Whitelisting for cyber security: What it means for consumers

Nov. 15 Ottawa—The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) today released a report entitled “Whitelisting for Cyber Security: What It Means for Consumers” that examines the technique of whitelisting and provides examples of how whitelisting is being deployed in Canada by security companies. As cyber threats continue to increase, traditional cyber security protections such as anti-virus solutions are challenged to keep up and provide diminishing returns in effectiveness.
The practice of whitelisting defines a set of parameters that designate applications, email addresses and websites as “safe” for a given system and enforces a set of accesses in order to control the computer system. This means that any application or email or website that does not meet the defined safelist is automatically blocked from the computer or network.
PIAC conducted interviews with industry and government stakeholders and found that the use of whitelisting has advantages for cyber security, such as preventative protection against zero day attacks. However, whitelisting is not a holistic cyber security solution and is particularly ineffective at dealing with grey areas such as spyware and adware. A centralized whitelist can slow efficiency and stifle innovation. Whitelisting is an important layer of a holistic cyber security solution and complements and augments existing defences.
Whitelisting currently lends itself well to deployment in the enterprise environment, particularly closed environments where network resources and assets need to be protected.
“Whitelisting does not work for consumers yet because it requires a level of technical sophistication and time to set up and manage that most consumers do not have,” said Janet Lo, Legal Counsel for PIAC. “As whitelisting continues to develop in the enterprise space, pure-play vendors and holistic security vendors will likely look to innovate for deployment in the consumer space. The successful adoption of whitelisting will depend on innovation that makes it easier for consumers to implement and administer whitelisting.” Some small whitelisting solution companies suggest that even though traditional anti-virus solutions are becoming less effective, there is no incentive for big player anti-virus companies to offer better protection using whitelisting because they continue to earn most of their revenue from consumers using blacklisting.
The report calls for greater government leadership in cyber security to protect critical infrastructure and help consumers deal with online safety challenges. The Government of Canada Cyber Security Strategy announcement is an important first step in the right direction. PIAC warns that whitelisting could be deployed in an overly broad manner by governments and ISPs that would compromise the historical values of the internet such as openness and network neutrality. This would stifle the generative qualities of the internet to the detriment of the public interest. Consumer education about cyber security will help consumers understand the benefits that whitelisting can offer and how to properly use whitelisting in conjunction with other mechanisms such as blacklisting and firewalls.
The Executive Summary is available here:

Download File: whitelistingexec.pdf [size: 0.05 mb]

 
Le Centre pour la défense de l’intérêt public a entrepris d’examiner une nouvelle technique, les listes blanches et de fournir des exemples sur la manière dont ces dernières sont utilisées par les entreprises de sécurité au Canada. Un résumé est disponible ici:

Download File: leslistesblanches.pdf  [size: 0.06 mb]

 
The full version of “Whitelisting for Cyber Security: What It Means for Consumer” is available here:

Download File: whitelisting_final_nov2010.pdf [size: 0.25 mb]

 
PIAC received funding from Industry Canada’s Contributions Program for Non-Profit Consumer and Voluntary Organizations. The views expressed in the report are not necessarily those of Industry Canada or the Government of Canada.
 

PIAC Comments on Potential Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Legislation in Ontario

The Anti-SLAPP Advisory Panel requested submissions from organizations, including PIAC, and the public to assist them in successfully discussing what the potential content of Ontario legislation against strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP) should include. PIAC has extensively studied this subject matter, evidenced by its 2004 report titled “Corporate Retaliation Against Consumers: The Status of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) in Canada”, in which PIAC provided rationale for the passage of Anti-SLAPP legislation.
In this submission, PIAC, after having thoroughly analyzed existing relevant materials on this phenomenon, recommends several elements that effective Anti-SLAPP legislation should contain. Recommendations particularly stem from analysis of merits and pitfalls of the following sources: the Uniform Prevention of Abuse of Process Act adopted by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, Model Act on Abuse of Process discussed at the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, Ontario Bill 138, and Quebec Bill 9.
Download File:

PIAC Comments on Potential Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Legislation in Ontario
piac_slapps_submission_ontario_6_august_2010.pdf [size: 0.09 mb]

Consumers' Gains in Copyright Bill Can be Taken Away by Media Companies : La Loi sur le droit d’auteur

(Ottawa) The Canadian Consumer Initiative today cautioned consumers that the Government’s proposed Copyright Modernization Act, Bill C-32, permits existing and new consumer use rights such as backing up content, time- and format-shifting to be taken away by digital locks and license agreements.
Bill C-32 creates a prohibition on removing or circumventing “technical protection measures” (TPMs) such as those copying and regional restrictions commonly found on DVD discs.  Consumers cannot legally remove or circumvent TPMs even if the consumer’s use is otherwise protected in the bill, such as for creating a backup copy of a DVD in case of scratching, theft, fire or other reason.
“Without an exception to technical protection measures to exercise their copying and backup rights, this Bill is a dead letter for consumers” contended John Lawford, Counsel for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre.
Geneviève Reed, Head of Consumer Representation and Research at Option consommateurs concurred: “Media companies will very likely add TPMs which restrict those rights, just as they now do for DVDs.  Since consumers are violating the law if they break the TPMs for otherwise lawful uses, there will be confusion and a whole army of consumer copyright criminals created virtually overnight.”
CCI notes that Bill C-32 has positive features for consumers that, absent TPMs, allow consumers to back up music and videos, to time-shift TV programs with PVRs, and to format-shift music from CDs and legal downloads to MP3 players, as well as some innovative rights that reflect how consumers actually use content, such as fair use exceptions for parody and satire, and a “remix” right for private media creations such as using commercial songs over family slide shows or amateur YouTube videos.
“Unfortunately, these promising consumer rights all are subject to the overriding control of the media companies that put the digital locks on content” said Anthony Hémond, Telecommunications, Broadcasting, Internet and Privacy Analyst at Union des consommateurs, “As a result, consumers most likely will be paying more for entertainment products, as media companies can effectively dictate when, where and how consumers use their content.”
“The legislation’s protection of digital locks will be detrimental to Canadian consumers and eliminate many of their rights with respect to copyright. It opens the door to the loss by consumers of the kind of durable lifetime access to purchased content traditionally associated with books, for example” noted Don Mercer, President of the Consumers Council of Canada. “It could make the transfer of access to content to inheritors more difficult and less likely. Consumers’ ability to unlock the content they purchased is not overtly protected in the legislation.”
The Canadian Consumer Initiative includes four major Canadian consumer organisations: the Consumers Council of Canada, Option consommateurs, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and Union des consommateurs.
– – – – – –
Communiqué
Pour diffusion immédiate
le 4 juin 2010
Les consommateurs seront perdants à cause des cadenas numériques
(Montréal et Ottawa) L’Initiative canadienne des consommateurs (ICC) déplore le fait qu’avec son projet de réforme de la Loi sur le droit d’auteur, présenté plus tôt cette semaine,  le gouvernement fédéral abandonne une fois de plus les consommateurs en se pliant aux demandes des entreprises. Les droits des consommateurs prévus dans la Loi pour assurer un équilibre pourront désormais être restreints, voire niés, par l’industrie du divertissement.
Avec une approche punitive qui s’est pourtant avérée inefficace ailleurs dans le monde,le projet de loi C-32 risque en effet de priver les consommateurs de leur droit à certaines pratiques répandues, comme celle de faire des copies de sauvegarde ou des changements de formats d’oeuvres numériques, à cause des dispositions qui consacrent le droit de mettre des cadenas numériques sur les oeuvres ou d’imposer des licences d’utilisation trop restrictives et la possibilité de poursuite contre ceux qui chercheraient à contourner ces barrières.
Par la consécration des mesures de protection, qu’il sera désormais interdit de contourner même pour des usages pourtant autorisés par ailleurs, la nouvelle loi permet aux entreprises d’enlever aux consommateurs ce que la loi leur donne. L’industrie du divertissement aura le feu vert pour systématiser l’usage des «cadenas» ou verrous numériques et les Canadiens tomberont du coup dans l’illégalité pour des usages qui font pourtant maintenant partie des moeurs et que la société juge raisonnables et conformes aux principes de protection de la propriété intellectuelle, déplore l’ICC.
Paradoxalement, le projet de loi étend le principe de l’exception raisonnable à certaines utilisations. Aux exceptions déjà acquises, comme la copie à des fins éducatives ou la copie de sauvegarde d’un logiciel pour se prémunir contre la détérioration, la perte, ou le vol, on en ajoute quelques autres, comme la satire et la parodie ou encore, le montage audio-visuel pour fins privées, par exemple, le fait de mettre une pièce musicale en trame sonore de votre production vidéo familiale. Toutes ces exceptions n’auront plus de sens si les cadenas numériques empêchent les consommateurs d’en jouir. L’industrie du divertissement pourra imposer au consommateur quand et comment utiliser l’œuvre, et même pour combien de temps, et celui-ci risque de devoir payer pour chaque type d’usage.
L’Initiative canadienne des consommateurs est une coalition d’associations de consommateurs réunissant le Public Interest Advocacy Centre, le Consumers Council of Canada, Option consommateurs et l’Union des consommateurs.

PIAC Calls for Attention to TV Switch to Digital Over the Air

PIAC Calls for Attention to TV Switch to Digital Over the Air

(OTTAWA)—The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) today called for an approach to the ending of over-the-air (OTA) analogue television next year in line with the way the United States prepared for the same event in 2009. In August 2011, Canadians who currently get their TV OTA for free will not be able to do so unless their TV possesses digital receiving equipment.
Approximately 8-10 % of Canadian households or about 4 million Canadians receive their television signals OTA in an analogue fashion.
“The government and the industry are way behind the curve on this issue. The CRTC has been the only party that trying to alert Canadians about the problems that might arise when the shutoff occurs”, said Michael Janigan, PIAC executive director and general counsel. In a submission filed today with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, PIAC called for a commitment of funds to enable a similar program of public education and equipment subsidy so Canadians are not denied access to important broadcasting services. “We are very close to the August 2011 transition date: it is unbelievable that we have still yet to be doing the basic planning required,” Janigan said.
The submission follows:

PIAC Comments Digital TV Transition
Download File: piac_comments_may_6_2010_digital_tv.pdf [size: 0.07 mb]

 
– – – – – –
May 6, 2010
Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0N2
VIA E-PASS
Attention:Mr. Robert Morin, Secretary General
Dear Mr. Morin:
Re:Broadcasting Notice of Consultation re: CRTC 2010-169
Call for Comments on Issues Related to the Digital Television Transition
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) hereby files its comments in relation to the above-noted proceeding.
Yours truly,
[original signed]
Michael Janigan
Counsel for PIAC
 
 

Broadcasting Notice of Consultation

CRTC 2010-169
Call for Comments on Issues Related To The  Digital Television Transition
Comments of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre
(PIAC)
May 6, 2010
1. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) is a non-profit Ottawa-based organization that engages in the representation of the concerns of ordinary and vulnerable consumers in important public services. PIAC has participated in numerous CRTC hearings in broadcasting issues including the review of Broadcasting Distribution Undertakings’ regulatory framework.
2 .PIAC has reviewed the Notice of Consultation 2010-169 and has comments to make concerning the issues set out therein.
3. PIAC commends the Commission in taking the initiative associated with preparing Canada for the transition to over-the air (OTA) digital transmission. In large part, the potential problems associated with the transition have not been a policy priority of the federal government. In the result, there is some likelihood of confusion and outcry when the transition occurs unless steps are taken quickly to prepare for the same.
4. As Canada is not a country leader in making the digital transition, it seems appropriate that the experience of other countries is studied with a view to learning from the example.
5. According to the European Commission:
Analogue terrestrial TV switch-off has already taken place in Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Belgium (Flanders) and in major areas in Austria. It will take place by end of 2010 or earlier in all of Austria, Estonia, Denmark, Spain, Malta and Slovenia. Analogue terrestrial TV will be switched off between the end of 2010 and the end of 2012 in Belgium (Wallonia and Brussels capital region), Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Greece, France, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and the United Kingdom. In Poland the final switch-off date is 2015 at the latest.
6. In the United States, all full power television stations ended their broadcasting of analog signals on June 11, 2009. The transition was mandated by the provisions of the Digital Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005. The spectrum used by the analog OTA broadcasting was auctioned off by the FCC for other uses including public communications.
7. Some 15% of American homes received only analog OTA signals prior to the transition. The transition was considered largely successful, while it was acknowledged that more work has to be done. The FCC Chairman Julius Genechowski, in his speech to FCC staff , noted that the transition:
“…succeeded far beyond expectations. You pulled it off by working collaboratively with each other across the agency, and with the Commerce Department and other parts of government, and by thinking creatively to leverage all available resources.”
8. Some of the essential components of the American effort were :

1. Public education and consumer awareness
2. Financial subsidies to consumers in the form of coupons
3. Active involvement of the federal government’s Department of Commerce through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
4. Mandatory broadcast of analog for local broadcasting and border areas beyond the June 2009 cut off
5. Trial transition in Wilmington, North Carolina in September 2008

9. In the United States, the public education advertising component included the expenditure of some $5 million a year by the NTIA and 2.5 million annually for the FCC together with an additional $20 million in 2009. The brunt of the advertising costs, amounting to more than one billion dollars, was borne by the broadcasters following FCC Regulations. The advertisements directed viewers to government-funded telephone hotlines and an internet site. The hotlines were well used, and received some 800,000 calls in the week before the June, 2009 transition alone. These calls were fielded by thousands of FCC operators . This expense was paid for by some $90 million that was allocated to public education in the Obama administration bill, the DTV Delay Act that extended the deadline for the switchover from February to June, 2009.
10. The essential mechanism that eased the American transition was the NTIA program to distribute coupons, up to 2 to a household, that were worth $40 on the purchase of a digital converter for OTA digital signals. These boxes ranged in price between $40 and $70. From January, 2008, telephone, mail or internet requests resulted in the distribution of some $1.34 billion in coupons initially, and an additional $650 million following passage of the DTV Delay Act.
11. Notwithstanding the public education programs outlined previously and take up of the government directed subsidy program, some 2.5% of American homes were still unready for the switchover immediately before the June 2009 date. This does not bode well for our late-starting Canadian efforts.
12. The European implementation of the switch to digital OTA shows a similar combination of public education and subsidies to ease the consumer transition, but the size of the programs so designed appears to vary, in large part because of prevailing local conditions. In the Berlin-Brandenburg region of Germany, the switchover of some 160,000 OTA users in 2003 was accomplished with a relatively frugal outlay. In the United Kingdom, on the other hand, an aggressive consumer awareness campaign costing approximately a billion dollars was conducted prior to the 2008 transition, coupled with a scheme to deliver help to assist older and disabled people with the switch to digital television of approximately £600 million.
13. In PIAC’s view, the choice of appropriate policy options for the switchover is very much a function of the national broadcasting and distribution industries as well as the television culture that exists in the country. There are some differences between the modes of access, and relative importance placed upon television viewing that exists in Canadian and American households. The chief difference is the higher percentage of American homes that received only OTA analog TV signals prior to the June 2009 transition. In Canada some 8-10% of homes are in this position, while the figure of 15% was the estimate for the United States.
14. Nevertheless, in PIAC’s view, the American experience is probably the most relevant to consider in terms of the design of an equivalent program of transition. American demographic statistics tend to show that analog OTA users, particularly in urban areas such as New York City, tend to be significantly lower income, isolated, and/or elderly. Poorer and minority households were found to be less prepared for the analog shutdown throughout the US. This presents considerable difficulty in both designing consumer awareness programs and ensuring affordability of the substitute for OTA analog broadcasting.
15. PIAC ‘s last study of public attitudes on issues of importance in the switchover, filed in the Broadcasting 2007-10 (BDU regulatory framework) proceeding, showed a marked resistance for many to migrate to services offered by BDUs , especially at the basic service rates that are prevailing. Only 37% of OTA users were willing to pay for a BDU substitute and of those, 50% were unwilling to pay over $20 per month.
16. Notwithstanding the relative lack of resources available to more comprehensively research the issues set out in this Notice of Consultation, PIAC has the following observations to make:

(i) The magnitude of the problems posed by the switchover to digital, and the very real potential for a policy failure and accompanying public outrage have been underestimated by most stakeholders, with the exception of the Commission. There is a huge learning and implementation curve that lies ahead. It must be mastered without any evident sense of urgency being currently exhibited by the industry and the government.
(ii) In June 2005, the American NGO, Public Knowledge wrote:
Public Knowledge believes that the main factor that will spell the difference between a relatively smooth and difficult digital TV transition is public education. It is quite clear that many consumers do not know that there is a possibility that their analog television sets will cease receiving broadcast television at sometime in the near future. Part of the reason for this is that the broadcast industry has done little, if anything, to promote the transition and the value of free, over-the-air digital broadcasting.
Broadcasters must commit to real and substantial consumer education, including public service announcements and extended news coverage; if they do not commit to such an education program, Congress should consider mandating that broadcasters provide it… The date most recently mentioned as the analog cut off date—January 1, 2009—should give broadcasters, consumer electronics manufacturers, retailers and consumer advocates plenty of time to educate consumers, but they must do so starting now. Waiting until the waning moments of the transition to educate consumers will only cause panic and confusion.
PIAC is of the opinion that, in Canada, we are closer to the time of panic and confusion on Public Knowledge’s timeline, yet there has been minimal public education and industry lethargy.
(iii) PIAC has difficulty envisioning an effective game plan emerging from the confines of the traditional CRTC decision making process. While the Commission should provide the outline of the required components of the transition to digital OTA, there are significant design and implementation issues that can only be addressed in a collaborative fashion among stakeholders. Many of these stakeholders, or their representatives, such as the rural, disabled or elderly may have had minimal participation. The Commission should provide leadership, and the government must become firmly engaged in providing the wherewithal for the appropriate transition framework to be implemented.
(iv) While this transition will likely afford consumers better access to new, important and interoperable services, it provides considerable economic opportunities for the industry and significant new revenues for the federal government as a result of the return of the analog spectrum for auction. The extent of benefits that will be conferred on industry and government stakeholders has not been reflected in the timid and parsimonious approach they have taken to date with these issues.
(v) The provision of a basic service BDU offering free of charge to those households, estimated to be approximately 44,000 in number, that will lose access to OTA TV signals of all types , is in keeping with the objectives of the Broadcasting Act, and a necessary component of any switchover
(vi) PIAC has some experience in attempts to design programs to provide services and goods at reduced rates that rely upon certification and verification to be carried out for receipt. In general terms, complex verification procedures will add costs that exceed the likely benefits.
(vii) In PIAC’s view, all Canadians should be eligible to receive a voucher that can be used towards the purchase of digital receiving equipment. To prevent price escalation as a result of the subsidy, a ceiling on price or similar arrangements with retailers should be implemented. In PIAC’s view, while there is some possibility of non-affected viewers obtaining subsidized equipment, it is not likely too significantly drive costs upwards to the extent comprehended by any audit requirement or escalate demand.
(viii) Public assistance authorities should be encouraged to help with any difference between the amount of the digital converting equipment and the coupon voucher. Funds should also be put aside to address any hardship associated with the failure of financially disadvantaged viewers to obtain the same.
(ix) Commitments must be obtained from government and industry sources for funding of public information about the transition, including any subsidy programs, as soon as possible. Such commitments should be in line with those made in the United States and the United Kingdom. Once again, the necessity to align these programs with OTA viewer demographics and needs cannot be overemphasized.
(x) The Commission should establish a committee of stakeholders to receive review and make recommendations on the progress of any implementation regime both before and after the August 2011 date for transition.
(xi) The Commission should establish a knowledge base on this issue including public surveys, primary and secondary research and similar materials. It should be publicly maintained by the Commission and augmented throughout the implementation process.
(xii) PIAC believes that a trial market implementation makes sense. It is to be noted that the Wilmington test conducted by the FCC revealed a broad range of technical and other issues raised by consumers that were addressed in the 2009 public education campaign.

17. PIAC is prepared to participate, to the limits of its resources in any follow up to this proceeding.
All of which is respectfully submitted this 6th day May, 2010.
***End of Document***

PIAC opposes amendments to consumer product safety bill (C-6)

December 7, 2009
VIA E-Mail and Mail
The Honourable Art Eggleton
Chair, Standing Committee on Social Affairs,
Science and Technology
Room 804, Victoria Bldg.
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A4
Dear Senator Eggleton:
RE: Bill C-6 – The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology Twelfth Report
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre is a non-profit organization, established in 1976, whose mandate is to enable the representation of ordinary and vulnerable consumers when decisions are made concerning the important products and services they obtain. We were unable to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, but made submissions, a copy of which is attached, concerning the similarities between the powers of enforcement provided in Bill C-6 and those in existence in other legislation.
We very much regret the decision of your Committee to approve amendments that severely hamper the ability of the government to pursue the public interest in relation to matters of health and public safety. The net effect of the amendments is to potentially frustrate the efforts of Health Canada to swiftly deal with the imminent danger posed by consumer products that may be untested, misrepresented, and released into the marketplace with minimal warning.
It is particularly disheartening to find the oppositional posture to this Bill presented as a matter of protection of the civil rights of business and property owners engaged in the sale and distribution of the consumer products that are the subject matter of the Bill. Such individuals are amply protected by the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights, and possible civil remedies for government behaviour that exceeds the ambit of its protective statutory mandate. Monetary loss, embarrassment and hurt feelings are regrettable, but nonetheless compensable in the event of improper government conduct.
On the other hand, harm caused to public health and citizen livelihood may only be imperfectly remedied. What will be the explanation given to a parent grieving the loss or permanent injury of a child caused by the use of a product irresponsibly brought to market, when the reason is the lack of, or delay in application, of proper enforcement tools by the responsible authority caused by these amendments? There is no guarantee that even an inadequate remedy of compensation may be available in the event of a breach of health and safety requirements that is of such widespread effect that it is ultimately financially ruinous of the supplier.
The rights of defendants in circumstances where criminal and/or quasi-criminal related behaviour may be involved are important, particularly in relation to the consequences that may be visited upon a defendant. But it is decidedly inappropriate to expose innocent Canadian consumers to potentially negligent market behaviour because of the fear that government inspectors may lack either the appropriate motive, or the skills of enforcement. It is a grievous misallocation of the Senate’s legislative superintendence to cater to the misplaced fears of a few over the real health and safety concerns of the many potentially at risk. PIAC urges the Senate reject the amendments of the Committee and adopt Bill C-6 without change.
Thank you.
Yours truly,
Michael Janigan
Executive Director/General Counsel

Consumer groups call on Minister Moore to “put consumers first” in the war over cable fees

(PIAC 16/Oct 09) Canadian organizations representing consumers of television service called upon Heritage Minister James Moore today to back up his promise to “put consumers first” in the high profile war about cable fees for local broadcasting. The organizations, representing a broad range of consumer and public interests across Canada, maintain that consumer groups must be able to participate fully in the hearing called by the CRTC at the direction of the Minister.
On September 16, the CRTC requested that Heritage Canada consider funding consumer group participation, as the Broadcasting Act does not provide for the same resources as are available for public interest intervenors under the Telecommunications Act. In a letter to Minister Moore, the organizations have noted that all the commercial and government stakeholders at the hearing are funded by Canadian consumers of television broadcasting, yet no money is available to allow representation of consumers at the hearing that is supposed to decide the impact of new charges on consumers.
“Unless the Minister acts, it will be the same old story at the hearing when it comes to cable rates -taxation without representation” said Michael Janigan, Executive Director and General Counsel of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, PIAC “The bold government talk must be backed up”.
The groups that are requesting that Minister Moore ask his Department to remedy this situation include, the Consumers Association of Canada (CAC), Union des Consommateurs (UC), the Consumers Council of Canada (CCC), Option Consommateurs (OC), Canada Without Poverty (CWP), Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC),and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC). The Consumers Interest Alliance Inc. (CIAI) has sent separate correspondence to the Minister supporting the groups’ request.
——-
October 16, 2009
The Honourable James Moore
Minister of Canadian Heritage
Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere
Suite 1497
25 Eddy Street
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A 1K5
Dear Minister Moore,
Re: Order in Council 2009-1569
CRTC Broadcasting Notice of Consultation 2009-0214
On 16 September 2009, the Governor in Council issued Order in Council P.C. 2009-1569 (the OIC). The OIC was issued pursuant to section 15 of the Broadcasting Act (the Act), which provides that the Governor in Council may request that the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) hold hearings or make reports on any matter within the CRTC’s jurisdiction under the Act. The CRTC issued a Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-614 on October 2, 2009 that called for comments concerning the request by the Governor in Council to prepare a report on the implications and advisability of implementing a compensation regime for the value of local television signals.
The organizations that have signed this letter have a longstanding concern with broadcasting issues and their effect on the ordinary user of broadcasting services. For example, the Consumers Association of Canada (CAC), and Union de Consommateurs (UC) have lengthy histories of engagement in such CRTC proceedings affecting their respective constituencies. The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) has developed a worldwide reputation for its advocacy on important Internet and Broadband issues. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) has intervened on frequent occasions before the CRTC on broadcasting issues over the past 33 years, particularly with respect to the regulation of the cable and satellite distribution industry. PIAC also participated fully in the CRTC Review of the Regulatory Framework of Broadcasting Distribution Undertakings in 2007, and has subsequently made submissions to various policy makers concerning the related issues associated with basic service, fee for carriage and the transition from analogue to digital over the air broadcasting.
As your office and your department are well aware, the Broadcasting Act does not contain provisions for the funding of non-commercial consumer representation in the public interest in CRTC broadcasting proceedings as exists in telecommunications under current legislation.
In 2003, Bill S-8 was passed by the Senate. That Bill would have provided the CRTC with the ability to award costs to deserving public interest intervenors in broadcasting regulatory proceedings in a similar fashion to those conducted for telecommunications. Unfortunately, the parliamentary session ended before the House of Commons could consider the Bill. Successive Ministers of Canadian Heritage failed to respond to our requests to reintroduce the Bill under the Minister’s aegis. PIAC’s request to you for the same relief of December 5, 2008 (letter attached) was rebuffed.
In the current matter, the direction to the CRTC made through the OIC was accompanied by a media release that announced that the:
“…Government has a record of putting consumers first. When it comes to the broadcasting system, our stance is no different”.
However, the government has initiated a process to consider consumer impact without providing the means for consumer representation about the appropriate regulatory treatment of the potential impact.
The CRTC recognized the problem of conducting such a proceeding without a process to allow consumers to be represented. In a letter from the Secretary- General of the CRTC of September 16, 2009, to Deputy Minister of Heritage Canada, Judith LaRocque, it was noted that:
“To ensure full participation from the consumer groups, the CRTC would appreciate any contributions your department could offer in order to facilitate participation from the consumers in these consultations.”
This request appears to have been ignored. In conversations with your department officials, it was suggested that the lack of a consumer presence could be remedied if the CRTC could come up with some money to commission an independent study. Alternatively, consumer groups could attend at the offices of Heritage Canada officials to voice their concerns. Needless to say, this response falls considerably short of “putting consumers first” promised in your media release.
This proceeding engages some of Canada’s largest companies to resolve television issues for millions of Canadians that fund them with their fees and their viewership that supports advertising revenue. According to the CRTC‘s most recent Broadcasting Monitoring Report, the Broadcasting Distribution Industries (cable and satellite) garnered some $7 billion dollars of customer revenue in 2008, while Television revenues increased to $5.5 billion in the same year.
The Department of Canadian Heritage itself spent $1.45 billion in 2008/2009. We would also note the government’s receipt of Part I and Part II License fees from broadcasting licensees that add hundreds of millions of dollars to government coffers that are part of the costs eventually passed on to Canadian television users. No money is available to represent the interests of the providers of such massive private and government revenues, however.
The purpose of ensuring informed and resourced consumer participation is not simply to give the appearance of fairness. It is to help level the playing field in a process that features retinues of legal counsel, consultants, operational and regulatory staff and public relations teams promoting commercial interests before the Commission. As well, the availability of assistance to responsible consumer representation ensures that the CRTC gets the benefit of the best possible information and opinion from all sides before making a decision.
In our view, the problems made manifest in the current controversy have their origins in the fact that consumers have had little voice or role in the decisions made in broadcasting regulation. The decision of your department to ignore the CRTC request for participant funding will only serve to reinforce the inevitable conclusion that the Order in Council and the subsequent proceeding were simply part of a public relations exercise, not a meaningful attempt to engage the consumer interest. We would request that you instruct your department to respond to the CRTC’s request in a more helpful fashion.
Thank you.
Yours truly,
Michael Janigan
Executive Director/General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
Anthony Hémond
Avocat
Union des Consommateurs
Bruce Cran
President
Consumers Association of Canada
Don Mercer
President
Consumers Council of Canada
Michel Arnold
Directeur général
Option Consommateurs
David Fewer
Acting Director
Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic
Rob Rainer
Executive Director
Canada Without Poverty
cc: Robert A. Morin, Secretary-General, CRTC
Response may be communicated to:
Michael Janigan, Executive Director and General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, ON, K1N 7B7, Canada

Curb those extra fees: PIAC report calls for consumer protection legislation

(OTTAWA) An Ottawa-based consumer organization is calling for action by federal and provincial governments to curb the practice of businesses inventing separate extra charges to be paid by customers as part of the bill for services or products provided. In a report issued today, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) described circumstances in a number of industries including telecommunications, airlines and financial services where charges such as “system access fees” and “account opening charges” have proliferated.
“These charges usually represent expenses that are really just part of the cost of doing business”, Michael Janigan, PIAC Executive Director and report author stated. “There’s no reason to have them presented like they are mandatory costs passed through to customers separately”. The report notes the problems with transparency and competition that are caused by having suppliers advertising prices that are lower than the total final cost to consumers.
The report recommends an outright ban on the practice. At a minimum, consumer protection legislation should be introduced requiring any advertising or representation to include an “all-in” price that is prominently featured. Funding of the research on which this report was based was received from Industry Canada’s Contributions Program for Non-Profit Consumer and Voluntary Organizations. The views expressed in the report are not necessarily those of Industry Canada or the Government of Canada.
The Practice of Extra Charges In the Canadian Marketplace is available at www.piac.ca:

Practice of Extra Charges In the Canadian Marketplace
Download File: piac_report_extra_charges_canadian_marketplace.pdf [size: 0.52 mb]

The Executive Summary is available here:

Executive Summary: Practice of Extra Charges in the Canadian Marketplace
Download File: executive_summary_1.pdf [size: 0.01 mb]

 
For further information contact:
Michael Janigan
Executive Director and General Counsel
(613) 562-4002 ext 26
mjanigan@piac.ca
 

The Consumer Perspective of Trade & Commerce Powers: PIAC report

(Ottawa)—Interprovincial trade agreements can impact adversely on consumer protection. They are negotiated in secret. Consumers are not at the table. Most recent agreements give corporations the right to sue governments for damages caused by trade barriers. In theory the right to sue drives down prices which benefit consumers. But consumers also want governments that can provide protection.
A new Public Interest Advocacy Centre report, “The Consumer Perspective of Trade & Commerce Powers”, calls on the federal government to use its power over interprovincial trade to set out guidelines for conducting trade negotiations in an open and transparent manner. The report calls for consumer access to the dispute settlement mechanisms negotiated under these agreements.
“Efforts must focus on laying down proper foundations in the market for effective competition policy in Canada,” says Janet Lo, counsel for PIAC. “Competition benefits consumers and consumers are best served when the focus of trade agreements works to improve competition in Canadian markets, not simply the removal of interprovincial trade barriers.”
Lo, the report’s author, notes a trade barrier can cover a lot of ground from truck weights and dimensions to snow crab specifications. Her report warns interprovincial trade agreements tend to drive consumer rights down. The report calls for federal standards to ensure consumer interests are protected in the framework of interprovincial trade negotiations.
The PIAC report identifies a number of on-going interprovincial trade negotiations including: National securities regulator, Agreement on Enhancing the Ontario-Quebec Economic Region, Western Canadian Economic Partnership and the New Brunswick-Nova Scotia Partnership Agreement on Regulation and the Economy.
The full report is at interprovincialtrade.pdf
An executive summary is at interprovincialtradeexec.pdf

Report Concludes Consumer Protection Usually Better in Europe

For immediate release:
July 3, 2009
OTTAWA – The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) today released a report comparing consumer protection in Canada with the regime provided by the European Commission. The report entitled Consumer Protection in Canada and the European Union: A Comparison provides a study of the different approaches to protecting consumers in Canadian and European jurisdictions using the EU publication “Ten Principles of Consumer Protection” as a benchmark of comparison.
The chief finding of the report is that Canada’s consumer protection laws and regulations are, in general, far less comprehensive than those of the European Union particularly in a number of wide ranging areas including food labeling, ecommerce, airline transportation, and telecommunications. Michael Janigan, Executive Director and General Counsel of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, who helped produce the report, stated that the differences were not simply the result of differing economic conditions. Janigan noted:
“Our conclusion was that the reason that consumers are better protected in Europe in many key consumer transactions is that policymakers place consumers at the centre of any considerations when making market place rules. In Canada, looking after consumer interests is an afterthought. For example, we haven’t had a consumer affairs ministry in over 16 years at the federal level.”
The report was made possible with a grant from the European Community through its External Relations program. The Executive Summary is available here.
The Final version of the Report [pdf file: 0.93mb] is available here.
For further information contact:
Michael Janigan
Executive Director and General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, ON
K1N 7B7, Canada
Tele No.: 613 562-4002×26
Fax No.: 613 562-0007
www.piac.ca

New Consumer Services Ministry Hailed by Consumer Group

OTTAWA – June 24, 2009
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), an Ottawa based organization active on consumer protection issues in important public service industries such as telecommunications, energy and financial services has applauded the creation of the new Ontario Consumer Services ministry, formerly part of a portfolio that included small business. “This is important recognition that ordinary Ontario families need their own advocate at the Cabinet table who will make sure that they get a fair deal in the marketplace,” said Michael Janigan, PIAC’s executive director and general counsel. Janigan praised Ontario’s leadership in elevating the status of consumer affairs and said he looked forward to working with a minister whose sole focus will be bettering economic conditions for consumers. “Governments of all stripes are starting to realize that markets need rules, and also require protection for those whose pocketbooks may not be big enough to get the best deal from suppliers. An important first step in this process of reform is to recognize that consumer affairs is important enough to warrant its own cabinet position to ensure proper representation. We hope that other first ministers will follow Premier McGuinty’s example.”
Ted McMeekin, M.P.P. for Ancaster – Dundas- Flamborough was today named the new Minister of Consumer Services as part of a cabinet shuffle announced by the Premier.
For further information:
Michael Janigan
Executive Director and General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, ON
K1N7B7, Canada
Tele No.: 613 562-4002×26
Fax No.: 613 562-0007
www.piac.ca