Industry Committee on Oct. 7th, 2009

[André Leduc]

That depends. If Romania has a similar act, the three agencies can coordinate an investigation with Romanian authorities.

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

You've answered my question.

I want to look at clause 86 of the bill. It basically would repeal subsection 41.1 and subsection 41.7 of the Telecommunications Act, and that would eliminate the do-not-call bill.

That would put everything that falls under the do-not-call provisions under this bill and it would be subject to changes within the government bureaucracy. Now, a lot of time went into the do-not-call list, and it will be substantially revised. Would there be substantial consultation, or is there some process in place so that it's not haphazardly changed at the whim of either the minister or the bureaucracy or the leadership within that--

[Philip Palmer]

Nobody can do it by whim. There would have to be a regulation to adapt certain of the rules that wouldn't necessarily fit terribly well with the voice communications. So we would expect that, again, there would be significant consultation before anybody contemplated proclaiming this provision.

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

Okay, very good. Thank you.

I'd like to ask a question on two basic scenarios. I have a Bell account and I have a Hotmail account. The Hotmail account is not based in Canada, it's based in the United States. How does it affect these two accounts differently? Will my Hotmail account still continue to get everything in it? This is an extension of the first question I asked. Again, foreign spammers or American spammers will continue to send stuff to my Hotmail account. It won't affect my Bell account.

[André Leduc]

Well, it also affects your Hotmail account. Nowhere in the legislation does it say where your account is set up; it's whether or not you're accessing your e-mail in Canada. The jurisdictional link is that it's sent to you, and if it's the case that you're in Canada, then that's our jurisdiction.

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

Okay.

We're bouncing back and forth here, but to go back to the other question, changes to the legislation will have to be done by the bureaucracy. Mr. Palmer, we have new technology being introduced on almost a daily basis. Based on your 30 years within the federal bureaucracy, how responsive is this legislation?

One of the concerns in the legislation is that it is too broad and picks up everything and the only stuff that gets through is the stuff that we allow. Now, what if we have something new that comes up today and would allow our Canadian companies to compete at a certain level, but they can't use it because it hasn't opened up yet? Based on your past experience, what do you foresee as a reasonable time? Or is there a reasonable time?

[Philip Palmer]

I think the main thing to be said is that this certainly attempts to be a principles-based piece of legislation, and it sets out very broad, principled guidelines for business. It is not technology specific; it is permissive of any technology. It is permissive of any networking system, of any kind of web contact system, etc. So I personally don't think we're going to find problems in terms of technology posing a problem to the integrity of the legislation.

I think the main concerns are going to be that there are unanticipated problems on the business end of things. The human interface is where I think we'll probably be finding the greatest difficulties. There may be a few on the technological side, but it's not a technological bill, so I don't think we're locked into a construct that is built on a specific technology.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. Palmer.

Thank you, Mr. Rota.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll be really quick. I'm still a little concerned with the referral scenario here, so I just want to make sure about this. Is there an obligation on the part of the company such that, once the referral goes to the company, they have to make sure that where the referral came from is in their database and that it is an existing customer before they actually contact the person who's been referred? Is there a provision in there so that if it is abused they can be fined?

What I'm worried about is that somebody could do large spams out there saying that they know somebody and then referring. It may not be the normal situation, but you could have somebody do that and inundate someone that way. Does the company have an obligation to make sure that where it comes from is an existing client? Last, if they abuse it, is there a fine in place on that company?

[Philip Palmer]

On both, the answer is yes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much.

We're going to take a brief question from Mr. Lake and then one from Monsieur Vincent.

Mr. Lake.

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

The main question, I guess, is this. There has been some concern raised over the last few days by individuals. They were concerned that through this amendment process we might wind up watering down the legislation. Are you confident that with the amendments you've put forward we're not overly watering down the legislation here?

[André Leduc]

Yes. We're still quite confident that what we have here is the right piece of legislation.

The amendments that were brought forward are meant to address legitimate concerns brought forward by witnesses over the course of the committee hearings, but we still feel very comfortable that we have the most advanced anti-spam e-commerce protection legislation literally in the world. This is world-leading stuff and will get after the spammers and those who are implanting malicious software on computers. We still have the right tools here.

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

As we consider additional amendments, would there be a caution that you'd give us against particular amendments that might significantly water down the legislation?

[André Leduc]

That was the concern with the third party referral. To be completely honest, I didn't feel 100% comfortable with doing it, but that was my personal view. Understanding that it is a legitimate practice for a number of legitimate commercial entities out there, we did feel compelled to try to address it and to try to make it work within the legislation, without watering down the legislation.

Again, this legislation, although we think it's still fairly solid even after we've addressed a number of concerns, is quite fragile. The wrong wording and the wrong amendment could be something that is taken advantage of by spammers, and if that's the case, well, what's the point?

So yes, I would caution you to try to not create something that a spammer might take advantage of and drive a truck through.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lake.

Monsieur Vincent.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Earlier you referred to civil proceedings. So that means consumers who would sue a company, wouldn't it?

[André Leduc]

Not necessarily. Any person, in legal terms, can institute a civil suit. It could be a person, but also a business, like Videotron, for example, which would sue those who do not comply with the new act.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I think we're essentially trying to protect consumers from spam. If consumers receive spam, it's up to them to sue the company when they receive 20, 25 or 30 and they don't want any more.

[André Leduc]

No, the purpose of the bill is to protect networks as much as consumers, as well as small and medium-size businesses.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Give me an example because I don't understand.

[André Leduc]

We're talking about, for example, about Bell, Videotron or any company that has a network. The network has a certain bandwidth. As Mr. Chong said, spam currently represents 90% of all traffic on those networks. So that's very costly for Videotron, Bell and Rogers. That spam is transmitted here through the information technology services of the House of Commons. They have to eliminate all spam, put filters in place, which results in costs. There are also costs for the network when it transmits all those messages that are in fact spam. No one wants them. So there's a cost, and it's quite high when you think that 90% of all communications are spam. It's a problem. The bill should solve it somewhat, or at least reduce it.

We think that our case in Canada should be resolved almost instantaneously. Canadian spammers should be neutralized quickly. The bill also contains provisions for suing spammers outside our country, either through a civil proceeding or through partnerships that will develop through the CRTC, the Competition Bureau or the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Leduc.

I'll allow Mr. Bouchard one final question.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

I'd like to go back to the enactment of the legislation. You mentioned a six-month time frame, and you also referred to consultations. I assume those consultations mean that there will be information.

Will those consultations be conducted within a six-month time frame or will they be held after that time frame, which will mean that could take nine months to a year before the bill is in effect?