that just occur sort of naturally as you're surfing the Internet. There's a different kind of feedback, back and forth, that is automatic and crucial to the surfing experience in a sense.

The minister has said he's open to amendments. I think we recognize that there have to be amendments, minor tweaks in that area--and there will be.

That's just a point of clarification.