Evidence of meeting #82 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.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
We've come to the conclusion of round one, and we have time for a few more questions. We're going to go back to Ms. Ng for seven minutes. Then we'll go to Mr. Masse, and then back to Mr. Baylis.
Go ahead, Ms Ng.
November 7th, 2017 / 12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mary Ng Liberal Markham—Thornhill, ON
Hi, there. Thank you to all the witnesses for coming in. I have just a couple of clarification questions.
Ms. Arsenault, you had talked about CASL being able to provide a framework that allows for better data and better emails and therefore better business for marketers. Then you provided some suggestions for simplification of the current legislation around the definition of a CEM or by getting rid of the six-month and two-year aspects.
The question isn't actually for you; it's for Mr. Lewis, and that's the context.
Ms. Arsenault sort of suggested that she, her clients, and so forth want to engage in good practices. They want to enable small, medium-sized, and large enterprises to do good marketing and to do business in today's digital world.
Do you agree that the simplifications she is suggesting are the right tweaks to CASL to help it be more effective for the business community, while at the same time ensuring that the protections, as they are intended, are there and will continue to be there?
12:25 p.m.
Chief Scientist, Spamhaus Technology Ltd.
I'm not exactly sure what two periods she was referring to. Is that something to do with...?
12:25 p.m.
Senior Director, Client Services, Inbox Marketer
It was the six-month inquiry versus the two years of EBR. If someone makes an inquiry on a form, you have six months of implied consent, whereas if you have an existing business relationship and download—
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mary Ng Liberal Markham—Thornhill, ON
We did hear both of those suggestions. We've heard from other witnesses. I would be interested in your perspective about whether that makes sense.
12:30 p.m.
Chief Scientist, Spamhaus Technology Ltd.
As long as the user has initiated it as opposed to the other side initiating it, a reasonable timeout of six months to a year.... I don't see that you necessarily want to make it more complicated by making it different for different circumstances.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mary Ng Liberal Markham—Thornhill, ON
What we heard was that the ability for enterprises to keep track of when they received the consent, whether express or implied, and the requirement for businesses to keep doing that as time continues—
12:30 p.m.
Chief Scientist, Spamhaus Technology Ltd.
That's always struck me as kind of strange. I'm a long-time customer of our bank, and every once in a while I get another query asking if I accept to continue receiving this, and I say, “The fact that we're dealing with you at least a dozen times a year makes this kind of silly.” A six-month or a year's timeout on a business transaction or an inquiry is the sort of thing.... They should be keeping the permission alive indefinitely. It doesn't need to be renewed.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mary Ng Liberal Markham—Thornhill, ON
You're saying that's an acceptable modification to CASL, that it would help—
12:30 p.m.
Chief Scientist, Spamhaus Technology Ltd.
Yes. I'm in fact sure that if CRTC were presented with something that hinged on that thing alone, they'd say, “It's case by case and you're a reasonable person. You've done your due diligence and you've done a reasonable job, so what's the problem?”
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mary Ng Liberal Markham—Thornhill, ON
That's good. Thank you.
On the one hand, Ms. Arsenault, you talked about the need for CRTC to be clearer with some direction to businesses. Mr. Lewis, you talked about CRTC working its way through and getting better at its role in CASL.
What needs to happen? In other words, do we say to CRTC that what we've heard from a lot of testimony is that there's a lack of clarity and businesses certainly could use more direction and clarity in the interpretation, whether it's webinars or just communication—that it's just the clarity, and CASL itself is fine—or do we actually have to do something?
12:30 p.m.
Chief Scientist, Spamhaus Technology Ltd.
I think one aspect of the problem we're seeing today is that when you talk to an individual person at CRTC, if they're not a lawyer and they don't speak for CRTC, they're not going to judge specifically one practice versus the other.
I'm wondering whether it would be better for CRTC to try to express more along the lines of, “This is what we're trying to achieve. If you do your due diligence and follow the basic principles of what we're trying to do here, then you will be safe.”
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mary Ng Liberal Markham—Thornhill, ON
Would that help? We have heard that from a lot of the testimony that came in, and I take your point, Mr. Lewis, about the magnitude of what we might be hearing. I'm trying to understand it to see whether we can come to a good balance that provides consumer protection on the one hand, and ease of businesses to do business, while at the same time recognizing that email spam is actually the first point of very malicious and fraudulent activity that we have to be very concerned about.
12:30 p.m.
Chief Scientist, Spamhaus Technology Ltd.
It's a matter of making sure the basic principles are understood. Then from there, you say what is reasonable within those principles. The law is always trying to set concrete limits, but human beings in courts work on basic principles and on what's reasonable—what a reasonable person would do, due diligence tests, and so on. Educating people on how to understand and deal with that in an area that's never seen this sort of stuff before can be a long and time-consuming process.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mary Ng Liberal Markham—Thornhill, ON
What we heard was about a pragmatic way, perhaps by the CRTC, to make sure there is pragmatic information that contemplates and considers how businesses work and provides practical application, interpretation, communication, and understanding so that those who are operating small and medium-sized businesses have the tools and the interpretation they need without having to hire a legal team to try to understand what this piece of legislation is intended to do.
12:35 p.m.
Chief Scientist, Spamhaus Technology Ltd.
Also, written interpretive documentation might help.
12:35 p.m.
Senior Director, Client Services, Inbox Marketer
Show examples. The record-keeping is a big thing. Show us exactly the level of documentation that is required if we're called upon.
