Industry Committee on Oct. 19th, 2017

[David Elder]

I did, just briefly. I just want to make something clear. We're talking about it being aimed at damaging and deceptive types of spam. I want to make it clear that the electronic messaging provisions of CASL don't target those. The sections in CASL aren't about the Nigerian princes and aren't about phishing scams. They're about marketing messages. They're about messages that encourage—

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

That's an issue we've heard many times, which is about the commercial messages. First of all, everybody has told us it's way too broad, and it's capturing necessary communications as commercial communications. We understand that. But you're also saying we might want to look at putting definitions specifically about malicious communications, and if we have a definition on malicious communications, linking it to penalties in that light.

[David Elder]

If it is, or—

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Very quickly.

[David Elder]

I guess the answer is I think those are illegal. This is criminal behaviour. I think the solution maybe is directing resources there to go after them, but the CRTC is not going to bring down the Nigerian prince over a phishing scam because it's not even within their authority or their jurisdiction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you.

Mr. Eglinski, you have seven minutes.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank all the witnesses for coming again. I'll start off with Stephanie down there at the end because everybody has left her alone so far.

It was very interesting what you were saying about where they cut off the line of the family. I wonder if you could explain that in a little more detail. Is that just a presumption on your side that if I was to telemarket my cousin, and he was mad, he could lay a charge against me? Is it a presumption or has that happened?

Could you clarify the family situation a little bit more, please?

[Stephanie Provato]

I think it came to that because I looked at what the definition actually laid out. I think that's what a lot of people, businesses, and individuals are having a difficult time with, looking at the law and seeing what it's actually laying out.

It's being specific in the sense that it's saying that people are considered family if they fall under a marriage, common-law partnership, or any legal parent-child relationship. That doesn't leave open any room for people who do consider second cousins to be family, for example.

Although my example was hypothetical, I do think it is relevant, and I think there are situations where you are reaching out to somebody who would be technically your family member, but CASL doesn't consider them to be your family so I think there's a disconnect there.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I think everybody brought up the two-year and the six-month situation. I come from a rural area. All the businesses are basically in rural areas. Some of them have international connections with forestry companies and that stuff, but the managers probably know each other, and most of the businessman know each other in each one of the communities.

With the rule regarding two years and six months, does it specifically say in CASL that the contact has to be recorded information on the computer? I'm thinking about my hometown of Edson. We're all at the hockey rink on Saturday, and half the businesses are there. They may have verbal contact back and forth. Their kids might be playing on opposite teams. The verbal contact might not be the best. In the smaller rural communities, we have that interconnect all the time because everybody knows everybody.

Can you tell me if that would apply or not apply? Does it specifically say it has to be recorded on your computer?

[Wally Hill]

It doesn't say it has to be recorded on a computer, but the law is very stringent in saying that it gives implied consent to contact people where you have an existing business relationship. That is defined as where there's a transaction that takes place, or an inquiry, or request for a quote, which could happen at the local arena.

In that case, in an inquiry you have six months, but it's very stringent that way. You don't need to put it in your computer, but the reality is there's a clock ticking, and the penalties under this act are huge. Frankly, if you get it wrong, and you go beyond the two-year period, and you're still messaging someone, you could find yourself in difficulty.

The reality is every single message that is going to someone as a result of an interaction includes an unsubscribe. The consumer at any point can indicate that he or she doesn't want to hear from you anymore. This six-month, 24-month component of the law was just thrown in there arbitrarily. Someone sat around and asked when they are going to cut this off. The answer should have been that we don't need to, that the consumer will do it.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you.

I have a two-part question. I'll start with Stephanie, and then I'll go to Andrew.

Stephanie, you mentioned during your evidence clean notice to the public. I wonder if you could clarify that because Andrew came back with a statement in his evidence that we don't need to educate businesses. I was surprised by that because I brought it up at the last meeting where I was with a group of businessmen, and when I asked how many knew about that, it was almost zero.

Could I have clarity on where you were going with clean notice to public?

[Stephanie Provato]

For that, I think I was getting at the fact that there are definitions that are very broad, like that of CEMs. Although people understand what the act is saying, they don't necessarily see the effects that it's having. I think there's a difference between what's written on paper and what's happening in practice.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

All right.

Going to you, Andrew, I realize that you are in a larger centre, but I'm a rural cowboy MP, and we sometimes don't have the luxury of having large organizations to back up the small businesses. I wonder if you would clarify a bit more what you were talking about in terms of not needing to educate businesses more, because I believe we do.

[Andrew Schiestel]

Yes. To your first question about the hockey rink, you might be able to lean on a personal relationship in some of those instances, but one of the common complaints from businesses is that the litmus test for what is a “personal relationship” is not defined well enough yet. You really don't know, and it hasn't been proven in the courts. The CRTC has gone as far as to say in one of their bulletins that—I'm paraphrasing—“liking” each other on Facebook is not enough to form a personal relationship. There's a concern that the act doesn't take into consideration that the behaviour of people has changed. A lot more people connect and interact online.

To your thing about the education, the point I was making is that you always want to provide education, but at some point it's not the teacher and it's not the student: it's actually the legislation. For instance, for the driving laws in Ontario, you spend six months on learning how to drive. You don't keep getting educated on how to drive, because the regulatory regime works. That's the point I'm making.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

You're telling me that when we started CASL three years ago. I believe it was three years ago. How many years ago was it?

[Andrew Schiestel]

It was 2014.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

So we did a great job right off the bat and everybody in business knows the program?

I'm getting a headshake over there—

[Andrew Schiestel]

Probably no, but I know that the CRTC has made an effort. Because the act is obtusely complex to understand, I think that if we put more resources into education that won't be the answer. What we should focus on is improving CASL to make it easier for companies to comply with, while still protecting consumers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

None.

[Andrew Schiestel]

You missed a pinch, Jim—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

No, he didn't get a pinch. We're going to move to Mr. Masse.

You have seven minutes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Jim. That's one of the reasons I coach hockey: so I don't have to engage in those conversations. I'm behind the bench.