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 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON

Is this the first time you're suggesting them in public or did you suggest them—

6 p.m.

Chairman, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Konrad W. von Finckenstein

This is the first time I have had an opportunity to comment in public. You have invited me, and I'm taking the opportunity to comment.

6 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON

I didn't know if you were part of the process beforehand. That's fine.

6 p.m.

Chairman, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Konrad W. von Finckenstein

Don't get me wrong. When the government drafted this act, obviously there was consultation with us and others, and they wanted—

6 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON

Thank you very much.

The final question I have is on the section that deals with an exception for business to business in here. I forget which number it is. I think it's 10(a) or 10(6), or something like that. I would just like to understand and to have your interpretation of it.

A large life insurance company—and this didn't happen, I'm just using this as an example—e-mails me about selling me life insurance, but I have no relationship with them whatsoever and never have had. I'm not interested in life insurance from them. I would consider that unsolicited commercial e-mail to me, which I could take action on based on what I'm reading. But I'm also in the business of selling racking systems for their computer room. So I contact them through their IT department because I want to try to sell them this equipment—it's not false advertising but actual advertising—that they might need to solve their problem of space.

In your view, is that not an e-mail that would be legal in the sense that it's business to business? Under this act, is that a legal e-mail from me or not?

6 p.m.

Chairman, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Konrad W. von Finckenstein

Would you be an independent entrepreneur?

6 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON

Yes, it's my company. We'll call it L.M. Wallace Racking Systems for now.

6 p.m.

Chairman, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Konrad W. von Finckenstein

Then if it's commerce between L.M. Wallace Racking Systems and the life insurance company, it's a commercial activity.

6 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON

And that is exempt in this act, is that not correct?

6 p.m.

Chairman, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

6 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON

Those are all of my questions.

Thank you very much.

6 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Michael Chong

Thank you very much, Mr. Wallace.

Mr. Vincent, the floor is yours.

6 p.m.

Bloc

Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to congratulate you, Mr. von Finckenstein, and your organization. Indeed, the amendment that you tabled does in fact reflect one of my concerns. I know that this bill is not 100% perfect. Indeed, other witnesses have told us that there are often affiliated programs, that it was possible to obtain lists, in particular, and to go through countries that were not covered by this type of legislation. The problem is that an organization here can forward information to other countries, as is done in the case of the Indian telephone system. These people could therefore go through another country in order to spread advertising.

You said that these products could be delivered to Canada by a foreign company responsible for the distribution and advertising from Canada. With this amendment, in North America, we are going to cover all of that. Of course, it would have been preferable to have had an international agreement, but this is a good start.

I would now like to refer you to clauses 6(4)(a) and 6(4)(b) of the bill, which read as follows:

(a) an electronic message is considered to have been sent once its transmission has been initiated; and (b) it is immaterial whether the electronic address to which an electronic message is sent exists or whether an electronic message reaches its intended destination.

Going back to the scenario given by Mr. Wallace, let's suppose that I have my own home business and that my son uses the electronic address list found in my computer in order to sell chocolate for his school. What would happen? From what I can gather, I would be responsible for my computer and individuals under the law. Would there be any repercussions?

6:05 p.m.

Chairman, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Konrad W. von Finckenstein

Of course. In this type of case, the responsibility falls on your shoulders. If your son were engaged in this type of thing, there could be some complaints. We would have to initiate an investigation, and you would have to describe the situation. We would explain how the law works in these matters, and we would tell you to monitor your son. However, if the problem occurred again, we would have to take requisite action.

But it looks here as though we are talking about an unplanned act, an accident. In such a situation, your son would not have been aware of the provisions of the law. You would simply have to establish a system in order to protect your data.

6:05 p.m.

Bloc

Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC

But the legislation is very clear on that issue. I could be fined. Under the pretext that ignorance of the law is no excuse, I could be told that I should have protected my computer, but that I did not do so, and as a result, the legislation will be enforced.

6:05 p.m.

Chairman, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Konrad W. von Finckenstein

All legislation includes a discretionary aspect. Even crossing the street on a red light or jaywalking constitutes a crime, but in such cases, police officers usually just warn pedestrians that they cannot cross the street on a red light. The same thing applies here. For such trivial situations, we do not have the time to prosecute.

6:05 p.m.

Bloc

Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC

Have you asked for any additional human and financial resources in order to administer this new act?

6:05 p.m.

Chairman, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Konrad W. von Finckenstein

We made it clear to the department and to Treasury Board that the administration of this act was not part of our mandate as a regulatory agency for the telecommunications system. In order to administer this act, we will need general funding. We cannot be funded by the telephone companies. The department agrees. If this legislation is adopted, we are going to be given the required funding in order to administer it.

6:05 p.m.

Bloc

Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC

I would like you to talk about the opt-out list. I have also raised this matter with all the witnesses. Will it be possible to more adequately protect the numbers on this list as compared with the telephone list? There has been a lot of abuse, particularly by people who have purchased the telephone lists for the purpose of telemarketing.

6:05 p.m.

Chairman, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Konrad W. von Finckenstein

Thank you for bringing this matter up, because this is completely false. It is a myth. There is no evidence that telemarketers purchased the list for the purpose of telemarketing. I do not see why they would have done this. This is a list of people who do not want to be called. If you were a telemarketer, why would you buy this list? Obviously, you would not make a single sale. So why buy it? Why waste the money?

Secondly, I read the same thing in the newspaper, but there was never any evidence that a telemarketer, either nationally or internationally, purchased the list in order to call these people. There are some doubts about the fact that there have been violations, and we are in a process of doing an investigation, but to say that someone purchased the list for a perverse reason is a myth. I do not know where this comes from, but it is false. Nevertheless, we have taken additional measures in order to safeguard the list.

Mr. Traversy will explain what we are doing.

6:10 p.m.

Bloc

Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC

Further to the editorials and articles that appeared in the newspapers on this subject, consumers were worried. Television and radio reporters described how this list could be obtained. So the consumers who cannot be here but who are viewing the work of our committee this evening may understand, but for the others who are not watching, who are not listening to us, they may still believe that there is somewhat of a problem with these lists.

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Michael Chong

Thank you, Mr. Vincent.

Please be brief, Mr. Traversy.

6:10 p.m.

Executive Director, Telecommunications, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

John Traversy

Perhaps I could just add a couple of points to what the chair has mentioned.

First of all, we completed a manual review of all parties who downloaded the list. It revealed that there were only two downloads that were not made by identified telemarketers--to get back to your question of whether there's been abuse of the list--and, coincidentally, in the press there were two public statements of reporters who had downloaded the list using false information.

So our own review indicated--we did an audit--that in fact the list has been downloaded only by telemarketers who correctly identified themselves.

I have a couple of other points, if I can continue on.

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Michael Chong

Just briefly.

6:10 p.m.

Executive Director, Telecommunications, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

John Traversy

Yes, briefly.

In spite of this evidence, in order to ensure that Canadians have confidence in the list, we have developed a process with the list operator--this will improve on the existing measures--to verify the identity of all individuals or telemarketers before they are allowed to download that list.