Industry Committee on Sept. 28th, 2009

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, thank you to our witnesses.

I have a few comments and then a couple of questions. As I've listened, I've heard you bring up concerns that, again, I have sympathy for, and yet in terms of the legislation actually meaning anything at the end of the day when we're done with it, I struggle to see where we would accommodate it by taking some of the steps that at this point have been suggested by each of your organizations.

To my colleague Mr. Wallace's point, it would be nice if after the meeting you were to go back and brainstorm a little more and maybe find some other ways around some of these things. We'd welcome the suggestions, that's for sure.

One of the things I note is in the brief by the Life and Health Insurance Association. It says: “Properly constructed, an introductory electronic communication could be quickly and easily identified by the recipient who, with a minimum of inconvenience, could then decide to respond to the message or delete it.” I can't imagine any e-mail I receive that I could delete faster than some of the pharmaceutical and bank e-mails that I get already and that are properly constructed, too, I would say.

I think it was Mr. Brun who made the comment about all these companies that send us mass e-mails and how all they want to do is inundate us with e-mails, but I actually disagree. I think they want to make money. I think they just know that if they send out 30 million e-mails and 10 people respond, they actually make money, and that's what's wrong with the system right now. It's at the point right now where we get so much e-mail.... Even going back to my previous life in sales, it got to the point where an e-mail didn't mean anything anymore, because we got so much junk that it was too hard to find the ones that actually meant something. The amount of junk we got slowed us down so much that it was hard to find the ones that were actually meaningful, those from clients that we had relationships with.

To my question now, in terms of the legislation as it goes forward, if it were to go forward and not change some of the things regarding consent, I'm curious to know how your members would get around some of these pieces of the legislation. You must have considered that, saying, “Wow, if this passes, how are our members going to conduct their business?” I'd like to hear some of the creative ways that business would maybe change a little bit as your members try to get around the rules.

[Joanne De Laurentiis]

We obviously--

[A voice]

Comply with the rules.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Yes. I mean comply, not get around. Sorry.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Thank you.

[Joanne De Laurentiis]

We honestly haven't looked at that. I guess we were confident that when we put our case to you about some of the legitimate businesses this would stop, you would be sympathetic, but certainly, as Paul said, he's going to have to go back to some of the old-fashioned ways of getting referrals, and it likely will mean that he's going to be somewhat less competitive. It's really that simple.

[Paul Vaillancourt]

Yes. Essentially, we're in sales, so we're adaptive and we're creative. There's no doubt about it. The question becomes why we should need to become creative when we have a solution here, e-mail, which is rather useful.

Just looking around the table, I see half of you looking down at a BlackBerry or an iPhone or what not while we're chatting. It's a way of doing business today. People can get this e-mail and you can look at it at 6 in the morning or 11 o'clock at night as opposed to the standard business hours of 9 to 5 when people are working. What I find so wonderful with e-mail is that clients can send me an e-mail at 10 o'clock at night and I can reply to them at 6 in the morning. That's a perfectly legitimate way of doing business. Why not be able to communicate with prospective clients that way?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

If I could interject for just one second to your point, I've looked at my BlackBerry a couple of times because I'm communicating with somebody in regard to the hearings we're conducting today. If in the meantime I got 10 e-mails asking me for consent, I wouldn't be able to use the e-mail for what I'm trying to use it for today.

[Paul Vaillancourt]

For my very limited use of Internet, I'm one business owner and I'm not spamming a whole bunch of people. I'm simply trying to get a communication going with somebody who was referred to me. The way this legislation is set up right now, it would be illegal for me to have my client ask me to get in touch with his brother. It would be illegal for me to get in touch with his brother via e-mail. I would have to go to calls. If this person is on a “do not call” list, I'm stymied there too, and I would have to go to regular mail.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Could you send your client an e-mail asking him to forward it to his brother?

[Paul Vaillancourt]

No doubt, and if the legislation is passed the way it is, I'll have to say to my client, “Wonderful, I would love to get in touch with your brother. Have him e-mail me.” That's a delightful way of doing business if he gets to me, but I have to convince my client to sell me to his brother, rather than my selling myself to his brother.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. Vaillancourt.

Mr. Brun.

[Bernard Brun]

I want to clarify that it is prohibited not only to send a message, but also to have it sent. Even if you wanted to get around the legislation, you would not be able to, as it stands right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Merci, Monsieur Brun.

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

Before we go to Mr. Rota, I recall hearing testimony earlier from our witnesses that 85% of all e-mail traffic in Canada is spam. I think that's one of the reasons this is of such interest to the committee. That's an astounding number, when you think about it, and one of the reasons why the government is taking a look at this legislation.

Mr. Rota.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to ask Mr. Morency and Mr. Brun a question. People who do business in Canada often say that we impose very high standards on our businesses. But then we go and buy products from foreign companies because they are cheaper, because those businesses can be more competitive than ours.

In terms of financial products, could foreign companies send their emails from another country and compete with you without having to follow the rules or face any consequences?

[Yves Morency]

To answer your question, I will give you an example. My son regularly buys products that are made and sold in the United States. There are no restrictions on those products here. The same goes for financial services. Internationalization, globalization, the opening up of borders and free trade are realities that we are constantly dealing with. In addition, the modern tools of electronic transfer make borders invisible, to a certain extent.

If we are subject to stricter limitations than our competitors, it will be our companies that suffer and our jobs that are lost. We even run the risk that our companies will consider it easier to operate in other countries, unless we sign international agreements to harmonize legislation. That is the danger we are facing.

You say that spam makes up 85% of emails, but that leaves 15% that are legitimate transactions and that we must not lose.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

In your opinion, our companies will have their hands tied. They are at risk because of this legislation.

[Yves Morency]

We do have to qualify things a bit. The bill could reduce the ability of our companies to compete, but I do not think that any of the witnesses came here to tell you not to pass legislation. We agree that it is needed, but we have to strike the right balance to get rid of spam while maintaining electronic commerce, a growing modern tool. We admit that it is not easy to find the right wording to express this in the legislation.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Merci beaucoup.

To the people who are in sales, how much of your business is referral business? What percentage of that is through direct e-mail when you're asking someone...?

To Mr. Zinatelli, maybe you can give me some wording or look at the legislation and suggest something here. If someone is sending an e-mail to a referral, would it be appropriate to force the person sending that e-mail to include the name of the referring person? That might be a legal matter, but maybe it's a way of getting around this.

I understand what the government is looking for; they want to avoid millions of e-mails going out at the push of a button. On the other hand, if you identify who has referred you to that person, would that resolve much of the trouble we have there?

[Paul Vaillancourt]

To answer your first question, essentially 25% to 30% of my new business every year comes from people I did not know on January 1.

All of my new clients come from referrals. I've been in business for twenty years, and I've built the business where I look after my clients to the best of my abilities. With that comes referrals. In terms of people, that represents about 20 to 25 new clients a year.

[Joanne De Laurentiis]

In terms of the percentage of referrals that are done by e-mail, I don't have that for you, but I am told by our members that it's the fastest-growing medium through which to make that initial contact.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Zinatelli.

[Frank Zinatelli]

Just very briefly, we don't have any numbers offhand. I'm not sure if those are available at this time.

I will certainly take under advisement your question about naming the individual.

The key point is that we're all talking about referrals. The message that we want to get to the committee is that this is something that can be addressed by defining that term or by putting rules around it; but at the end of the day, it can be addressed by permitting something that is really legitimate for all these industries.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much.

We're going to suspend for five minutes to allow our witnesses to depart before our new witnesses appear.

Mr. Wallace, you have a last question. Be very brief, please.