PIAC to participate in National Day of Action for Affordable Internet

OTTAWA – February 26, 2021 – The Public Interest Advocacy Centre announced today its participation in the upcoming National Day of Action for Affordable Internet on March 16. The one-day virtual conference includes a coalition of partners and organizations dedicated to demanding affordable internet for all Canadians.
“All consumers, but especially low-income Canadians, struggle to afford internet and cellphone connections in an environment made infinitely more difficult by inadequate laws, regulatory capture and market dominance by big companies. The first step is protest, the next is action on all of these barriers,” noted John Lawford, PIAC’s Executive Director and General Counsel.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, PIAC along with ACORN Canada and the National Pensioners Federation has called for the federal government to ensure fair and affordable Internet access for All Canadians and particularly low-income Canadians and seniors on fixed incomes. Most recently, ACORN, NPF and PIAC have demanded the federal government create a $50 rebate to consumers for the remainder of COVID-19, as the US has already done. Their proposed “Canadian Broadband Benefit” (CBB) would provide a $50 rebate for low-income Canadians, fixed-income seniors and those who would otherwise qualify for the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit due to lost employment income.
Lawford says the pandemic has brought attention to structural inequalities for Canadians to have fair access to affordable internet.
“The pandemic has not created these issues, but it’s certainly brought them to the forefront,” says Lawford. “Now is the time to act to ensure all Canadians can access and afford the Internet services they need.”
The National Day of Action for Affordable Internet will be streamed live on March 16. Canadians who wish to attend can find agenda, details and registration at https://www.affordable-internet.ca/
For more information:
John Lawford
Executive Director/General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
613-562-4002 x 125
Cell: 613-447-8125
jlawford@piac.ca
-30-

“We fight for that” Podcast Episode 4: Broadcasting and Why it Matters to You with Monica Auer

The CanCon is coming! The CanCon is coming! Or not.  Today we discuss Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, phew!
Today’s guest Monica Auer, Executive Director of Canada’s Forum for Research and Policy in Communications (FRPC) strives mightily to explain broadcasting regulation in Canada and how the federal government wants to change it.  What could go wrong? Turns out a lot, if you hurry to do it, have a very specific goal in mind but ignore the rest, and just rip the heart out of it. Surgery or a roadmap? You decide.
Also, we talk about hard questions to communications service providers about moving people against their will to paper billing  and why the FRPC told the CRTC months ago that CBC’s Tandem service was an abominable snowman.  Told you so.
Find Canada’s Forum for Research and Policy in Communications (FRPC) at: https://www.frpc.ne
Happy holidays!
Direct Link to podcast: https://wefightforthat.simplecast.com/episodes/broadcasting-and-why-it-matters-to-you-with-monica-auer

CCTS Annual Report 2019-20 Shows Internet Code, TV Code are Dead Letters

OTTAWA – 30 November 2020 – The Commission for Telecom-Television Services (CCTS) Annual Report 2019-20 of consumer complaints about communications services shows that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s (CRTC) “Internet Code” and “TV Service Provider Code” do not protect consumers and indeed are “dead letters” that mislead consumers into believing their Internet and TV use is protected when it is not, today said the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC).
The CCTS Report shows that consumers were able to use the Internet Code to vindicate their complaints against Internet Service Providers only 1.4% of the time.  Likewise, consumers’ ability to rely upon the TV Service Provider Code to support their TV service complaints also was successful only 1.4% of the time.
“These two CRTC codes are dead letters, as they permit companies to raise prices mid-contract and to charge early cancellation fees, which are two of the largest complaint-drivers for consumers,” stated John Lawford, Executive Director and General Counsel of PIAC.  “The CRTC claims that these codes increase clarity of contracts and empower consumers but clearly they do the opposite: they disappoint consumers who complain,” he added.
Lawford contrasted the Internet Code and TV Service Provider Code with the CRTC’s earlier “Wireless Code” and “Deposit and Disconnections Code“, both of which contain important substantive protections for consumers, such as prohibitions on price changes during the contract period and clear rules for disconnections.  Consumers were able to rely on the Wireless Code to support their complaint 6.5% of the time, while those using the Deposit and Disconnection Code successfully called it in aid over 7% of the time.
“The major complaint issues raised with the CCTS were about ‘disclosure’ and ‘billing’. That’s code words for the companies changing prices mid-contract, mis-selling at the start of the contract or charging huge termination fees. The answer is simple: outlaw price changes during the contract, whether for Internet, wireless, TV or home phone,” stated Lawford. PIAC has previously alerted consumers to the inadequacy of the Internet Code.
For more information, please contact:
John Lawford
Executive Director and General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
Tel: 613-562-4002 ext. 125
Cell: 613-447-8125
jlawford@piac.ca
 

Telecom Fail – CCTS Compliance Report 2019

Ottawa – 19 November 2020 – Canadian telecommunications companies are unacceptably failing to comply with resolutions and in some cases falsely claiming to resolve consumer complaints to Commission for Complaints for Telecom-Television Services (CCTS), according to the 2019 Compliance Monitoring Report, says consumer advocacy group the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC).
“We are shocked, but not surprised, at the companies’ variety of non-compliance with a simple complaint resolution scheme for telecom customers,” stated John Lawford, PIAC’s Executive Director and General Counsel. “Consumers have told us for years that problems exist with the process.”
The 2019 CCTS Compliance Report, found:
1 – PSPs (“Participating Service Providers”) indicated to CCTS that complaints from customers were resolved when they actually remained unresolved in the opinion of customers. The Report notes a reduction in these issues (in particular for one major PSP) after education and communication with the CCTS.
2 – Failure to implement resolutions, recommendations and decisions is widespread amongst PSPs.
3 – In two documented cases, PSPs threatened customers, either by imposing an additional fee on a customer, or even with a lawsuit for having filed a complaint with the CCTS. In other cases, the PSPs were found to pressure customers to withdraw their complaints (18 instances).
4 – Widespread failure by PSPs to properly present the option to complain to the CCTS on their website.
“PIAC has asked CCTS for some years to add a new complaint category for ‘failure to action’ complaint resolutions and that this should be logged and treated as a new complaint, as is done by the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman in Australia,” added Lawford.
For more information:
John Lawford
Executive Director and General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
Tel: 613-562-4002 ext. 125
Cell: 613-447-8125
jlawford@piac.ca

Privacy Bill C-11 Hollows out Consumer Privacy

We Fight for That – Episode 3: What the heck is wholesale with Matt Stein – now available

Comments on Ontario Privacy Consultation: PIAC Calls for Strengthening PIPEDA and Introducing Provincial Employment Privacy Legislation

OTTAWA– (16 October 2020) The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (“PIAC”) today responded to the government of Ontario’s Consultation to strengthen privacy protections in Ontario with PIAC’s recommendations for strengthening privacy protections in Ontario’s private sector, preferably by strengthening the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”) and introducing provincial employment privacy legislation.
PIAC recommended bolstering privacy protections – whether in PIPEDA or a new Ontario statute – by making privacy a right, by widening the scope of privacy legislation and by greatly increasing compliance and enforcement powers of privacy authorities.
PIAC Executive Director, John Lawford stated: “We agree privacy of Ontarians and indeed all Canadians needs strengthening for a truly digital age. The best approach is to make privacy a consumer right and to enable consumers to enforce that right – whoever takes the lead.”
PIAC’s recommendations would help to align Canadian privacy legislation with other key jurisdictions, including the state of California and the European Union (“EU”). The EU General Data Protection Regulation  (“GDPR”), recognizes and balances individuals’ right to privacy with business and government interests in processing personal information.
“Whatever the outcome of Ontario’s efforts, we hope that they will enhance public trust in consumer privacy, allow businesses to innovate, increase participation in the digital economy and preserve democracy,” Lawford added.
Please click here for a copy of PIAC’s submission to the Government of Ontario.
For more information please contact:
 
John Lawford
Executive Director and General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
Tel: 613-562-4002 ext. 125
Cell: 613-447-8125
jlawford@piac.ca

We Fight For That – Episode 2: Mystery Shopping with Marina Pavlovic – Your Internet Mileage May Vary – Mea culpa COVID appa

A private sector privacy law for Ontario: a step in the right direction?

On August 13, the Ontario government launched a public consultation to solicit input on “creating a legislative framework for privacy in the province’s private sector,” citing longstanding public concern over data privacy intensified by increased reliance on digital platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic. The consultation and accompanying discussion paper outline key issues in data protection, many of which will be familiar to those following Canadian privacy legislative reform: broadly, the focus will be on increasing transparency around how information is gathered and used, strengthening consent and establishing an opt-in model for secondary uses of information, introducing a right to erasure of personal information (subject to limitations), introducing a right to data portability, increasing the enforcement powers of Ontario’s Privacy Commissioner, introducing requirements and protections for de-identified or derived data, enabling the establishment of data trusts for information sharing, and expanding the scope of the law to non-profit and non-commercial organizations, including political parties. The consultation comes two months after Quebec introduced a bill to update its data protection strategy along the lines of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). If a new law is passed, Ontario will join other provinces, namely BC, Alberta, and Quebec, in having its own private sector privacy legislation.

It may superficially appear that better privacy protection for Canadians at any jurisdictional level could only be a positive development. Privacy in Ontario’s private sector is currently governed by the 2000 Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), a federal law crafted in the late 1990s that has long been groaning under the weight of various pressures, including paradigm-shifting developments in the media environment and the need to keep pace with international data-sharing norms, most notably the global standard-setting GDPR. Among the most significant gaps in PIPEDA are its lack of real enforcement mechanisms and its grey areas around consent, which have become muddier in the age of big data as increasingly complex information flows undermine people’s ability to fully understand what they’re agreeing to. Under the “substantial similarity” exemption to PIPEDA, provinces are allowed to establish their own private sector privacy law if it offers comparable privacy protection to the federal legislation.

While there have been rumblings of reform at the federal level, including the government’s May 2019 release of an aspirational “Digital Charter” and accompanying proposals for modernizing PIPEDA, it’s not clear how extensive the changes will be, or when Canadians can expect them, especially with the parliamentary schedule having been disrupted by the pandemic. The introduction of an Ontario data protection strategy might thus come as a welcome development to those eager for reform who are understandably frustrated being at the mercy of a slow-moving federal process.

But there are more reasons to be wary of further fragmenting privacy legislation along provincial or territorial lines. Without highly coordinated pan-provincial consistency and cooperation, a province-by-province enactment of privacy laws risks providing uneven protection to Canadians, whose personal information may be treated differently based on territorial factors like the residency of the consumer, the storage location of the data, or the locus of incorporation of the company that offers the service. There’s also a risk that the move will encourage legal gamesmanship, with companies simply transferring operations to weaker privacy jurisdictions.

A patchwork of provincial laws will also complicate the business environment and potentially exacerbate internal trade barriers. The movement of personal data across both national and international borders is essential to the internet economy, and some Ontario business leaders are already balking at the increased compliance burden posed by multiple, potentially inconsistent layers of regulation. These kinds of challenges are already playing out in the US, which has begun its own state-by-state introduction of consumer privacy laws in the void of a comprehensive national regime. Companies are seeing that even slight inconsistencies between laws—and even between rules that appear on the surface to grant the same rights, such as data portability—can lead to huge compliance costs, which may be passed onto consumers in the form of both higher prices and a shrunken market.

Some analysts have pointed to an emerging irony in the global privacy crackdown: rules that are outwardly pro-consumer may end up empowering the very tech monoliths whose abusive data practices they’re meant to target, since these companies have the deep pockets to absorb rising compliance costs and increased legal risk. While poll after poll shows that Canadians do have an interest in strong privacy protections, a robust federal law can avoid the unnecessary compliance burden posed by a proliferation of regional frameworks.

While promising to protect citizens within each province, a piecemeal approach to privacy may also pose challenges for federal and provincial regulators. Again, we can look for guidance to the international context, where traditional notions of territoriality and jurisdictional authority are being challenged by the nature of electronic data. Even as the EU’s equivalency requirement has put increasing pressure on countries to update their privacy laws, data privacy rights vary considerably across national borders, and the speed, ease, and complexity of global data circulation often severs the factual link between the location of data and the location of its user. This tension between bordered privacy regimes and borderless data has led to serious conflicts between countries seeking control over online information, including efforts by governments to set global privacy standards via their own domestic regulation. The result is that businesses, regulators, and consumers increasingly operate in an environment of uncertainty in which it’s unclear which country’s or region’s laws govern online data at any given time. A patchwork of provincial laws risks reproducing this uncertainty within Canada.

Managing these complexities will likely be pricey for provinces. As former federal privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart notes, Quebec’s recently tabled Bill 64, which proposes amendments to the province’s public and private sector privacy laws, intends to deal with the issue of cross-border transfers via a GDPR-style adequacy condition that requires assessment of the destination’s privacy regulations, but this process has proved cumbersome to even the EU’s large, experienced bureaucracy. In the EU, regulators are finding that the GDPR requires enormous investment and staffing resources in order to give it teeth. And in the US, state privacy laws are under near-constant amendment to close ambiguities and catch up to other jurisdictions. Even if Ontario’s rules would apply only to commercial activities within the province and not to interprovincial or international transfers, there are costs involved in reviewing and assessing compliance with any new regulatory regime.

Those impatient for change might be reassured by the rising urgency of federal privacy reform. Federal privacy commissioner Daniel Therrien has warned the federal government that the growing discrepancy between Canadian and European privacy law is increasingly threatening our trade relationship with the EU. Under the GDPR, EU citizens’ personal data can be transferred only to jurisdictions that have been determined by the European Commission (EC) to provide “adequate” privacy protection, unless the data subject’s valid consent has been obtained. With Canada’s adequacy status scheduled for review by 2022, privacy experts are calling for “serious, rather than cosmetic, reform to PIPEDA” to maintain the free flow of data Canada and European countries. A single, robust federal privacy regime is a more realistic road to adequacy and to ensuring that the EU is confident exchanging data with Canada.

PIAC’s preliminary view is that Canadians will be better protected by a robust, modernized federal data protection regime than by increasing province-by-province legislation. A regulatory patchwork risks putting Canadians in a worse position when it comes to understanding their privacy rights, increasing uncertainty around how data is handled and potentially enabling inconsistent treatment of personal information depending on the residency of the consumer. As digital surveillance has become more pervasive and intrusive and the risks to both individual and society more profound, it’s clear that PIPEDA has failed to keep up, but it’s unlikely that a proliferation of regional frameworks will be more effective in protecting consumers against the power of the multi-billion-dollar personal data industry. Federal lawmakers need to step in to protect Canadians’ interests as consumers and rights as citizens.

"We fight for that" – Episode 1: PIAC’s podcast launched!

OTTAWA, 11 September 2020: “We fight for that” – the new podcast from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), launches today. This first episode includes an introduction to PIAC, asking and answering why you, as a Canadian consumer, keep asking “Am I Going Crazy?” when you have a problem with your purchases and subscriptions; and a detailed explanation of PIAC’s COVID Alert app CRTC Application, that seeks to limit government access to any personal information from contact-tracing in Canada.
The podcast is available on all major podcast providers.  Please find our main podcast page at this link.
We hope you enjoy listening!

Episode 1 Notes

Direct download link.