Industry Committee on Sept. 29th, 2022

[Ian Scott]

Well, we can to a point.

Steven.

[Steven Harroun]

We can in aggregate. That's what we share with our telcos around those calls as well as with the RCMP and the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre. We share aggregate information about campaigns we're seeing, campaigns the telcos are seeing.

To your specific question earlier, I'm well familiar with the TSPs and the fraud departments they have and the number of resources they have. I am certain that if they have complaints from a particular customer on being victimized, etc., there's a process for them to deal with those. Either the complainant can deal with them with law enforcement officials or Rogers may or may not—I use that name vicariously—with the RCMP as well.

If there are specific complaints of someone having been victimized, then there are methods of dealing with those, of course, through the criminal system. The challenge we face, even as the CRTC, is that we are seeing these campaigns, these types of things, that we pass along. For our colleagues at the RCMP, whom we appeared beside the last time, in March, that is one pile out of a very much bigger pile of cases they have to look at.

I'm sure there are ways, but for us there are details we can't share. We can share aggregate information. We can get everybody on a call saying, “Yes, we're seeing this type of activity, these types of things”, but we can't share the specifics.

To your point that a customer from Rogers, Bell, Telus or whoever is being victimized, we're sure there is a process for them to deal with that as well, but that's very separate from us. That goes to your criminal point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Dong.

Thank you, Mr. Harroun.

We'll move to Mr. Lemire.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to begin by complimenting Mr. Masse for his leadership on this matter, which we have before us again. And a nod to Mr. Erskine-Smith to let him know that I too was there when we studied this matter two years ago. It just goes to show you how quickly things move in Parliament.

I have a question for the witnesses about recommendation 9 from the committee's most recent report on this matter, which reads as follows:

That the Government of Canada encourage the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to monitor and consider the cost of industry-based solutions against fraud calls when making decisions that affect the affordability of telecommunications services.

Are you worried that the cost of protections against fraud calls will be passed on to consumers?

[Alain Garneau]

The information we received in response to our consultation notices didn't raise any concerns about that. Most of the time, the costs involved are tied to network operations, and having these comply with the decision would not generate any additional costs.

When the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission asks the industry to do certain things, it usually show some reluctance at the outset. However, it usually comes around very quickly because it understands that it's not necessarily always a matter of costs, but benefits as well. This is also profitable to the industries, not only because there will be fewer calls of this kind clogging up their networks, but also because of the better service to their customers. In the end, the market will dictate which are the best or the most proactive.

There are therefore not really any costs involved in these measures, except perhaps for a social cost.

[Ian Scott]

With your permission, I'd like to add something.

It may have been Mr. Masse who raised this in previous meetings, but I think there's a concern, as we impose constraints or direct phone companies to take measures, that we need to be very attentive to: that those costs of implementing those measures are not immediately passed on to consumers. I think that's a very important point and one that we're paying close attention to.

Thus far, I have not seen any measures that the companies have introduced where they are saying, “We can protect you. We have a great new gadget approach that will get rid of most of the spam calls, and it's only an extra $2 a month on your cell bill or on your phone bill.”

We have not seen that. I can at least speak for myself to say I wouldn't be very supportive as a regulator of such an approach by the carriers. I think it is in their interest to address this, and they should compete with one another for their customers in part on how well they protect them and serve them, not just their quality of service or their coverage, but also in things like protecting them from unwanted communications. I think it's in their best interest, but also, we should make sure it's not at the expense of consumers.

I think that's part of what underlies that. I'm not being very subtle, but I can say that I would not be supportive of seeing.... Let me rephrase it: I have expectations that the industry should deal with this because it's in their best interest and the best interest of consumers.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

You've answered my question and my subsidiary question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.

So that's the end of our meeting today.

Thank you Mr. Garneau, Mr. Scott and Mr. Harroun for having joined us today. The committee would appreciate it if you could submit to us in writing the commitments you have made and the answers you've promised.

On that note, I wish everyone a good evening.

The meeting is adjourned.