Evidence of meeting #79 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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Philippe Le Roux  Executive Officer, Certimail
William Michael Osborne  Partner, Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP, As an Individual
Bill Schaper  Director, Public Policy, Imagine Canada

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Mary Ng Liberal Markham—Thornhill, ON

I see. All right.

How much time do I have—one minute?

Take my one minute, Frank.

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

I'd like to follow up and come back to you, Mr. Schaper.

We had someone explain to us—and I think you pointed it out—that 50% of your income comes from donations and from government. How is the other 50% acquired?

11:30 a.m.

Director, Public Policy, Imagine Canada

Bill Schaper

Basically, we call it self-generated income. It's from sales of goods and services. It's lottery tickets—

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

We were led to believe by one of the other experts that that's the line for you. I understand that you've talked to CRTC. There's confusion everywhere, because we were told it was clear, but when I asked for it to be explained to me, I couldn't understand it.

What I think I understand a little bit is that if you ask me to give you money, that's okay, but if you ask me to give you money because you want to sell me a ticket to your gala, or a lottery ticket, then that's not okay. Is that sort of—

11:35 a.m.

Director, Public Policy, Imagine Canada

Bill Schaper

That's the gray area, and that's the concern—

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

We'll come back to this in a bit then.

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy

Thank you very much.

We're going to move to Mr. Eglinski.

You have seven minutes.

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB

Thank you.

Thank you to all three of you for coming today. I would like to start off with Mr. Schaper.

You were talking about the not-for-profits and the charitable-sector organizations. Have you any statistical data you could share with us? Has their funding dropped over the last three years, since this program has been out?

11:35 a.m.

Director, Public Policy, Imagine Canada

Bill Schaper

We don't have real-time data on that. For donation information, we rely on the information published by the Canada Revenue Agency from tax filer data. I can certainly see what we have, to see if we have anything that might show a trend during that period, and get back to the committee on that.

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB

So most of your presumptions that it's hurting them are just presumptions.

11:35 a.m.

Director, Public Policy, Imagine Canada

Bill Schaper

Yes. It is based on concerns they've had and concerns we've had, in terms of the applicability and the potential for damage, as well as the disconnect between the messages we were getting at the time from Industry Canada and the minister's office versus what the CRTC was indicating to us. It created confusion.

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB

All right, thank you.

Mr. Le Roux, you were starting to explain the similarities between Canada and Australia. Then we cut you short because you were running out of time. I wonder if you could just explain a little bit more how you see the comparison between the two countries. I think you were saying that one of the European countries is now adopting a policy very similar to our CASL.

11:35 a.m.

Executive Officer, Certimail

Philippe Le Roux

In 2003, Australia passed a law that is very similar to the Canadian Anti-Spam Legislation. It is based on prior consent and provides for unsubscribe mechanisms, mandatory identification and fairly harsh penalties. That legislation has been in force in Australia for nearly 15 years, and we have never heard it said that the country's economy was crumbling. On the contrary, that country has excellent results, as we have had since the Canadian legislation was implemented.

In Europe, the legislation was passed last year and will come into force next May. Up until now, every European country has had its own legislation on this issue. As of next May, the electronic communications of 300 million consumers from 27 European Union countries—there will be 26 countries once Brexit comes into force—will be governed by a piece of legislation similar to the Canadian one. That legislation will contain the same rules, including with regard to express consent. It will even impose additional requirements on people, and fines will be as high as 20 million euros, which is much higher then the penalties under the Canadian legislation.

Just like the Australian and Canadian pieces of legislation, the European statute is extraterritorial. Canadian businesses that will send messages to Europe—if they comply with the Canadian legislation in its current form—will be very well prepared compared with companies from the U.S. or other parts of the world.

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB

Thank you.

I would like to thank you for bringing in the amounts. I think you were quoting $699 for a small company, $1,249 for 11 or better, and then for better than 11, it was between $3,000 and $15,000. I take it that's the type of work that you do. For the smaller companies you deal with, say those with under 50, you help them; you guide them in the right direction. Have any of those been approached or challenged for offences?

11:35 a.m.

Executive Officer, Certimail

Philippe Le Roux

I would say so.

What we provide, at the prices I mentioned, is a comprehensive compliance program. We conduct an audit, issue recommendations, guide companies in the implementation of compliance recommendations, and provide them with a written compliance policy and records. It's really a turnkey comprehensive compliance program.

The main obstacle we currently face is the CRTC. The problem is two-fold. First, the CRTC's communication is flawed. Two different organizations have carried out two separate surveys, which show that 75% of Canadian businesses feel that they are ill-informed with regard to the real issues of the Canadian Anti-Spam Legislation. People are familiar with the legislation, and they know that there is an issue in terms of consent and unsubscription, but they know absolutely nothing about the compliance requirements, the regulatory requirements. There is really a major problem in that respect. Second, documentation is lacking on the objective interpretation of that regulation by the CRTC. In three years, the CRTC's investigative team has come up with three interpretation guides on three small rules. There are still dozens that affect pretty much all Canadian companies. So the CRTC really needs to make a major effort, and that is one of the recommendations we will submit to you.

The last point is the motivation of businesses, which feel like a million complaints have been filed by consumers. Steven Harroun testified before you a few weeks ago, and he told you that 500 investigations have been opened in three years, that about 30 have been completed and that eight fines have been made public. SMEs feel that they are more likely to win the lottery jackpot than to have an investigation on their emails launched.

We know how SMEs operate. They have constraints. They are always managing urgent considerations and only focusing on the most important matters. The message sent by the CRTC, probably unwittingly, is that this legislation is not important.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB

Thank you.

I'll go to Mr. Osborne.

You stated in your evidence...and I think you were talking about the privacy portion of it. Do you know of any actions taken by private individuals?

You were talking about the possibility of people using this frivolously. Has any of that happened?

11:40 a.m.

Partner, Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP, As an Individual

William Michael Osborne

No, it hasn't, sir.

The private right of action was due to come into force this summer. It's been delayed, I believe, pending your review.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB

You're right.

11:40 a.m.

Partner, Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP, As an Individual

William Michael Osborne

I did speak with some class action lawyers to ask them if they were chomping at the bit, and the answer wasn't the scare stories that some have told.

I should fairly point out that the answer was was, “Well, we'll wait and see how it goes.”

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy

Thank you.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB

I think I'm running out of time.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy

I think you would be correct.

We're going to move on to Mr. Masse.

You have seven minutes.

11:40 a.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's all speculative in terms of what the private right of action can be. In fact, we don't know.

I think it's interesting that there still seems to be confusion about compliance and how to do that.

In the last session, I talked about maybe having more of the rules defined and so forth. At the end of the day—I was just thinking about this in terms of the process we're following—I have yet to find evidence. Maybe we can go around the table and you can provide it. What evidence is there that Canadians want more electronic messaging?

I'm wondering about all this in terms of how we go on. How many more people out there and Canadians.... I'm just thinking that I asked my staff to do a review, and I just don't remember. I get complaints about just about everything in my office, all kinds of things. Over 15 years, we've seen it all. In fact, I have some rather colourful stories. At any rate, what evidence is there that since this has been in place, many of the charitable supporters have demanded more information or asked for more emails, legitimate or not legitimate, from the people that you deal with?

We'll go around the table here starting with Mr. Schaper.

11:40 a.m.

Director, Public Policy, Imagine Canada

Bill Schaper

With regard to that part of the question, I don't know whether such evidence exists or where it would be. The perspective we bring is that donors are very interested—and governments have been very interested—in charities seeking to reduce their costs of doing business wherever possible. Using electronic communication is a much cheaper way of raising funds and getting the word out there than are phone banks. We believe they're much less intrusive for people.

To the extent that people are increasingly responding to online appeals and to the extent that the cost of generating a dollar for charities is going down, we think there's...but in terms of the specific question, “Do you want more email?”, I can't answer that.

11:45 a.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

I don't think it's out there. I think it's debatable.

My background is in the not-for-profit sector. When I had a real job, that's what I did. I was an employment specialist for persons with disabilities and youth at risk. I would disagree, though, about the.... Maybe it is less intrusive, but the problem with email and spam is that it can be far more damaging and it's much more costly for you, as basically an unsolicited client, to receive it for information.

I want to get to Mr. Osborne and then to Mr. Le Roux with regard to the original question, which was what evidence is there that Canadians want more spam and want more email electronic advertising? There are two things happening out there: they're getting legitimate emails and advertising, and then there's the spam-type stuff.

Are you receiving any type of commentary about that?