Industry Committee on Nov. 6th, 2014

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'd like to use that venue to move now to Mr. Scott, with regards to the pay-to-pay fees. I guess there has been no evaluation internally about what that will represent to consumers for Canada. You're relying on PIAC as your source of estimated revenue return for consumers in Canada.

[Adam Scott]

There's limited publicly available information on this. We have the information that was collected by the CRTC, but with that you have to make a number of assumptions to get a total amount. The assumptions PIAC have made seem quite valid. We could make other assumptions, but it would be....

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I guess what I'm asking is, has the department done any evaluation as to how this is going to affect consumers?

[Adam Scott]

We have not conducted an independent study to calculate the estimated financial impact on consumers, no.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Now, aside from telcos, will there be any other banks or other organizations that will be prevented from pay-to-pay charges?

[Adam Scott]

The types of companies that are covered by the changes to the telecom act and the Broadcasting Act are the providers of telecommunication services and broadcasting services.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Okay.

It worries me a little bit in terms of understanding how this is going to impact consumers in not having the proper research.

I want to move towards the AMP regime for violations. What type of violations have taken place since 2002, and what type of action has taken place? We're increasing the AMP violation fees, so I'm curious as to why they're coming to this point. Also, what instances do we have that this would have actually been beneficial?

[Adam Scott]

In this case this is the first time the CRTC will have a broad AMP power. AMPs are currently used for very specific instances. It has a small AMP for enforcement of do-not-call telemarketing provisions. Also, it recently gained a specific AMP under the anti-spam legislation. This is the first time they'll have a broadly applicable AMP tool. It can be applied in cases such as a company that's not complying with the new wireless code, so if it has business practices that are not in compliance with that code....

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Can you give an example of where we could have used that in the past?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I'm sorry. The time's up for that round.

Also, I regret that one member from the Conservatives and one member from the NDP will miss a slot here because of the way we burned the time.

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I thought you were regretting that I was next. I wasn't sure there, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our officials for being here today.

I was a little surprised by the comments from our colleagues across the way. It sounded as if they were advocating that those poor companies that get to charge that $2 fee are going to lose some revenue from it. As far as I know, we committed to get rid of paper billing from telecommunications organizations. This change in this implementation budget makes that happen. Is that not correct?

[Adam Scott]

That is correct. It is a strict prohibition—

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

We're following through on what we said we would do, which we're always proud of on our side of the table.

I'm the chair of the justice committee, and we were talking about jammers and so on. They're not illegal, is that correct?

[Lynne Fancy]

From a criminal perspective?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

That's correct.

[Lynne Fancy]

Amy, do you know?

[Amy Jensen, Policy Analyst, Spectrum Management Operations, Department of Industry]

There isn't a specific Criminal Code provision against jammers right now. It is a regulatory offence in the Radiocommunication Act, so in that sense they are illegal and that's an offence that could be prosecuted, but it's a regulatory offence, not a criminal offence.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Right. So under the current system you'd get a slap on the hand, a discussion, if you're using one; and there are financial penalties if you continue to use one. Is that correct?

[Amy Jensen]

Again, it'll be a clearer offence if you're violating the new prohibition against jammers. That could also be enforced by way of a regulatory offence or the financial penalty, depending on what's appropriate.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

So a regulatory offence or a financial penalty.

Are you legally able to manufacture or import them into Canada?

[Amy Jensen]

No. Right now, again, it is an offence to import things that are intended to cause interference. I think the issue with that provision, where it's not as strong, is that it deals with the person, because it's an offence provision and that's what offences do; whereas we're going to control those devices with the new prohibition, which is what we want. It's all about the fact that the devices are used.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Has there been any discussion at Industry Canada...? You did give the example of somebody trying to jam the GPS in a sense so that your boss might not know where you are at a particular time. But I think the vast majority likely are using them to provide some sort of criminal service. Has there been any discussion about a criminal offence in addition to the use of a jammer?

[Lynne Fancy]

We understand there have been queries about it, but Public Safety Canada or the Department of Justice would deal with that.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

On the paper billing piece, assuming this will pass in the House and get royal assent, when will it take effect?

[Adam Scott]

It will come into force upon royal assent.