Industry Committee on Sept. 29th, 2022

[Ian Scott]

Thank you for the question.

I'll ask Mr. Harroun to add, but I'd just start by saying that we have an ongoing discussion with those partners, but, as you would well know, opportunities to change or revise legislation don't arise often. We have yet to have an opportunity to have a fundamental review of the legislative provisions, but the need has been communicated and recognized. Obviously, I don't speak for the minister, and the ministry responds to the recommendations of the committee, but I would say that we certainly feel that we have been heard and that they are aware of the challenge.

Steven, you deal with the department on a more regular basis. Do you have anything to add?

[Steven Harroun]

No. There's nothing official, as Mr. Scott has indicated, but we continue to work with our law enforcement partners to the best of our ability. We would welcome that change. We welcome that recommendation.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

It's one of the things we can control in all of this.

I don't like the characterization of this issue as nuisance calling. I've had constituents who have committed suicide after falling prey to this—after losing financial means through this, with the shame and so forth. It's pretty serious.

I'm just wondering, with regard to the communication element again, how strong you are in terms of what we could advance as next steps on this. I really applaud your efforts to move what you have forward. If we can actually get that, maybe we can instigate to get the Privacy Commissioner to intervene to make sure there are proper guidelines and confidence. I see that as low-hanging fruit for us to take advantage of. It's nothing that costs us money, but it's something we can control.

[Ian Scott]

Let me take a step back. If I use the term “nuisance calling”, first of all I'm referring to certain kinds of calls. These are grave issues. There is no doubt about that. I generally refer to these as “unwanted communications”. We have other challenges about getting broadband to everyone and wireless to everyone. In this case, we want to stop unwanted communications and protect consumers. That's what we're endeavouring to do, and we will work with anyone in that regard.

I don't know whether engaging the Privacy Commissioner, for example, is going to—

If I can just finish—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

If I can intervene, my time is short.

Here's what I'm trying to get. I'll segue with this: You mentioned resources. If we're going to get some bang for our buck, so to speak, what are we looking at if, for example, we put a million dollars into the CRTC specifically related to fraud or whatever. I don't know what it is. Can you come up with a plan so that we, as legislators, can look at that and then see what potential results we can get? You have made some good progress. What I'm looking for is easy steps we can take right away to deal with this. That's kind of where I'm trying to go, Mr. Scott.

[Ian Scott]

I understand.

With respect, if there were easy steps to take, we'd take them. We're not poor, and we've applied the resources we have effectively. As technology evolves, people with bad intentions and criminal intentions use technology to subvert the system. All of us can use more funding and apply more horsepower, but the measures we're taking are all effective and we would simply do more of what we're doing. If we recognized that something was obvious and would have an immediate impact, honestly we would be working in that direction, and we do. We're reaching out all the time with our partners to try to expand and do what we do better.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Do you have a number in terms of how much in administrative monetary penalties has been added over the last couple of years since the study was done? Is there a number the committee can get on that? What I'm looking for is that often we see that a lot of preventative measures can be taken that will affect our economy in a very positive way, as well as disrupting this. I'm just wondering what our cost benefit for this is. Do you have a number that could be shared?

[Ian Scott]

Steven can give you a general number, and we'll follow up with specifics if you'd like.

I'd just like to preface this by saying that our first order of business is prevention, education and compliance seeking. We use enforcement for what it should be—a secondary measure. When we're talking about do not call and so on, that is the way we approach enforcement.

Steven, can you give a ballpark at this point?

[Steven Harroun]

It's in our annual do not call list report. To date, we're at about $11 million over the last 10 years. In the past year it's been about $600,000.

I think the point to make here, and what Ian was alluding to, is these are the administrative monetary penalties that companies have willingly...or have been charged with because they have violated the telemarketing rules. These are legitimate players who are, if you will, paying for the sins of the past and, “Oh, we didn't buy the list. We didn't call the right people at the right time,” etc.

I think what you're speaking to, Mr. Masse, is more the fraud-related side of this piece, the 50% that is fraud. That's not where we can apply our administrative monetary penalties.

If I could just go back to your previous question, Mr. Masse, I think what's important to understand is that we are a civil regime. You could give me $10 million tomorrow and I'd be very happy, because I could have the entire CRTC working on telemarketing cases and anti-spam cases. However, we are a civil regime, not a criminal regime, so it still might not have the impact you want on the fraud side.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I understand that, so I'm going to interrupt right here.

What I want is a proper business plan. The CRTC represents the public, and you're coming here. I can invent numbers, too. I'm sorry, but I'm a little upset with this. Present us a business plan in terms of what you can do and how effective it can be. I don't know exactly whether it's $10 million or $2 million or $1 million. This is pretty serious and a priority to me, as a member of Parliament, and I think to a lot of members of Parliament. Put a plan together and show us exactly what it is. That's what you're supposed to be doing.

I know my time's up, but at the same time, I'd like—

[Ian Scott]

With respect, Mr. Masse, we file a report with Parliament—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Okay, but you're at committee here—

[Ian Scott]

—and it has all of that information.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

You're at committee here and you're throwing out that you need more resources, and then there's $10 million and there are other...and all I'm asking for is a simple plan. Seriously, are you going to fall back on the idea that I'm supposed to read that report or have that at my fingertips right now?

[Ian Scott]

I didn't ask for more money. I was answering a question with respect to what would help.

As Mr. Harroun just said, we can give you those numbers, and those numbers are contained in our report to Parliament. I think there is good value for money with respect to the telemarketing regime. Alain told you that with respect to telemarketers, it's on a cost-recovery basis.

As to the criminal side of this, or, if you will, the elements that are engaging in criminal activity, obviously there are no numbers. How would you possibly estimate that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

We'll have the opportunity to get back to this, Mr. Masse, if you want, but in another round of questions, because we're way over time again.

I'll now move to Mr. Deltell for five minutes.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's always a pleasure to be here, colleagues. I remember a good old saying that I used when I was a journalist: "When it's good, it's never long." I thought Mr. Masse's questions were very good and relevant.

Generally speaking, you always get the best and the worst with these calls. That's also true of virtually all information technologies. You can have excellent tools and then see them used in unacceptable ways.

And let's not fool ourselves: we're all politicians here; we all ran election campaigns a year ago, and I bet we all used robocalls. I'm very proud of my white hair, which proves I'm not the most adept person in this area, but in the end I agreed to spend a little money on robocalls, which is quite unusual for me. I have to admit I was really impressed with the real results I got; the calls let me contact 2,000, 3,000 or 4,000 persons an hour. I have to say it's cost-efficient.

You mentioned the initiative that Bell Canada took in response to your invitation to detect and address fraud proactively. That's the kind of initiative we should promote and encourage. When private businesses that thrive on these calls decide to discipline themselves that way, we acquire better tools for the future. So I welcome that great initiative.

Now I want to discuss more technical matters in all this chaos.

First, is there any way to block at source calls from outside the country, whether from the United States or another unknown and distant country? Is that technically and legally feasible? Obviously, everything can be done under an act, if necessary. Could Canadian telephones be configured to block all numbers from area codes other than 418 or 613, for example?

[Ian Scott]

Would you please answer that, Mr. Garneau?

[Alain Garneau]

Yes, that's a technically feasible option. Under the STIR/SHAKEN model that the French have adopted, starting in 2025, France will be required to block all international calls that haven't been validated. But that approach wouldn't promote good relations with our neighbour to the south.

However, the technical means do exist. Without responding once again to questions that have already been asked, I'd definitely invest in that area if I had other resources at my disposal. We'd have to see what can be done across networks to roll out systems that can detect those calls in order to control them more effectively. That would allay a lot of fears.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Garneau.

I see Mr. Scott seems open to the suggestion. Is that a position the CRTC could adopt, or is it only a thought that you just stated, Mr. Garneau?

[Alain Garneau]

No, it's definitely nothing the CRTC has considered.

I just want to say that we've adopted a three-part approach.

First, as Mr. Harroun mentioned earlier, there's a limit to what we can do to implement a solution. If we had more money, we could process more files, but, ultimately, there'd just be more people addressing the issue.

Second, we work hard to increase awareness among small businesses, but also among seniors, a little surprise that I'll let you discover in our next report.

The third pillar is all the upstream work we're doing, which Mr. Scott discussed.

Bell blocking, universal call blocking, STIR/SHAKEN, call traceback.

All that's being done upstream, and a lot of work remains to be done in that area.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Would it be possible to give telephone service customers an option to block all robocalls systematically? Could something like that be done? Is it done in other countries? Have any companies previously assessed the option? What are your thoughts on the subject?

[Ian Scott]

You have to know they're robocalls.

Technically, we don't know. The purpose of the STIR/SHAKEN technology is provide a measure that increases consumer confidence.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Do you know if that's applied somewhere in the world? Is there a situation in the world that has an opting out, so that, if you don't want to have any robocalls, you can add the application and then that's it; that's all, folks; it's over?

[Ian Scott]

Yes, the French model will look something like that in the future.

The balancing act here is to try to block unwanted or illegitimate calls but not to block legitimate ones. That's the challenge. You can say, yes, we'll block everything that we're suspicious about, but that means we'll be blocking legitimate calls, and consumers do not want that. Consumers want illegitimate calls blocked. We're trying to equip them with the tools to give them trust in the system.