Industry Committee on June 18th, 2009

[Konrad W. von Finckenstein]

I think it's very important because, as you mentioned, we are living in the age of digital revolution. Our economy is more driven by information--getting information, timely information, using it, and employing it is necessary and can give you great competitive advantages. If the system, however, gets corrupted by spam or phishing or people installing software on your computer so that it becomes unreliable, it can have a major negative impact.

When we first built railroads, we brought in all sorts of rail acts in order to ensure where railways could go and that they would have rights of way. You couldn't interrupt the signals, etc., because having decent railway connection was the main driver of the economy of the country and nothing should interfere with it. Think of that and transfer that to the Internet. You really want to make sure that you have a fast, efficient, reliable Internet that doesn't get monkeyed around by people who do so for whatever motives drive them. They're not economic motives.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lake.

Thank you, Mr. von Finckenstein.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Chair, I thank you for being here. The first question I have is with regard to prohibitions, and the second is with regard to the non-business relationships. Specifically, it says that “in the last 18 months, the recipient has made a donation or gift, provided volunteer work or signed a membership”.

What I'm a little bit worried about are things like sports or not-for-profit or world issue discussion groups. Say, for example, you were just a recipient of information and articles over a period of time even beyond 18 months. If somebody were actually doing that, and you were receiving that.... For example, I worked for persons with disabilities before getting here, and I was just receiving information. I liked getting that information, but I'm not volunteering at the organization. I'm not a member of the organization, but I like to keep up to speed on it. Would they have to send out a consent form to be signed, or since I had regularly received that information in the past, would I be able to keep doing so? Are they actually going to have to bring another endeavour?

Once again, I'm worried about those who do informal sports discussions and the exchanges on civil society information and other types of news-sharing that go across personal lists that people have already assembled.

[Konrad W. von Finckenstein]

If you worked for them and performed for them, obviously you support that organization; you're interested in it. That serves the equivalent of having a formal or personal relationship. You can receive that and everything. If for some reason you don't like it anymore, etc., there has to be an unsubscribe provision; you can click on that and it will stop. You're protected. But because you were involved, we assume that you supported that organization and you want to continue to receive information. Under the legislation, they're allowed to continue to send you those things.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

The problem would be if say, for example, you routinely said get me off this list and they refused to do so. You could make a complaint, but until that time, those not-for-profits and other organizations continue to send out that information until there is someone saying that to them.

[Konrad W. von Finckenstein]

The act deals with commercial e-mails. What you're describing is a volunteer charitable organization, I assume.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes. I mean non-business, and even things like informal discussion groups.

[Konrad W. von Finckenstein]

Go ahead, Len. Why don't you answer?

[Len Katz, Vice-Chairman, Telecommunications, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission]

The proposed act basically says volunteer work performed by persons—which is what you're referring to in paragraph 10(6)(b)—will continue on for 18 months.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Can it go past that? If I'm just receiving information about that, if I am not volunteering or I haven't signed a membership or done any of those things, but I like getting information from either a formal or an informal group, will they then have to build in a process to have a sign-up form, or can that activity continue until somebody says no and asks to get out of that?

[Konrad W. von Finckenstein]

This is there to qualify whether people can send it to you or not. Once they qualify, they are there until such time as you tell them not to send anymore.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

If this is happening right now, does that qualify you? Are you then okay? Are they going to have to go back to all those people they are in informal discussions with and have them sign on to the form?

[Konrad W. von Finckenstein]

If right now you are receiving messages from them because you were involved with them, let's say, two years ago, then it seems to me that yes, they would qualify. If you don't want it, you push the unsubscribe button and you won't get anymore.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

There may not be an unsubscribe button on some of this information.

[Konrad W. von Finckenstein]

They must have it. After this act comes in, they have to put on an unsubscribe button.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

This is one of the problems I want to research, because those organizations will then have to spend money to have programming done to send out to their list and they will also have to administer it.

[John Traversy, Executive Director, Telecommunications, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission]

Perhaps I can help.

As the chair mentioned earlier, the act actually applies to commercial unsolicited e-mails that are applied. I think the e-mails you're talking about are of a non-commercial nature so they would not be captured by this act to begin with. If the organization was sending out e-mails and it was trying to solicit or sell a product, then it would come under the realm of the act. But if the organization is just sending out information that someone was used to receiving on the activities of that organization, that is not covered to start with under the legislation. The organization could continue to do that.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I thought it was under the non-business relationship, as you were saying.

[John Traversy]

The non-business relationship is in fact if they wanted to try to solicit or do commercial activity.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Okay, that's very helpful.

I'm surprised this hasn't been raised, but in your conclusion, you talk about your amendments and you conclude with:

Without this amendment the Commission's ability to address spam will be compromised significantly.

You're saying if you don't get this amendment, the legislation will be seriously compromised. You might want to expand upon that.

Also, if you are going to be doing work with the FCC, what information would you be sharing with it during an investigation? An investigation doesn't mean that someone is guilty; it means that someone is being investigated. I would like to know how we would protect people's personal privacy, especially given that the American Patriot Act is something we can't control and exposes Canadians to loss of public information when it enters into the U.S. stream.

[Konrad W. von Finckenstein]

There are several points.

First of all, I want to make sure it has maximum efficiency. We live in North America. We have an integrated economy. That's a fact. We have to deal with it. That's why I want to be able to exchange this information across the border.

Second, with respect to the information that we exchange specifically, we don't have to do it, we just have the power to do it. Nobody can force us to do it. If the FTC asked us, we would look at it. We obviously would check to make sure that it fell within the act. If it did, we would do the investigation. If we found there was something that potentially was in violation, we would give it to them. They could only use it for the purposes for which we sent it, which would be with respect to a civic penalty, nothing else. They could not use it for anything else. That's the provision under which we would give it to them.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

The problem you face under the Patriot Act is that a couple of different departments can access that information and they're not allowed to tell you that. The FCC would not be able to disclose that the information was being taken from them because that actually would violate the Patriot Act.

[Konrad W. von Finckenstein]

You're now making allegations about the U.S. legislation. You may very well be right; I am not an expert on U.S. legislation. This is given by us pursuant to the legislation. The legislation makes it quite clear that it can be used for this purpose and for this purpose alone.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

That's one thing I'd ask the researcher to follow up, Mr. Chair, with regard to the sharing of information with the FCC and whether it's vulnerable to the Patriot Act and how it would be accessed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Yes, we'll get the analyst to do that.