Evidence of meeting #77 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 businesses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Founder, Lighten CASL Inc.
To have it noted for the record, based on what Mr. Lametti said, that's a CRTC decision, not a court decision, and certainly not a Supreme Court decision, in terms of the constitutional validity of CASL.
Vice-President, Grocery Division and Regulatory Affairs, Retail Council of Canada
I have something to add as well. I don't have the statistics in front of me.... It does not surprise me one bit that retailers are seeing more online sales, but to draw that specifically to legislation.... That's the way the world is moving. Our members are very competitive in that e-commerce environment. The ones who do it best are the ones who have that interplay between e-commerce and the physical store, and who can do that well. They're very active and competitive in that area. To draw that link to the legislation would be an interesting way to draw causality.
Conservative
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
I'd like to get a little clarification from Mr. Elder or Ms. Provato.
Has there been a court challenge yet? I believe you only said there was a challenge to the commission.
Special Digital Privacy Counsel, Canadian Marketing Association
That's right.
Associate, Buchli Goldstein LLP, As an Individual
Not that I'm aware of.
Founder, Lighten CASL Inc.
No. The lawyers I've spoken to have said that likely would occur if PRA were instituted and a legal proceeding starts, as a defence.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I appreciate that.
At home, how much do I feel my day is improved when my mailbox is filled with more ads? I guess it's good for Canada Post, but when I canvass and I am talking to Canadians, they don't tell me, “I need more direct mail in my mailbox”, or “I need more spam”, or “I need more advertising on my device”. That's what we're getting at here.
What we're getting at is a discussion related to the privilege and right to actually disperse information. The fact of the matter is that some of the ways of dispersing it—in this case, whether it be by legitimate or non-legitimate businesses—have an actual economic effect on people, as well as a privacy effect that they didn't ask for.
Why do you think so many people are actually complaining about this, if that's the case? Hundreds of thousands of people complain each year to the CRTC. Why do you think they're complaining about receiving information, legally or illegally solicited, to their devices?
Does anybody have an answer for that?
Mr. Hill.
Vice-President, Government and Consumer Affairs, Canadian Marketing Association
It's because there is an issue with spam. There are networks of spammers out there, filling our mailboxes day after day with garbage. It is important to have an anti-spam law to go after those activities, in particular the bad players. We support that 100%. It's just a question of getting the mechanism for doing that right, not unduly burdening honest, hard-working businesses that are making our economy work, and giving consumers choice at the same time.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
A hundred per cent, and that's what I think consumers' choice should be about. The consumers' choice should have that. When you pay on a regular basis—I say this ad nauseam—you are paying for these devices that can actually get contaminated, can get ruined and cause significant problems for your daily activity—your business activity. I have plenty of businesses that have told me they're glad this legislation has actually been put in place, because they're not bogged down by a bunch of crap and viruses where they're having IT specialists come in and clean out a bunch of garbage.
I agree that we can't control the foreign ones to the fullest degree, unless we get actual international agreements. That can be done through trade agreements, maybe, in the future. In Canada, we can control this part. We can make a difference.
Consent is the primary thing for most people. Again, it's a privilege, not a right. My devices, expenditure, intrusion, and potential exposure of privacy can be affected just because somebody might have the next best deal for me and they presume that I need to know that. That's the thing we're getting at here. It's the mere fact that this activity, which is unsolicited, is affecting people's daily lives and businesses.
I know the private right of action has now been suspended. It's been suspended, basically, because of theoretical arguments. I have concerns about that, because it was well delivered in terms of part of this legislation, and we're actually suspending it right now. The private right of action was the counterbalance for that. If it's a constitutional challenge, I find it interesting that lawyers can't afford to bring the constitutional challenge to the Supreme Court, if that's the case. If any group actually had pro bono expertise in a pro bono activity, it would be a group of lawyers. I've seen constitutional challenges for different things.
At the end of the day, how do we get to making this more efficient for business? Do we scrap it and go back to zero? Do we look to amend it to make it more efficient and fair for consumer protection as the number one thing, and to allow access for businesses that are legitimate, and then see? Then, how do we go after the international?
I'll start with Ms. Provato, and then quickly go across, if we can.
Associate, Buchli Goldstein LLP, As an Individual
I don't think completely scrapping it will be efficient. I think the legislation does have good bones. I think it's the guts that need to be focused on. I think that can be done by targeting on the definitions, looking at the parts that are really restrictive, comparing it to the objectives, and going back to really what it was supposed to be about.
I think that involves looking at what I talked about today, which is personal and family relationships and the effect it has on small businesses. I think that if those areas are targeted, then we can come to an overall approach. I don't think that means scrapping it entirely.
October 19th, 2017 / 12:45 p.m.
Founder, Lighten CASL Inc.
You have to be careful with the argument. What's missing in that common argument is that they are still businesses, and Canada has to have to have strong commerce. We don't operate in a vacuum, so it's about finding the right balance between protecting consumers and making it easy for legitimate businesses to comply with.
Liberal
Vice-President, Grocery Division and Regulatory Affairs, Retail Council of Canada
If I may, there could be intent and common sense amendments so that there's certainty in the lawful business environment, and so that the scant government resources that are there for compliance and enforcement are targeted where they should be.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Excellent.
Thank you very much.
We have time for one more five-minute round for Mr. Sheehan.
Make it count.
Liberal
Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Thank you very much.
Going last, a lot of what I was going to ask has been asked and answered. However, I just want some clarification. During the testimony we heard, I think it was the Chamber of Commerce who said that CASL would basically not allow a businesswoman to send an email to another businesswoman to go for a coffee. I think it was like a paraphrase of that. Then in the later testimony there was an indication, I believe by Michael Geist, that this is not true and that B2B emails would be allowed. Having heard conflicting testimony thus far, perhaps I will ask Andrew for clarification. Is B2B emailing truly made more difficult and circumvented, yes or no?
Founder, Lighten CASL Inc.
I think Michael Geist misrepresented that information around the business-to-business exception. There is a business-to-business exception under one of the regulations, but it's very narrowly defined. It's not broad such that if you're a business and someone else is a business, you can send them a commercial electronic message. That doesn't exist.
Liberal
Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
More so on this particular piece of legislation....
I will be sharing my time with Lloyd. I'm sorry. I forgot to mention that, as well, Mr. Chair.
I just want to give you an opportunity to speak.
We'll have to get clarification on that, because the business-to-business piece is really important. I think there's been very much a difficulty in communication. I think it was Jason who had indicated that the lawyers who are advising businesses have just said to not even take a chance and to not do it, so the risk aversion is hampering it. Again, I think we need to really drill into that, and we can't do that right now.
I will turn it over to Lloyd right now, and I'll save it for future committee meetings to delve into that. I appreciate it.