Evidence of meeting #75 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was casl.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
All right, thank you very much.
We're going to move to Mr. Longfield.
You have seven minutes.
Noon
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to split my time with Mr. Lametti, who let me know he has a question he'd like to ask.
I was president of the chamber of commerce in Guelph when this legislation came forward. We had about 900 members, 100 of which were non-profits. There were about 3,500 businesses, and 800 non-profit organizations in Guelph.
As a chamber, we tried to reach everybody, whether they were a member or not. Then, all of a sudden, we couldn't update the business community on business matters, federally, provincially, or municipally.
I'm looking to Mr. Smith on where the chamber network is at. I know in your testimony you talked about some of the chambers. Have they been involved with any of the complaints against businesses within their organizations that are spamming each other?
Noon
Director, Intellectual Property and Innovation Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
I can't necessarily speak to whether they have been involved with members who have been spamming each other. I'm not aware of too many businesses that are complaining about spam. Most of the complaints that go through the complaint centre are coming from individuals who may or may not understand what the rules are about. If they get a message, they may be just complaining about getting a message without going through the unsubscribe process.
If there's a complaint, the reality is that it doesn't mean that there's a violation. To the point about understanding the statistics, that might be something you would be interested in, regarding how many of the complaints are actually valid.
To your point about not-for-profits and the ability to communicate with business, the chambers across the country were heavily involved in the discussion during the time when the regulations were being considered. We had a number of chambers that had written to their local member of Parliament concerned about how things were going to proceed. Then there was the follow-up on how to comply. That was a major effort on our part.
Noon
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
I was in one of those chambers. As we were trying to go through all the hurdles of implementing with all the small businesses, my members got a message from the Conservative Party of Canada and they said, “Why can they do this?”, which goes back to Mr. Bernier's point, that politicians were exempt. It was kind of rubbing salt on the wound of some businesses that were pretty upset about regulations and then finding out that political parties didn't have to comply with their own regulations. That's just a general comment.
I want to come back to the proportionality question that Mr. Jowhari had. In just a short period, could we have a summary from Mr. Sookman on proportionality and whether this legislation is equitable?
12:05 p.m.
Partner, McCarthy Tétrault, As an Individual
I want to start by saying that I don't think it's unreasonable to protect consumers. I don't think it's unreasonable to have regulations affecting business that are necessary to protect consumers. At the end of the day, it's all about a balance. It's about a balance and ensuring that the goals are clear and the goals don't go farther than are needed and impose burdens that can't be justified by the incremental benefit to consumers. It's all a balance.
When you look at this legislation, since the definition of CEM is so broad, it's not capturing the kinds of things that are of concern. It captures the malware that might come in an email message, but it covers a whole lot of other things that are not necessary.
Regarding the consents, businesses in Canada all comply with PIPEDA. PIPEDA has a very stringent new requirement for expressed consent, but this legislation requires every business, every charity, and every non-profit in the country to now comply with two disparate regimes with consent...for two different systems. There's no need to have overlapping and different systems that businesses have to comply with. Even where PIPEDA has an opt-in, there is no way that a foreign spammer that is sending these kinds of malware has any consent under any system.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
The foreign component is one that's a concern that I'm sure we'll be dealing with in our subsequent meetings as well.
I promised Mr. Lametti some time. We have just over a minute.
October 5th, 2017 / 12:05 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Thank you, Lloyd.
I would like to ask a general question to Mr. Lawford and Mr. Sookman. Has the level of consumer sophistication changed since the legislation was originally passed and if so, how does that impact the balance to where we should be pitching any reform to the legislation?
12:05 p.m.
Executive Director and General Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre
I think CASL lined up consumer expectation with the law. Prior to this time, consumers wanted to have control. They thought that they should only get emails that they've consented to. Now, the law lines up with that. That's really my only way to answer your question.
If it's changed back to opt-out, people will think they have control and they won't. Their spam volumes will go back up and they'll start getting problems. That's the only way I can express my answer.
12:05 p.m.
Partner, McCarthy Tétrault, As an Individual
It's a good question, Mr. Lametti.
I'd have to say that it's hard to know. There's the good and there's the bad. Consumers obviously don't want to get this malicious type of spam. They may think CASL is the reason why they're not getting as much. Of course, the answer is that it's nothing to do with CASL. It's everything to do with the spam filters that the ISPs have.
Then you have other consumers who aren't getting the kinds of messages that they want. Like the people in the charities or like messages that educational institutions are sending to solicit students to join their programs. They may not know why they're not getting these messages. In some cases, they get dropped from the list and they wonder. In other cases, they don't know.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
To the group from Desjardins, the technical solutions are there. Are you relying on technical solutions as a company, or are you relying on legislation?
12:05 p.m.
Director, Desjardins Group
We're relying, in part, on technical solutions. The problem is that they're extremely expensive and, given all the different levels of exceptions and delays, they are almost impossible to manage.
I would like to address your point on disproportionality very quickly. I've had to face many boards at Desjardins, with great arguments to defend that something is not SEM. In those situations, given the number of sanctions and given the personal liability, we've had very strong cases that were completely denied just because they weren't willing to take that amount of risk. It's disproportional.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
I'd like to thank all the witnesses for coming out today and supplying us with this evidence and information.
Mr. Lawford, you're well outgunned today, but you brought Alysia with you, so you're a little balanced.
12:10 p.m.
Executive Director and General Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre
It helps.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
I'm finding a lot of contradictory information coming from the business side and from Mr. Sookman and Mr. Lawford. My questions are going to focus on Mr. Sookman and Mr. Lawford.
Mr. Sookman, a lot of your examples were theoretical. You mentioned charity newsletters. Then you mentioned Christmas cards being a targeted practice, a child with her little lemonade stand, and babysitting. Can you give me examples where that happened?
12:10 p.m.
Partner, McCarthy Tétrault, As an Individual
You're quite right about the lemonade stand. The reason I raise it is that it appears to me that everyone in the committee will understand that if a piece of legislation stops a kid from trying to get a babysitting job or operating a lemonade stand, there's something wrong with the legislation. That's the example, but it applies across the board. It's not just the kid with the lemonade stand. It's small businesses and sole proprietorships. It's everyone who's caught by the breadth of this legislation.
That example may be theoretical, but I can tell you that it's the kind of thing Canadians are concerned about. I have small businesses that come to me, start-up businesses, and they say, “We need to do x and y.” It's not theoretical to them. It's real-world trying to build their businesses.
12:10 p.m.
Partner, McCarthy Tétrault, As an Individual
I tell them what they can do and can't do, and they say, “I can't do that. I cannot do that. I only have so many people, so many employees. Don't tell me I have to have a regime like Desjardins has to operate a small business.”
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
Mr. Lawford, you mentioned that the CRTC has been fairly light in its enforcement programs. There were three questions I asked Mr. Sookman. Have you known of any of those types of situations, where they've gone after people for these minor things? You can put an umbrella over everything, and you can say everybody's going to be dealt with the same way, but I don't believe that's happening, from what I learned from your evidence.
12:10 p.m.
Executive Director and General Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre
No, our view is that with the enforcement spectrum the CRTC is already using, they don't waste their time on very small situations. They look for patterns of behaviour, very egregious spamming episodes, ones where the company is completely recalcitrant and doesn't respond to entreaties or notices from the commission, before they get to fining them. They have cut down at least one AMP substantially before.
We're not talking about lemonade stands. We're talking about big businesses, large retailers, large banks, and large telecom companies that send millions of emails a day. What is happening is that the law is restricting that to a list that only has express consent or implied consent if you're already buying a product or service. That naturally limits the lists. It naturally limits trying to get new customers if you have not built up your own leads. The decision was made to put consumers in control from 2014 on. We think it's the right decision, because if there are many people competing to get your attention, that spam builds up, and the only way to counter it is to put consent on the consumer side rather than on the business side.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
I have a question for Mr. Smith.
What do you see as the most important part that we should be focusing on here? I can agree with you that we need to upgrade this policy and look at it, but what do you think is the most important thing to look at today?