Industry Committee on Sept. 28th, 2009

[Joanne De Laurentiis]

It does.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Would that make it more difficult in terms of legislation--that we have to cut it off somewhere?

[Joanne De Laurentiis]

Again, I think it's a case of tweaking. We could reference the relationship without a number, without a timeframe, and I think it would get at exactly what you're trying to get at.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. Wallace.

Now we'll go to Monsieur Vincent.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you for being here today.

From the start, we have been talking about consent and bulk email, but we are also talking about businesses. Indeed, you all have a business or you work for a business. We want to pass Bill C-27, which covers Quebec and Canada, and targets the mass distribution of email and spam.

But what about the other countries where these messages can originate? What kind of competition does that mean for you, since they are not regulated? Here, it will be regulated, but not abroad.

You raise the following problem: others will be allowed to distribute email in bulk, but not you. How could we adjust things in a suitable manner, so that we could obtain consent without sending out a mass email to 14 million people? We want to make it law and stop this. Consumers' inboxes are being flooded with spam. There are four or five companies here today, but there are many more all over Canada. We need to follow some kind of logic.

First, I would like to hear your thoughts on that and what your idea of business consent would be. What would you consider a reasonable distribution of email that would allow you to stay in business?

[Bernard Brun]

Thank you. I think your concerns are very relevant. What the bill says indeed has an impact on competition, especially international competition.

The current bill, as it stands, would put us at a disadvantage in relation to any international competitor. That is why we are asking for some concessions with respect to consent. We believe that the bill must target the distribution of spam. When spammers send emails, they are not looking to obtain your consent; they are just looking to flood your inbox.

Under reasonable business practices, we are not asking for the right to send emails without consent, but we are asking for permission to obtain that consent electronically.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Obtaining consent on what scale? You are talking about permission to obtain consent, but there are 30 million Canadians. Am I going to send out 30 million emails to find out who consents to doing business with me? We are managing problems, because if every business sent out 30 million emails, people would be inundated.

What would a reasonable limit be? We have to be reasonable here, because if we look at this the same way, we will not make any changes to the legislation. That would mean keeping the status quo and sending out emails at will. Business would have only to ask for consent, and they would send out just as many emails. That is what we are trying to limit; fewer emails have to be sent. What can we do to be reasonable about this?

That question is for everyone.

[Joanne De Laurentiis]

We agree. That's the challenge. I guess what we are saying to you is that we could tweak the rule to prevent the spam that none of us like but also ensure the legitimate communications directed to an individual where the firms are identifying themselves, and where there is also probably a hyperlink that would allow them to say, “I'm not interested”.

I think we can create that. We can tweak the rule in order to be very clear about what we allow and what we don't allow. I don't disagree with you, but we just need to find the ability to let the legitimate communication take place.

[Frank Zinatelli]

Certainly, I think the bill as it is written will prevent a lot of e-mails that would otherwise be sent, but no longer will be sent, by legitimate businesses. What I think those businesses that do carry on legitimate activities want, as Joanne was saying, is some tweaking of the wording to allow some of the activities that are current valid activities now. One example I've heard repeatedly today is that of the situation with referrals, which is key, certainly for the industries at this table today. That at least will maintain some of the legitimate activities if that particular tweaking is dealt with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Vincent.

Thank you, Mr. Zinatelli.

Mr. Van Kesteren, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for appearing before us.

I have to confess that I guess I'm one of these guys who kind of watches from the outside. I'll ask my wife if she'll possibly check a price if we're going to take a vacation or something. I walk away really fast. I get frustrated when I look at the thing and this pops up and that pops up.

Speaking from that angle, have you thought about other alternatives? I'm suggesting possibly that.... Mr. Wallace was talking about his former life, and my former life too, when we would have to find our contacts. Is there a plan B that you have in place should this legislation move forward? Is this an insurmountable mountain that you can't get over? I really need to know that. Is there not another way that you can go around this problem if this legislation becomes a reality?

[Joanne De Laurentiis]

The question we would put back to you is this: why do we want to go backwards?

I'm like you. I get frustrated when too many things are popping up, but my children communicate only through text messages and through researching on the web. Younger advisers who join the business and investment advisers today will communicate with each other through websites that will create web discussions. That's the way things are moving.

Even in disseminating information, we are working today with the securities administrators across the country to create a new “short fund fact” so that people don't have to read the complex prospectus. We're going to send that through e-mail. We are moving in the direction of communicating with each other through technology. So if this legislation is passed, I would put to you that you would be limiting the industry in a very significant way.

And there is no plan B.

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

Somebody mentioned Twitter or one of the others. If you're in the financial business, couldn't you have a web page or something that would attract people to that and then you can make your contacts? I mean, you must be thinking about these things. Frankly, I suppose that if I spent most of the day looking at my stock portfolio, if I was engaged in that, I'd want all the information I could have. But if that's not my area of expertise or interest, I don't want that stuff coming at me.

Isn't there something that you could possibly move towards that would...? I, at least, have found in life that every time there's an obstacle, it's just human ingenuity to bypass it and come up with something else that manages it. Maybe somebody else wants to--

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

I think Mr. Morency has something to say.

[Yves Morency]

I just wanted to mention that the original intent of the legislation was very commendable. We are also consumers, even if we work in financial institutions. The bill aims to protect electronic commerce, not reduce it to nothing. Where things stand now, it is one of the tools available to businesses, organizations and individuals, to the extent that the alternative would be to go back to the methods of communication we used in the past such as newspapers and the telephone. We are trying to find a balance here.

I think you understand what we are getting at. It is not a matter of not protecting consumers against spam, but we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. It may not be easy to strike a balance, but we should not be subjected to these competitive conditions. Today's channels of communication are not limited to Canada. If our main competitors do not pass similar legislation, we will be at a competitive disadvantage, something I am sure you do not want. That is the point we came here to make.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Morency.

Thank you, Mr. Van Kesteren.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am just wondering if any of your suggestions could be done through regulation instead of amendments, because I'm thinking that regardless of what we come out with in this bill, things are going to change.

Let me give you an example of something I consider spam, which is really irritating in the banking system right now. I go online to access my bank, using my own computer and my own time and paying for the Internet service. I've paid for all of that, but when I go into my account, before I can do anything else, I have to answer a question from my bank about once or twice a month. The bank is basically trying to solicit information from me for other products and services. I have to do that before I can actually go into my own account.

As a customer, I consider that an abuse. As well, it takes my time and it's something I'm not interested in. Even if I respond with, no thanks, what they're doing is testing me all the time on different products and services I might be interested in before I can do my own banking.

So I want to see stuff like that taken care of as well, because you should have the right, if you're going into your own account, not to have to do a survey every single time, especially as you're paying for your computer, you're paying for your time on the Internet, and you're doing the bank's job.

So is there anything right now or any change in what you suggested that could go through regulation as opposed to amendments?

[Peter Goldthorpe]

Certainly I think the issue of an e-mail to obtain consent is a prime example. You would need a legislative amendment, because you have the blanket prohibition in the legislation right now. But if you took that blanket prohibition out and then you developed a definition of an e-mail intended to obtain consent, if it turned out that it were being subject to flagrant abuse or there were millions of mass e-mails being sent out under the guise of referrals to specific individuals, then you could tighten up that regulation fairly quickly and easily.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to move on quickly to what was suggested by the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. They've suggested that we use the Australian model here with regards to business-to-business relationships, so that if an e-mail were actually published it would be providing consent. Australian anti-spam legislation has this feature.

Is that the position of the other organizations as well?

[Yves Morency]

Yes.

[Joanne De Laurentiis]

In our case, the business-to-business case, we would say yes, that makes sense. That is an implied consent.

[Frank Zinatelli]

I just wanted to note that our comment was indeed with respect to business to business.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

Mr. Lake.