INDU Committee Report

NDP SUPPLEMENTARY OPINION

Brian Masse M.P.

Windsor West

NDP Innovation, Science and Economic Development Critic

Existing Canada Anti-Spam Legislation

Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) was initially developed to move Canada forward internationally in stopping unwanted spam for Canadian consumers and to curb Canada being one of the top origin destinations for international spam. Since the law was enforced in 2014, spam has decreased to Canadians’ inboxes, yet it is unclear how much of this was a product of CASL or other anti-spam software.

Over the course of this CASL review, this committee heard witnesses testify on all aspects of the legislation.  However, the most often heard complaint was frustration and confusion with the language, terminology, and definitions used within the existing legislation.  

New Democrats do not believe that this is a reason to change the existing law.  Instead, we view this as an opportunity to properly educate and train these businesses and organizations in order to better understand the existing law. Therefore, we support committee recommendation 9 for better training to businesses and organizations on the terminology that exists, while still ensuring that the current law remains intact.

Further, witnesses testified that without the government, internet service providers (ISPs) or the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) having kept records on the actual statistics following the implementation of this law in 2014, it is hard to identify whether or not this law itself has had an impact for Canadian consumers. 

We were told that it is unclear on all fronts whether the existing law is working because there is no reporting mechanism for ISPs, CRTC or from other forms of data collection.  Yet, we heard that up to 5,000 consumer complaints are launched weekly with CRTC.  Statistics on all fronts, including what is working and what is not, would illuminate whether or not the law if effective before we change it.  We therefore also support recommendation 12 for the collection of the data to better understand if the existing law is working before any changes are made to the legislation.

Moreover, we do not support opening up the existing legislation to clarify, narrow, or change the existing definitions of “express consent,” “implied consent,” or “commercial electronic message (CEM).”  This could have unintended consequences that would pose a significant setback for consumer privacy without even knowing whether the existing legislation is effective.  Any changes to the consent model at this point would create more confusion to the businesses and organizations affected by CASL. 

The narrowing or changing the definition of CEM would also likely require a re-write of the legislation and potentially allow loopholes that change the way that CEMs can be sent.  If the original intention of the legislation was to protect consumers, a change to the definition of CEMs could potentially open up consumers’ emails to a world of exemptions that currently do not exist.   New Democrats do not support creating new exemptions in this legislation.

Private Right of Action

The NDP believes that the private right of action of this legislation should be enforced, as is, and not studied further.  With the proper education and training on the existing legislation from the CRTC, we feel that businesses and organizations should be prepared and confident to send their CEMs and should not fear prosecution.  We do support allowing consumers this option and would be comfortable with a grace period of one year or less to allow for the proper training, education and software implementation for businesses and organizations affected.

Three year review

Finally, we recommend another three-year review, in order for the government, ISPs and CRTC to collect data on the effectiveness of this legislation and report back to committee.