National Do Not Call List-How to Make it Work For You

National Do Not Call List-How to Make it Work For You
Now that you are on the National Do Not Call List, you need to know how to make it work for you. The following documents will help to guide you on your way to avoiding many telemarketing calls:

National Do Not Call List—Get on the List!

Is there any way I can prevent annoying telemarketing calls?
Yes, there is. The CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) is set to launch the National Do Not Call List. You can get on the list starting on September 30, 2008.
I’ve heard about the DNCL—what is it, exactly?
The National Do Not Call List is a free service designed to assist Canadians by reducing the number of telemarketing calls they receive.
If I’m on the DNCL, I won’t hear from telemarketers anymore?
Not quite! Some telemarketing calls are exempt from the National Do Not Call List, such as those from charities, political parties, and companies that you do business with. However, telemarketers that are subject to the rules of the National Do Not Call List will stop calling you 31 days after you are on the list.
How does it work?
It’s easy: register your telephone number(s) with the National Do Not Call List by telephone or on the Internet and you will be removed from many telemarketers’ call lists within 31 days of your registration.
Okay, it sounds great! How do I register?
You can register online at www.LNNTE-DNCL.gc.ca , or by telephone at (toll-free): 1-866-580-DNCL (1-866-580-3625). Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing may call (toll free): 1-888-DNCL-TTY (1-888-362-5889).
There are other websites that offer to put people on the DNCL. Are they safe?
Absolutely NOT! Only trust the official CRTC and DNCL websites for the service listed here—they are completely safe. All other websites that offer this service or demand a fee may be fraudulent or lead to increased telemarketing calls. Registration is easy and free at the DNCL website or by calling the DNCL’s toll-free number.
I’d like more information before I register.

Public Interest News: December 2007 – September 2008

Air Canada Westjet: fees and surcharges

(PIAC — 19/09/08)—On Sept. 17 the Montreal Gazette reported: “Air France, Deutsche Lufthansa AG and Singapore Airlines have reduced their fuel surcharges this month. But U.S. and Canadian carriers, contending with lacklustre travel demand in the face of a weak U.S. economy, say they’re not planning to cut fees.”
“It seems to me that they’re rather quick to implement charges (on checking extra bags and pillows) and fuel surcharges when prices go up, so we’d expect to see the same type of reaction when prices are going down,” said Michael Janigan, executive director of the Ottawa-based Public Interest Advocacy Centre.
“Most observers would feel that fuel is trading down, so it’s reasonable to expect that consumers should benefit from that.” He questioned whether carriers are now using the fuel surcharges – initially described as an industry lifeline – to boost profits,” Gazette’s Allison Lampert reported.
The next day Air Canada eliminated its second bag fee and folded its fuel surcharges into advertised fares and Westjet eliminated its fuel surcharge.

Option Consommateurs opens Ottawa office

(PIAC — 19/09/08)—Option Consommateurs opened an Ottawa office staffed by Ms Anu Bose on Sept. 18. Ms Bose holds a doctorate in Development Administration from the University of Birmingham (U.K). She has worked in India, Kazakhstan, Sri Lanka, Switzerland and the UK and spent a major part of her career in the not-for-profit and academic sectors. She will also be responsible for representing consumers’ interests on Parliament Hill.
Option Consommateurs is a Montreal-based not-for-profit association whose mission is to promote and defend the rights and interests of consumers and ensure that they are respected. It was founded in 1983. Option Consommateurs is involved in over thirty class-action suits. It has developed a special expertise in energy, agrifoods, financial services and commercial practices.
Option Consommateurs and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre work together on many projects including Public Interest News.

Bell Expressvu late fee: criminal

(PIAC — 19/09/08)—”The Ontario Superior Court of Justice sided with a class-action suit that claimed a $25 “administrative” fee charged to Bell ExpressVu customers who were more than two months late paying their bills amounted to a criminal rate of interest. The law in question prohibits annual interest rates in excess of 60 per cent and was originally intended to target loan sharks,” the Toronto Star reported on Sept. 17.
“I think the reason why you still have this going on is that there’s next to zero customer protection in federally regulated industries such as airlines and telecom,” PIAC’s John Lawford said in the report by the Star’s Chris Sorensen.
In a Canwest News Service story: Lawford said he ” fully expects the company to appeal the decision, but its challenge will be hampered by (Justice) Perell’s record. “Perell can pretty much write any book on any area of law he wants. In particular, he’s often looked at debt, credit and payment issues, so if the Court of Appeal works the way it should, this should be an unappealable judgment.”
“Lawford said the principle is simple: “It just comes down to companies can’t use legal trickery to try to explain charges away when they have the effect of interest,” Canwest’s Sarah Schmidt reported Sept. 17.
PIAC has begun a study on late fees and criminal rates of interest.

Voting rules: Homeless and Native people out in the cold

(PIAC — 19/09/08)—”People planning to vote in this fall’s federal election who don’t have the ID required under new rules may just have to sit it out. In November 2007, the British Columbia Public Interest Advocacy Centre filed a legal challenge with the B.C. Supreme Court against an amendment to the Canada Elections Act regarding voter identification,” Georgia Straight reported on Sept. 16.
“However, hearings are not expected to take place before the October 14 federal election. A paper prepared by (BC PIAC’s Jim) Quail cited estimates by former chief electoral officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley that five percent of voters would encounter problems with the new rules, the equivalent of 700,000 Canadians being unable to cast their ballots.
“I was hoping the election wasn’t going to come,” Quail said. “It means we’re not going to have the problem fixed in time for this election and this is very unfortunate,” the Straight’s Carlito Pablo wrote.

Cell Phones: Early-termination fees

(PIAC — 16/09/08)—“Michael Janigan, executive director of the Ottawa-based Public Interest Advocacy Centre, says the early-termination fees are effectively used to lock consumers into a host of obligations that bind them to their current Provider,” CBC News reported.
“Bell and Telus embark upon a public relations fiasco associated with text messages with impunity,” he said. “Why do they do that? Well, because they get people locked into all of these contracts and things.” Janigan says competition would be improved if cellphone providers were limited to one-year contracts, noting long-distance telephone competition has been successful because consumers can change providers in a frictionless swap,” the CBC’s Peter Nowak reported on Sept. 8.

Phone costs and service: No consumer voice in Cabinet

(PIAC — 16/09/08)—“Why has all this negative sentiment toward telecommuns companies come to a frothing boil over the past year? Consumer groups say it’s the result of a push by successive governments for deregulation. “Deregulation is giving carriers even more chutzpah than they normally have,” says the Public Interest Advocacy Centre’s John Lawford. “This is what you get. It’s the chickens coming home to roost,” CBC News reported.
“The Liberals started the ball rolling in 1995 when then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien abolished the cabinet position of Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The position’s duties were folded into the new position of Industry Minister. The Conservatives followed up by issuing a policy directive to the CRTC shortly after taking office in 2006 that effectively declawed the regulator. Then minister of industry Maxime Bernier told the CRTC to avoid regulating proactively.
“The Competition Bureau, meanwhile, has been loud and clear that it is against intervening in the market. “I believe that regulation should always be viewed, not as a first step, but as a last resort,” Competition Commissioner Sheridan Scott, a former Bell Canada executive, told the annual Telecom Summit in June.
The result today is that there is no consumer voice on a national level, Lawford says, which stands in stark contrast to the United States, where the Federal Trade Commission is a strong and well-respected rights protector. “There’s nobody at the cabinet table to say, ‘Just a minute, people are angry,’” he says. “Deregulation is all well and good but you have to make sure people don’t get trampled on the way,” CBC’s Peter Nowak reported on Sept. 8

Flyers’ bill of rights toothless: Consumers say

(PIAC — 16/09/08)—“Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon announced on (Sept. 5) a new airline passenger bill of rights, but said legislation or regulations aren’t necessary to ensure it’s enforced, because Canadian airlines are on board with the plan. If passengers are already on an aircraft when a delay longer than 90 minutes occurs, airlines have to let them disembark, according to the new Flight Rights Canada unveiled at the Ottawa airport. And if a flight is delayed more than four hours, airlines will have to give passengers a voucher for a free meal. Airlines also will be required to put customers up in hotels if a flight is postponed more than eight hours, and the delay is not weather-related,” Canwest News Service reported.
The bill of rights is silent on the question of airfare advertising, and does not include any minimum penalties if airlines don’t abide by the terms.
Michael Janigan, executive director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, says this latest initiative is full of holes. In addition to doing nothing to prevent misleading advertising, he said the passenger bill of rights doesn’t establish compensatory relief for being bumped because a flight is overbooked or cancelled, or for having to deal with lost baggage, as is the case in the U.S,” Canwest Sarah Schmidt reported on Sept. 6.

Former PIAC exec seeks seat in Canada’s 40th Parliament

(PIAC — 16/09/08)—“On the advice of the Prime Minister, the Governor General, by proclamation on Sept. 7, dissolved Parliament and gave instructions to issue writs of election. Oct. 14 has been set as the polling day and the writs of election are to be returned by Nov. 4. Elizabeth May is seeking election in the Central Nova riding. “Ms. May is a graduate of Dalhousie Law School and was admitted to the Bar in both Nova Scotia and Ontario. She has held the position of Associate General Counsel for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, representing consumer, poverty and environment groups in her work,” Globe and Mail Update reported Sept. 9

Big Biz Brother is watching: students

(PIAC — 16/09/08)—“Bill C-61, if passed and enforced, will mean ludicrous penalties for those who download and upload copyrighted material. People caught downloading music or video other.incs face fines up to $500. Uploading to a peer-to-peer network could result in lawsuits of $20,000 per file,” the Muse reported.
“This is very scary territory for Canada to be entering. In a healthy democracy, the private sector would not be responsible for surveilling and policing the public, yet this appears to be how the new law will work. Obviously, critics have described the Bill as anti-consumerist and pro-industry, for this and many other reasons. In fact, an astounding number of consumer advocacy groups, from Online Rights Canada to the Public Interest Advocacy Centre have vehemently opposed the Bill,” the Memorial University of Newfoundland student paper reported on Sept. 2.
“And, if you need another reason to dislike it, C-61 won’t just limit the leisure activities of students; it might also impact us in the classroom. Under the new legislation students and educators may only make one copy of digital course materials, and borrowing a CD from the library and copying it could mean a $500 fine.

Deregulation: Local telephone bills no lower

(PIAC — 16/09/08)—In April 2007 the federal government deregulated the local telephone industry. The government “promised the move would boost local phone competition and lower prices, but there has been little evidence of that, consumer groups say. In fact, Rogers raised its phone prices earlier this year while Telus was rebuked by the CRTC in April for introducing a new long-distance access fee to customers using call-around services such as Yak,” CBC News reported on Sept. 8

PIAC report on high-interest lending

(PIAC — 4/09/08)—The Public Interest Advocacy Centre will soon release a new report: “Not Ready for Prime Time”. The report which had been scheduled for release today, sets out some key findings of PIAC’s year-long research in the field of high-interest lending which includes payday loans and subprime mortgages. The report used focus group results in Edmonton, Toronto, and Vancouver to derive information concerning pay-day loan and sub-prime mortgage users.

Canadian Consumer Groups Release Copyright White Paper

(June 5, 2008, Ottawa, Ontario) Members of a large coalition of Canadian consumer advocates released an open letter today to Canada’s ministers responsible for Canadian copyright policy. This letter is concerning a White Paper on Canadian Consumer Copyright policy the groups have published. White Paper participants include Option consommateurs, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), and the grassroots digital activism organization, Online Rights Canada.
David Fewer, staff counsel for CIPPIC, explains the rationale behind the White Paper. “Industry Minister Jim Prentice has stated that the government’s copyright bill will balance the interests of copyright owners with those of consumers. Yet, astonishingly, the government has not consulted with a single consumer group to determine how to do this. We have decided to come forward on our own, then, with a vision of copyright that puts Canadians’ interests first.”
“This White Paper sets the standard against which any government copyright bill will be judged,” says John Lawford, a staff lawyer with PIAC. “We have therefore brought Canadian consumers’ views to the government.”
The consumer groups offering the Canadian Consumer Copyright White Paper are part of a larger coalition of consumer groups that have indicated that they will champion consumer interests in the coming debate over the proper scope of Canadian digital copyright laws.
For More Information, see:
The Canadian Consumers Copyright White Paper:
Canadian Consumers Copyright White Paper
About PIAC
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) is a non-profit organization that provides legal and research services on behalf of consumer interests, and, in particular, vulnerable consumer interests, concerning the provision of important public services.
For More Information, Contact:
PIAC
John Lawford
Staff Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre
Ph: (613)562-4002 x25
CIPPIC
David Fewer
Staff Counsel, Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic
Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa
Ph: (613)562-5800×2553

Canadian Copyright Law: A Consumer White Paper

CANADIAN COPYRIGHT LAW: A Consumer White Paper
Download File: consumers_copyright_white_paper_en.pdf [size: 0.08 mb]

Executive Summary Introduction

We are a coalition of consumer advocates. We have come together to advocate for copyright laws that serve the interests of Canada and of Canadians. Copyright law is designed to balance the interests of creators with the interests of the public. Copyright grants creators exclusive rights in their works as a reward for creativity that also serves as an incentive for the creation of new works. These rights are not absolute, but limited in nature, scope and time. These limits are essential to copyright’s greater design, for it is at the limits of copyright owners’ rights that important consumer interests come into play. From a consumer’s perspective, copyright’s current balance is far from perfect. In fact, many consumer dealings with copyrighted content – ordinary dealings, like copying digital music onto a portable device, or using the digital video recorders sold by cable companies – technically infringe copyright. In these and many other cases, the law is simply out of step with reality. Simple, uncontroversial amendments to the Copyright Act can fix many of these failings. Unfortunately, copyright policy makers are not focusing on consumer interests. Instead, recent proposals to amend the Copyright Act focus on expanding rights holder’s interests at Canadian consumer’s expense. We call on Canada’s law-makers to accommodate consumer interests in any revision to the Copyright Act currently under consideration. Additionally, we call on lawmakers to revise the Copyright Act to address important consumer concerns that are not yet under consideration at all.

Anti-Circumvention Laws

Canadian lawmaker’s push to bring Canada into line with the WIPO Internet Treaties could have very serious consequences for Canadian consumers. We believe that there is no reason to add anti-circumvention protection to Canadian copyright law. We believe this for several reasons:

1. No justification. The case had not been made that Canada needs anti-circumvention legislation. In fact, Canadian cultural industries are flourishing in the absence of anticircumvention legislation.
2. Redundant. Anti-circumvention legislation is redundant: copyright law already provides penalties for copyright infringement and there is no need for a second layer of protection that penalizes substantially the same behaviour as copyright;
3. DRM does not work. Technological tools like DRM do not work. Corporations invest millions of dollars into developing DRM systems that are broken within hours or days of being released.
4. Technological threats. Anti-circumvention laws do not improve on copyright law’s existing disincentives to infringe copyright. Anti-circumvention laws do, however, threaten other values that are important to consumers, such as competitive markets, privacy, and security. The U.S. anti-circumvention law (known as the DMCA) serves as a stark example of this and is a failure.
5. Anti-circumvention laws are government intervention. Our markets don’t need government intervention. Government should instead take a neutral stance, working to ensure a level competitive playing field that benefits consumers rather than privileging particular business models.

If Canadian lawmakers choose to legislate anti-circumvention laws, they must take great care to minimize the negative impact those laws will have on Canadians. We believe that any Canadian anti-circumvention law must respect the following conditions:

1. No new “access” right. Laws should tie circumvention liability to an intent to infringe copyright; Canadians should not be liable for accessing content and should enjoy an unfettered right to do so.
2. Non-infringing circumvention. Consumers should be allowed to circumvent technological measures, like DRM, providing that their access to the underlying content does not infringe copyright.
3. Legal tools, devices and services. Anti-circumvention legislation should not prevent people from developing, selling and using tools, devices and services for circumventing technological measures for legal reasons.
4. Protect legitimate expectations. Laws should preserve rights and expectations that consumers have under copyright, such as the right to make copies and backups of works that they own.
5. Protect privacy. Anti-circumvention laws should not protect technologies that do not respect privacy rights. Consumers should retain the right to enjoy works privately and access to content must not be conditional on the surrender of consumer privacy.
6. Do not protect spyware. Removing unwanted and illegal technology such as spyware should not be a violation of anti-circumvention laws.
7. Protect the public domain. It should always be legal to circumvent DRM in order to access works that are no longer protected by copyright and exist in the public domain.
8. Prohibit misuse. Any Canadian anti-circumvention law should be balanced by the creation of specific competitive protections for Canadians and the creation of liability for “copyright misuse.”

Copyright Reform

In addition to the threat posed by anti-circumvention laws, here are many facets of copyright law that run counter to the interests of Canadian consumers and do not reflect the realities of the Canadian marketplace. Canada needs to bring current copyright law into step with the ways consumers use copyrighted materials. Here are our recommendations:

1. Clarify the legality of time, space, and format shifting. Copyright laws that outlaw these practices threaten consumers and are out of step with today’s marketplace and with reasonable consumer practices.
2. Fix fair dealing. Expand fair dealing rights to include other uses of content like parody, digital sampling and other transformative uses. Subsume the requirement to provide the source and author when a work is used for purposes of criticism, review, or news summary into the general fairness analysis.
3. Legalize back-ups. Protect consumers’ right to protect their investments by making back-up copies of legal, purchased content.
4. Protect the public domain. Reduce copyright terms, or keep them to the minimum needed to meet Canada’s international obligations.
5. Rationalize statutory damages. Require plaintiffs to prove damages against consumers, public institutions, museums, libraries, archives, schools, colleges and universities. Restrict the application of statutory damages to cases of commercial infringement, where they are warranted and actually serve the public interest.
6. Abolish crown copyright. The public should enjoy free and unrestricted access to works produced with public funds.
7. Consumer commissioned photographs. Copyright ownership of commissioned photographs should stay in consumers’ hands. Doing otherwise frustrates consumers’ legitimate expectations.
8. Protect copyright and consumers against unfair terms. Restrict rights holders’ ability to undermine copyright’s public policy objectives through the use of contractual terms that limit consumers’ rights, including the ability to undertake security, interoperability and reverse engineering research, to make reasonable use of content (time-shifting, space-shifting), to make private copies for personal use, and to re-sell content.
9. Preserve consumers’ digital rights. The Copyright Act affords rights-holders only limited rights. It has never been an infringement of copyright law for a consumer to simply read a book, or to listen to music in the privacy of one’s own home. By the same token, ephemeral electronic copies, or “RAM copies”, should be treated the same way.
10. Monetize P2P. Efforts to shut down peer to peer networks have failed. We should find ways to transform P2P networks into legitimate music distribution and compensation vehicles to benefit Canadian music creators and their fans. It is time the Canadian government showed some leadership and undertook active study of this option.

Conclusion

We are concerned that proposals to change Canada’s copyright laws do not represent the interests of Canadian consumers. These proposed changes remove many rights that consumers have traditionally enjoyed and fail to address obvious changes that would benefit consumers and creators. We are advocating on behalf of consumers for laws that do three things:

1. Do No Harm. Changes to Canada’s copyright laws must be guided by this principle. We must not enact changes that harm consumer welfare and threaten education, freedom of expression, privacy and security. We do not want laws that harm small business, stifle innovation, or that cost Canadians millions of dollars.
2. Laws Based on Reality, Not Rhetoric. The Canadian government must consult experts on education, security, privacy, small business, and consumer groups before enacting legislation. Our copyright laws should be based on the facts, not on rhetoric.
3. Canadian Law Must Serve Canadians. Statistics Canada reports that our copyright royalty deficit – the amount of royalties generated by Canadians abroad compared with royalties earned by foreign performers in Canada – has grown dramatically in recent years. For every $1 earned by Canadian performers outside the country, $5 flows out of the country. Proposals for longer and stronger copyright will increase the flow of dollars out of Canada, rather than foster Canadian creativity. It is important that we address this trade imbalance and focus on the needs of Canadian creators and consumers rather than the self-interested demands of a limited group of rights holders. Where changes to copyright laws are needed, Canada must adopt laws that serve Canadian interests first. Pressure from American interests and proposals must be rejected.

Letter to Ministers of Industry and Heritage Regarding Copyright Policy

Members of a large coalition of Canadian consumer advocates released an open letter today to Canada’s ministers responsible for Canadian copyright policy. This letter is concerning a White Paper on Canadian Consumer Copyright policy the groups have published. White Paper participants include Option consommateurs, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), and the grassroots digital activism organization, Online Rights Canada.
Full text of the letter:

Letter to Ministers of Industry and Heritage Regarding Copyright Policy
Download File:consumers_copyright_lt_ministers_2008june5_final.pdf[size: 0.02 mb]

Media Release: Canadian Consumer Groups Call for Copyright Laws that Put Canada First

(June 5, 2008, Ottawa, Ontario) A coalition of Canadian consumer advocates has released an open letter to Canada’s ministers responsible for Canadian copyright policy calling on the Canadian government to ensure that any changes to Canada’s copyright laws put Canadian consumers first. The coalition of leading consumer groups, representing thousands of Canadian consumers, includes Union des consommateurs, Option consommateurs, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), the Consumers Council of Canada, the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), and the grassroots digital activism organization, Online Rights Canada.
The consumer coalition has released the open letter in response to indications that the Conservative government is preparing to introduce legislation that will significantly alter the contours of Canada’s copyright laws. Industry Minister Jim Prentice has promised that the bill will represent the interests of consumers. Astonishingly, he has not consulted with a single consumer group to determine how to do this.
“We are troubled that the Canadian government has not consulted with Canadian consumers before now,” says John Lawford, a lawyer with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. “We have therefore brought Canadian consumers’ views to the government. Copyright policy is consumer policy.”
David Fewer, staff counsel with CIPPIC, notes that in sharp contrast to its treatment of Canadian consumers, the government has consulted extensively with American government trade representatives and entertainment industry lobbyists. “Copyright consultations would have provided an excellent opportunity to identify ways that our copyright laws could advance Canadian interests. Instead, we are likely to see a bill that panders to foreign interests at the expense of Canadian consumers. This is all the more startling given the broad consensus that has emerged among consumer groups, business groups such as the Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright, and creator groups such as the Canadian Music Creators Coalition (CMCC) and the Documentary Organisation of Canada (DOC).”
The consumer coalition promises to be active before Parliament on the introduction of the bill. “It’s not too late,” says Lawford. “This bill offers an opportunity to craft a made-in-Canada approach to digital copyright issues. It is not in Canada’s interests to import the inflexible approaches to digital copyright embraced in other jurisdictions, such as the United States.”
For More Information, see:
The Canadian Consumers Coalition letter to Minister Prentice and Minister Verner:
Canadian Consumers Coalition letter to Minister Prentice and Minister Verner
About PIAC
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) is a non-profit organization that provides legal and research services on behalf of consumer interests, and, in particular, vulnerable consumer interests, concerning the provision of important public services.
For More Information, Contact:
PIAC
John Lawford
Staff Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre
Ph: (613)562-4002 x25
CIPPIC
David Fewer
Staff Counsel, Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic
Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa
Ph: (613)562-5800×2553

Process for the Nomination and Selection of Consumer Group Directors of the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services (CCTS)

(Veuillez cliquer ici pour lire la version française [pdf file: 0.03mb](Processus de mise en candidature et de sélection des directeurs du Commissaire aux plaintes relatives aux services de télécommunications (CPRST) nommés par les groupes de consommateurs) )
(English version in PDF [pdf file: 0.03mb](Process for the Nomination and Selection of Consumer Group Directors of the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services (CCTS)) )
March 11, 2008
Background
The Telecommunications Policy Review Panel, Final Report 2006 recommended the creation of an independent ombudsman for telecommunications services (including landline telephone, cellphone and Internet services). The Governor in Council responded to this recommendation and issued Order requiring the CRTC to report to the Governor in Council on consumer complaints, Order in Council P.C. 2007-533, 4 April 2007 (the Order). The Order stated that all telecommunications service providers (TSPs) should participate in and contribute to the financing of an independent telecommunications consumer agency that would, among other things, resolve complaints from individual and small business retail customers. The Order also stated that the consumer agency should be an integral component of a deregulated telecommunications market. In addition, the Order stated that the consumer agency’s structure and mandate would be approved by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).
In CRTC Telecom Decision 2007-130, Establishment of an independent telecommunications consumer agency (20 December 2007), the CRTC ordered Canada’s major telephone, cellphone and Internet services providers to create such a complaints body.
In that Decision, the CRTC required the member telephone, cellphone and Internet companies to permit two directors on their Board to be chosen from those nominated by Canadian “consumer groups”. The direction of the Commission, found at para. 50 of the Decision, reads as follows:
50. [. . .] The Commission notes, however, that there is currently no process in place for the nomination and appointment of the two consumer-group-appointed directors. The Commission considers that the Consumer Groups active in this proceeding should establish a transparent process for the nomination and appointment of the consumer-group-appointed directors. [Emphasis added.]
Therefore, the CRTC expects Canadian consumer groups to self-identify and self-organize this transparent process to elect the two consumer group directors contemplated by the decision. This document describes how the consumer groups that will choose the directors are identified, how they will vote for directors and what the duties of those two directors will be.
What is a “consumer group” for the purposes of the CCTS Scheme?
Decision 2007-130 requires the consumer-group-appointed directors to be appointed through a “transparent” process by Canadian “consumer groups” – a term that is not defined by the CRTC. However, the CRTC tasked the Consumer Groups that made submissions in the Telecom Public Notice 2007-16 (the proceeding leading to Decision 2007-130) with identifying and notifying other “consumer groups” who might have an interest in appointing consumer directors to CCTS.
The CRTC also asked the Consumer Groups to outline and set up the transparent consumer group appointed director nomination and selection procedure but to ensure that the other “consumer groups” identified also have the chance to nominate and vote for consumer group directors.
The present document defines “consumer group” and principles for selection of a “consumer representative”, based on those established by the Commonwealth Consumer Affairs Advisory Council of Australia and used by the consumer groups that select consumer group members of the Australian Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) Council. The definition and principles are also informed by Consumers International’s definition of a consumer group.
‘“Consumer group” for the purpose of the CCTS consumer-group-appointed director nomination and selection process is a group (not an individual):
(a)whose mission includes advancing the interests of consumers (or of a particular class of consumers);
(b)that, due to its activities, membership or other relevant factors is publicly recognized as playing a legitimate role in advancing the interests of consumers; and
(c)that is not-for-profit, non-partisan, independent of government and industry, and that receives no sponsorship or financial support from any commercial interest that is directed to a telecommunications objective of the donor or recipient, and that does not receive significant general or charitable support from any corporation.
If there is any question of whether a group so qualifies, a majority of the Consumer Groups (who participated in PN 2007-16) shall determine the matter. After the determination of the first full list of “consumer groups” for the purposes of the first election of consumer group directors, the power of determining if the definition of “consumer group” is met in the future shall fall to the then members of the consumer groups by a simple majority vote.
Qualifications of Nominees
Once qualified consumer groups are selected, qualified nominees must be nominated in accordance with the process detailed below. Appointments must be made on merit. However, in order to stand as a nominee, nominees further must demonstrate the following:
-expertise in consumer affairs;
-links to relevant consumer organizations;
-capacity and willingness to consult with relevant consumer organizations;
-knowledge of, or the ability to acquire knowledge of, telecom related consumer issues.
Process for Nomination
A. Voting consumer group members
In order to invite and qualify the “consumer groups” mentioned above into the nomination and election process, the Consumer Groups presently are undertaking the following steps::
1.All “Consumer Groups” who participated in PN 2007-16 are being made aware of the requirements of Decision 2007-130 and the opportunity to take the role of Consumer Group founders of the nomination and election process.
2.All consumer groups that participated in any CRTC proceedings in the last 3 years have been identified by the CRTC and are being contacted by the Consumer Groups;
3.Any other consumer group that responds to this public invitation by March 25, 2008, and has the qualifications of “consumer group” noted above is being solicited to join the initial identified voting consumer groups by posting of this notice on the public websites of the Consumer Groups.
Once this group of voting consumer groups is closed (March 28, 2008) it will be closed for the period of the election but new members may join in the future for future elections.
B. Nomination by voting members:
Once the voting consumer groups are selected, they may nominate one candidate for consumer group director of the CCTS by
1.Each voting member may nominate one candidate.
2.Each voting member is required to do an initial vetting of the candidate for interest, availability, accommodation issues and qualification for the position (consumer or other public interest experience).
3.Each voting member nominating must provide a short biography of the candidate with the nomination.
A complete slate of candidates will be compiled from these nominations and circulated the week of March 31, 2008. The voting consumer groups will determine whether the nominees meet the nomination qualifications above. Any objection by a consumer group to the admissibility of a nominee will be decided by voting consumer groups by way of a simple majority vote by the end of the week of March 31, that is 4 April 2008.
C. Voting:
The final voting process for candidates will take place, via electronic mail, on Wednesday, April 9, 2008. Any run-off voting as required would take place April 14, 2008. Voting will proceed as follows:
1.Each voting member consumer group may make up to three selections. Candidate ranked number 1 gets 5 points, ranked number 2 gets 3 points, number 3 gets one point.
2.Winners are the two with the most points. If there is a tie for second, or a three-way or more tie for first or second, then there will be a run-off election with one vote per group per position not yet decided.
3.CRTC staff will take the votes by e-mail at the address: philippe.kent@crtc.gc.ca.
4.CRTC will inform the voting consumer groups of the successful candidate.
5.The consumer group that proposed the successful nominee will then immediately advise the candidate and ensure that the candidate is content with taking the position.
6.If a successful candidate refuses to serve after election, the second (or third) placed candidate and so on will be acclaimed as director.
7.Any future election shall follow the timetable set by the CCTS Board according to the above rules or such other rules as the voting consumer groups may from time to time determine.
Timeline
March 10th and 17th week: posting on websites inviting nominations and applications for voting status
Mar. 25th: closing of applications for consumer group voting status;
March 28th: decision on voting organizations; send list to voting members (and CRTC and CCTS) of candidates with biographies and list of voting organizations to all voting organizations
March 31st week: Nominations and closing of nominations (closing deadline: April 3rd)
April 9, 2008: Voting Apr. 9th; April 10th votes tallied
April 14th: run-off voting as required
April 15th:: name directors (and terms – if different, longer term goes to person with higher number of point in the vote(s))

Other than the initial posting, the communications of this process will occur via email.[FN 1] These two consumer group directors are classified by the constating documents of the CCTS as part of the four “independent director” positions. There are three “industry directors” appointed by the CCTS member companies. The remaining two “other independent directors” are chosen through a separate process described in the CCTS constating documents as modified by Decision 2007-130.
[FN 2] In Decision 2007-130, the CRTC used the term “Consumer Groups” (Capitalized Title Case) to identify those consumer groups that made actual submissions in PN 2007-16 and that self-identified as representing the consumer interest. This distinction is retained for the purposes of this document. Those groups are: The Public Interest Advocacy Centre as counsel for the National Anti-Poverty Organization and the Consumers’ Council of Canada, the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, L’Union des consommateurs, the ARCH Disability Law Centre (ARCH), the Canadian Association of the Deaf, the British Columbia Public Interest Advocacy Centre for BCOAPO.
For more information or to apply for consumer group status, please contact:
John Lawford
Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, Ontario
K1N 7B7
(613) 562-4002×25
(613) 562-0007 (Fax)
jlawford@piac.ca

Mobile Commerce: Making it Work for Canadians

This report focuses on use of mobile phones for Internet commercial transactions and point of sale (POS) mobile payments or m-Commerce, as the fastest growing area of e-Commerce. It does not limit itself to the state of m-commerce in Canada exclusively. In order to obtain a close reliable picture of how Canadian consumers fare in the context of m-Commerce, intensive use of international available data has been made. Due to the inherently global nature of the mobile Internet, cross-reference with mobile telecommunications indicators in the context of the OECD, and even some emerging economies, were imperative to properly assess what Canadian mobile Internet consumers should expect in terms of affordability, availability and quality, and where do they stand with respect to the industry.
Read the Report:

Mobile Commerce: Making it Work for Canadians
Download File: piac_mobile_commerce_final.pdf [size: 0.63 mb]

Public Interest News: July – November 2007

Telecommunications Consumer Agency: CRTC hearings Nov. 14

(PIAC – 12/11/07)—On Nov. 14 the CRTC will begin hearings on a telcom consumer protection agency. PIAC will bring the consumer perspective including a critique of the plan for an ombudsman put forward by the industry in July. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre will base its arguments on Cabinet Order P.C. 2007-0533 and the Telecommunications Policy Review Panel – Final Report 2006. PIAC Counsel John Lawford will be making the case.

PIPEDA: If they lose your personal data they should tell you

(PIAC – 12/11/07)—“The federal government says banks, retailers and other businesses should decide whether to tell Canadians they’ve suffered a security breach, a decision some privacy advocates say is “backwards” and may keep Canadians in the dark when their personal information has been lost or stolen,” CanWest News Service reported on Nov. 5.
“I think we have a real problem here,” said John Lawford, counsel for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. “They got it backwards.” Lawford said the problem is that it’s difficult and risky for companies who have a vested interest in avoiding negative publicity and scaring customers, to impartially determine when a security breach might represent a significant public threat. “They’re not in a position to decide that,” CanWest’s Carly Weeks wrote.
PIAC wants a requirement for timely notification of any loss of personal information. PIAC is a party to Industry Canada’s review of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. The review is scheduled to conclude in January.

PIAC Annual Dinner: Nov. 16

(PIAC – 12/11/07)—PIAC – 12/11/07)—PIAC’s Annual Dinner will featured guest Mark Lloyd speaking to: “Does a Free Market Guarantee an Informed Public?”. Mr. Lloyd is Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress, and author of Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy In America. The event will be held Friday Nov. 16, 2007 at 6:00 PM at Yangtze Restaurant in Ottawa.
The fundraising event charges $50.00 a ticket. THE PUBLIC INTEREST ADVOCACY CENTRE – LE CENTRE POUR LA DÉFENSE DE L’INTÉRET PUBLIQUE is a registered charity BN: 130592405RR0001. Tax deductible donations can be made at:
http://www.piac.ca/information

Telus invents new $2.95 fee

(PIAC – 12/11/07)—The Vancouver Sun reported on Nov. 2 that Telus customers who don’t have a Telus long-distance plan may soon see a new $2.95 charge on their monthly phone bills.
“Patricia MacDonald, staff lawyer at the B.C. Public Interest Advocacy Centre calls the new charge “anti-competitive.” “I would hope that the [Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission] would take a very close look at this because it is definitely an anti-competitive measure,” MacDonald said. “It’s a move by Telus to actually punish consumers that aren’t using their long distance product . . . by putting an additional charge on their local service,” the Sun’s Fiona Anderson reported.

ID theft insurance for us, Data breach insurance for them

(PIAC – 12/11/07)—“Identity theft policies, first offered in the U.S. around 2000, have been introduced by many Canadian insurers in the last couple of years. Usually available as $25 to $50 add-ons to home or apartment insurance, they typically cover the cost of dealing with the bureaucratic problems that ensue,” the Globe and Mail reported on Nov. 1.
“Some critics have taken issue with the effectiveness of identity theft policies. In March of this year, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre in Ottawa studied the offerings and deemed them “flawed” because most financial losses are covered by the financial institutions so insurance is superfluous, and the coverage for time off work and legal assistance is usually capped at low levels,” the Globe’s Joanna Pachner wrote.
“As well, the study notes that most identity theft victims do not actually need full legal defence services. “Corporations may be the real parties in need of identity theft insurance, in the form of data breach insurance,” the writers conclude. Such insurance might encourage corporations to institute best practices for information handling,” the Globe reported.

Transport Canada transfers passenger safety to airlines

(PIAC – 12/11/07)—On Oct. 29 the government announced the reintroduction of former Bill C-6, reinstating it at third reading in the House. The bill takes the onus for air safety off Transport Canada by making the airlines adopt “Safety Management Systems”.
PIAC helped win whistle-blower protection during the committee stage of C-6 but remains opposed to the legislation.
“Transport Canada wants out of the air safety business. C-6 does it for them by effectively leaving safety up to the airlines,” says Michael Janigan, PIAC Executive Director and General Counsel.
“Transport Canada mandated SMS regimes at BC Ferries and CN Rail do not inspire confidence,” Janigan said.

Access to info: PCO apology to CP reporter

(PIAC – 31/10/07)—The Privy Council Office apologized to Canadian Press reporter Jim Bronskill for violating his privacy rights by not blacking out his name in an access to information request release which contained a record of government officials discussing access to information requests.
But the PCO made no apologies for its management of the access to information system.
“Scott White, editor-in-chief of The Canadian Press, said public servants and political aides shouldn’t be asking questions about requesters or their motives. There shouldn’t be any strategy on their part about how and why information is released. Either it can be released under the access rules or it can’t. Who is asking the question should be irrelevant,” CP reported on Oct. 29.

Finance Minister pushes for consumer benefit from Canadian dollar

(PIAC – 31/10/07)—Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is threatening to get tough with retailers if they don’t pass on the benefit of the high Canadian dollar to consumers. But an Oct. 23 Globe and Mail report suggests the benefits might be a long time coming.
“It’s the second time in a year that Mr. Flaherty has used his office to direct the harsh klieg light of public attention on what he considers a shortcoming in the free market,” the Globe’s Steven Chase wrote.
“Last December, at the prompting of the NDP, he went after big banks over excessive service charges: in particular, fees charged for interbank machine transactions. That campaign spanned four months, ending with spring of 2007 announcements from some banks that Mr. Flaherty embraced as results. But consumer advocates say he failed to extract much, particularly in light of the fact the Big Six banks posted combined profits of $19-billion in their latest fiscal year. John Lawford, a lawyer at the Public Interest Advocacy Centre in Ottawa, said Mr. Flaherty gets an A for effort but as low as a D for achievement,” the Globe reported.

Re-regulate Cable: PIAC on Broadcasting Distribution Undertakings

(PIAC – 31/10/07)—The CRTC is considering changing the regulations for Broadcasting Distribution Undertakings (BDUs) for Cable and satellite carriers that ensure the provision of Canadian content, local community programming and mandatory carriage.
In written comments filed with the CRTC on Oct. 19, PIAC stated that broadcasting objectives can’t be fulfilled without access and affordability. Over 4 million over-the-air TV viewers will lose access in 2011 with the end of analogue broadcasting. PIAC wants basic cable service be re-regulated in the same way that basic local telephony is regulated—with a price ceiling.
PIAC called for a broadcasting consumer protection agency similar to the one contemplated by the CRTC for the telecommunications sector (Telecom PN 2007-16). The brief noted the financial strength of the sector. It reminded the Commission the airwaves are public space with the Broadcasting Act setting the national interest and sovereignty as priority objectives. The brief was written by PIAC staff.

Lawful Access 3: PIAC Comments on “Customer Name and Address Information Consultation”

(PIAC – 18/10/07)—PIAC today filed comments on the Government’s “Customer Name and Address Information Consultation” Document, otherwise known as “Lawful Access”, that is, the proposal to give police and government the power to intercept certain information from telecommunications providers such as Internet Service Providers and telephone companies.
The initiative appears to consider allowing government to ask for certain information about, for example, personal e-mails and web surfing habits. Certain possible “safeguards” are proposed but none is subject to the level of public scrutiny that one would expect in Canada, according to PIAC, and it appears judges will have either no role or only a limited one in deciding what the government and police may demand from telecommunications companies. The comments were written by John Lawford, PIAC Counsel.

Federal legislation to tackle identity thieves

(PIAC – 18/10/07)—“The Conservative government will introduce legislation this fall aimed at catching identity thieves before they attack the bank accounts of Canadians,” the Globe and Mail reported on Oct. 3.
Current offences are focused solely on the misuse of stolen identities through fraud, impersonation or forgery. [Justice Minister Rob] Nicholson said his bill will extend the law to include the collecting, possessing and trafficking of identity information,” the Globe’s Bill Curry wrote.
“John Lawford, legal counsel for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, said the over collecting of personal consumer information is the main problem that should be addressed by lawmakers. He said that inspired by the profits that can be made by selling customer lists, companies are overly eager to gather information, but fail to properly protect the data. He wants the law changed so that companies are forced to tell the public when their databases have been breached,” the Globe reported.

Public Interest News
October 12, 2007

PIAC testimony on wholesale access to phone networks

(PIAC – 12/10/07)—“The focus should not be just on what is economically feasible for incumbents and competitors but what is necessary to protect consumers from dominant players or a cozy duopoly between the incumbent telephone and cable companies,” said Michael Janigan, PIAC executive director and general counsel.
“Wholesale services are the fees that small phone companies pay their larger rivals for use of various parts of their network,” the Globe and Mail reported on Oct. 7. The “$3.3-billion wholesale market” features smaller telecoms like “Manitoba Telecom Services Inc., and hydro firms in the phone business,” the Globe’s Catherine McLean wrote.
“With the CRTC’s decisions this summer that competitive local phone services exist in most major centres the commission should take a breather and monitor the behaviour of the big players like Bell and Telus. If, as we fear, Bell and Telus are using deregulation to lock up the markets they dominate then it would be a mistake to leave access decisions to Bell and Telus,” Janigan said.
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission hearings on whether wholesale access to phone networks should be regulated started Oct. 9. PIAC will be testifying.

CRTC serves up more breaks for big telecoms: No Win-Back Rules

(PIAC – 12/10/07)—“Hoping to spur competition and inspire efficiency and lower prices, the CRTC has eliminated the last of the “win-back” rules that limited how aggressively cable and telephone companies could try to woo customers who left for alternative communications services,” the National Post reported on Oct. 6.
“The commission considers that the elimination of the remaining win-back rules will further encourage competition. This in turn can contribute to the affordability of service by putting downward pressure on subscription rates,” the Post’s Barbara Shecter wrote.
“Other analysts were not convinced that lower prices on individual telecommunications services will result. Customers are more likely to be offered a certain number of months of free service, a discount on a bundle, ‘’or whatever special offer they can come up with to recapture defectors” the Post quoted Kaan Yigit, of Solutions Research Group Consultants.
In the short-term, analysts agreed that yesterday’s removal of restrictions on incumbent phone and cable companies could marginalize a small number of independent Internet service providers. “There is no way to compete with the discount bundle offers of larger telcos or cablecos, unless you are a real niche player, geographically or otherwise,” the Post reported.

Data breach winners, TJX: Losers, Consumers

(PIAC – 12/10/07)—“Retail giant TJX Cos. should have foreseen and prevented a massive security breach this year because it collected too much customer information without adequate safeguards, says the critical conclusion of a months-long investigation by the federal and Albertan privacy commissioners,” CanWest News reported on Sept. 26.
“The investigation was launched earlier this year to determine how TJX, the parent company of Winners and HomeSense retail stores, lost credit and debit card information for more than 45 million customers,” CanWest’s Carly Weeks wrote.
No penalties were assessed but TJX agreed to implement the commissioners’ recommendations including better encryption. In a U.S. class action settlement announced the same day, TJX agreed to provide claimants with $30 to $60 vouchers, credit counselling and customer appreciation days.

OEB acts against the public interest

(PIAC – 12/10/07) — “Over the last two decades, governments and regulators, in Canada and in most of the developed world, have moved to replace state regulation of important public utilities, like telecommunications, energy and airline transportation, with competition whenever there has been an opportunity to do so,” Michael Janigan, PIAC executive director and general counsel wrote in a Sept. 24 Straight Goods column.
“The proponents of this change (usually the utilities themselves) have persuaded many governments to favour by statute, market forces over regulation as the preferred choice for providing consumer protection. But what happens when such a choice does not benefit consumers but actually costs them over a billion dollars more over 10 years?”
“This is the choice that the Ontario Energy Board has recently made in deciding that the natural gas storage market is competitive. Industrial and residential consumer groups have filed petitions to review the OEB decision, and these are already in the hands of the McGuinty cabinet. The Ontario government must decide if it is in the public interest, or even in accordance with competition principles, to charge Union customers an additional $100 million dollars per year with no offsetting benefits. Whatever the current trends in utility regulation, it seems reasonable that customers should always get what they have already paid for,” the consumers’ rights web site reported.

System Access Fees: $6.95 a month (Telus) $8.95 (Bell Mobility) for what?

(PIAC – 12/10/07)—“A Saskatchewan court is allowing a class-action lawsuit to proceed against Canadian cell phone companies. The suit alleges we’ve all been paying too much for phone service through unfair system access fees,” CTV News reported on Sept. 19.
A Toronto Star story the next day said: “At issue is whether Canada’s cellphone providers have misled monthly subscribers by implying that so-called “system access” or “licensing” fees are somehow required by federal regulators.”
“If it takes a class action to curb these kinds of practices, so be it. You can find parallels in other industries where fees are creeping up that have no particular merit, aside from padding the sellers’ pocket” PIAC’s Michael Janigan told the Star’s Chris Sorensen and Tyler Hamilton.
PIAC argues the CRTC should be more aggressive in protecting consumers from unfair practices like the system access fees which generate close to a billion dollars a year in revenues.
PIAC counsel John Lawford told CTV’s David Akin: “It’s an easy way to raise money without having to justify it in terms of the service that you’re offering. It’s just one of those fees that we have to charge, and that’s often the way it’s justified, we have to charge it. It’s not necessarily the case.”

CRTC denies Bell phone deregulation of small town Ontario and Quebec

(PIAC – 12/10/07)—On Sept. 11 the CRTC nixed Bell’s plan to deregulate 56 of 58 local phone markets. “The CRTC said the 56 markets are not competitive enough, so Bell will continue to have its services regulated,” CBC News reported.
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre called for a delay to any deregulation until a proper consumer ombudsman could be established. Critics also said there was no guarantee that phone companies would lower prices, while the risk of actual increases was real. No major phone company has yet to announce it is lowering prices,” CBC reported.

Deregulation “mutual deterrence” factor will prevent price wars: Telus CFO

(PIAC – 12/10/07) —“The CFO of Telus Corp. Robert McFarlane, said deregulation is a positive for the industry because it creates a rational free marketplace that could actually permit price increases,” Canadian Press reported on Sept. 11.
“If a rival targets a major “incumbent” company with low pricing, it does so knowing the established company will immediately be able to match that offer. ‘It’s almost like mutual deterrence,’ McFarlane said, of potential price-cut wars,” CP’s Laura Bobak wrote.
“”Telephone services are going the way of banking services – any discounts will be for big customers and the competition will not be strong enough to produce real benefits for ordinary consumers,” said Janigan, whose group represents a non-profit group of organizations representing pensioners, the disabled and rural residents. The view has been echoed by one telecom company – Vonage Canada.” CP reported.

Canada develops guide to help stop data leaks

(PIAC – 12/10/07)—Business Insurance reported new guidelines issued by Canada’s federal privacy commissioner on Aug. 1, resulted from a five-year review of Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.
“The most controversial aspect of the guidelines is the absence of mandatory notification of consumers in all instances of a data breach, observers say. Data breaches should be considered on a case-by-case basis with the key consideration being whether notification is necessary to avoid or mitigate harm to an individual whose personal information has been inappropriately accessed, collected, used or disclosed, according to the guidelines. For example, if a company laptop containing encrypted information were to be lost or stolen and subsequently recovered but the information had not been tampered with, notification may not be necessary,” Business Insurance’s Gloria Gonzalez wrote on Aug. 27.
“The Public Interest Advocacy Centre, for example, expressed concern that notification was left to a company’s discretion, arguing that companies are not in a good position to judge potential harm to their customers and that their commercial interests could factor into notification decisions, said John Lawford, counsel for the Ottawa-based consumer group. Widespread compliance could stem the movement toward mandated breach notification, which [Privacy Commissioner Jennifer] Stoddart, several legislators and consumer groups that include PIAC are still promoting, privacy experts say,” the U.S. publication reported.

PUBLIC INTEREST NEWS
September 5, 2007

A month after dereg: No signs of local phone service savings

(PIAC – 5/9/07)—On Aug. 3 the CRTC deregulated local phone service in Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa-Gatineau, Toronto, Hamilton, London, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver and Victoria.
CBC News reported: “Competition in the local phone market is going to heat up, and consumers can look forward to new and innovative service offerings becoming available from Bell in the near future,” said Kevin Crull, Bell’s president of residential services.”
“We will have opportunities to simplify our pricing structure and develop new and innovative services and promotions that cross all of our lines of business,” CBC News quoted Kelvin Shepherd, president of the consumer markets division at MTS Allstream.
“Telephone services are going the way of banking services — any discounts will be for big customers and the competition will not be strong enough to produce real benefits for ordinary consumers” said Michael Janigan, executive director and general counsel of the Ottawa-based PIAC”: CBC reported.
On Sept. 3 the Globe and Mail reported: “It’s a month since the former telephone monopolies gained the right to set rates for local phone service themselves, but you wouldn’t know it if you dropped by a Bell Canada store or visited Telus Corp.’s website in search of a big bargain.
A Bell Canada brochure in a Toronto outlet, for example, advertises home phone service prices that it says are regulated by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), even though that is no longer the case. As for Telus, its Alberta website says the price for home phone starts at $23.34, no difference from before the regulatory shackles came off,” the Globe’s Catherine McLean wrote.

Income Trusts: A challenge to regulators

(PIAC – 5/9/07) —On Aug. 16 PIAC released a new report on Income Trusts. While supporting, in principle, the Conservative government’s introduction of a tax intended to place income trusts units and corporate shareholdings on an even footing, the report notes several shortcomings in the tax policy process and the governance of trusts
John Lawford, PIAC legal counsel and co-author of the report, notes: “Tax policy reform is needed before the next major taxation controversy erupts. Investor protection and the taxpayer voice are sorely lacking – but obviously are needed – well before immense corporate investments make changing tax policy expensive to individuals and companies alike.”
The report includes a history and function of the income trust and chronicles the tax policy questions, including the ongoing dispute about the size of the “tax leakage” caused by the income trusts question.
The report calls for changes to equalize the position of shareholders and trust unit holders in terms of rights and criticizes the general lack of transparency in tax policy-making and the seeming reluctance on the part of the federal government to release information on tax policy-making under the Access to Information Act.
The 83-page report was co-authored by PIAC’s Amanda Tait.

McGuinty asked to nix OEB billion-dollar gift

(PIAC – 5/9/07)— On Aug. 13 the Vulnerable Energy Consumers Coalition asked the McGuinty government to overturn an Ontario Energy Board (OEB) decision allowing Union Gas’s Texas-based owners, Spectra Energy (formerly Duke Energy) to pocket an estimated billion dollars over a ten year period that would otherwise have gone to Union Gas Customers.
“The Ontario government must tell Union’s customers why it’s necessary to give a billion dollars of Ontario consumer money to Spectra when that money has been obtained by the use of storage facilities that the customers already built for Union with their rates”, said PIAC’s Michael Janigan who represents VECC. “This money belongs to customers. Sending it to Texas won’t help build any new storage, and won’t save any energy in this province”.
Other major natural gas consumer groups have also appealed the controversial OEB decision including the Industrial Gas Users Association (IGUA) and the Consumers Council of Canada (CCC)
“Union Gas Ltd., owned by Houston-based Spectra Energy Corp., is the largest natural gas storage provider in Ontario, controlling 63 per cent of the market through 20 underground gas-storage pools throughout southwestern Ontario. It fills the pools with natural gas in the summer, or when gas is cheap, so it can draw on those reserves when heating demands are high in the winter,” the Toronto Star reported on June 28.
“But Union Gas only needs two-thirds of that storage for its own operations, so in the past it has sold the surplus to other natural gas distributors and marketers at a regulated rate. Before the energy board’s decision, Union ratepayers got back 75 per cent of any profit from surplus storage sales. When the energy board decided to deregulate the storage market last summer, it ruled Union Gas and Enbridge Inc. could sell surplus storage at market rates – that is, at up to six times their cost – and pocket all revenues. The regulator upheld its decision last month,” the Star’s Tyler Hamilton wrote.
“Janigan said the regulator’s decision sets a “momentous precedent” because it supports deregulation without identifying any clear benefit for consumers. “I’ve followed (deregulation) of telecom and airlines, and there has always been a promise of greater choice and lower prices and better customer service. There’s none of that here,” he said. “This is really an enrichment, primarily for Union shareholders,” the newspaper reported.

Bell accused of hurting poor

(PIAC – 5/9/07) A campaign to overturn the 50 cent pay phone decision is gaining support. On July 30 the National Anti-Poverty Organization, Public Interest Advocacy Centre and Union des consommateurs petitioned federal cabinet to reverse the CRTC ruling.
“An agency helping impoverished Hamiltonians find affordable housing is taking on Ma Bell over its recent 100 per cent rate hike for a call at a pay phone,” the Hamilton Spectator reported on Aug. 23.
“Hamilton LINKS Voice Mail Project has provided cheap voice mail for a decade now to homeless and jobless Steeltown residents who can’t improve their lot without a phone. But to get access to that voice mail, LINKS clients now have to pony up 50 cents per call since Bell doubled the old rate on June 2,” the Spec’s Sharon Boase wrote.
“Michael Janigan thinks the rate hike is all wrong. As head of the Ottawa-based Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), he says it’s hurting low-income Canadians disproportionately by limiting what he deems to be an important and valuable public service,” the newpaper reported.

Aeroplan members need defined benefits

(PIAC – 5/9/07) “Air Canada is halving the number of Aeroplan miles that it awards to buyers of discounted Tango fares, the latest in a series of moves that critics say devalue the popular points plan,” the Globe and Mail reported on Aug. 1.
“Michael Janigan, executive director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre in Ottawa, said he understands the need for Air Canada to streamline where possible, but he questioned the need to dilute Aeroplan rewards,” the Globe’s Brent Jang wrote.
“When you come aboard and decide to give your business to airlines and collect reward points, there should be some assurance that they’re not going to change the rules midstream,” Mr. Janigan said. “There should be some basic package of expectations that should be part of any airline ticket,” the newspaper reported.
Other recent cuts to Aeroplan include a seven-year limit on points earned and an annual usage requirement.

Phone giants set up a complaints agency

(PIAC – 5/9/07)—On July 23 CP’s Juliane Beltrane reported: “A new telephone complaints commission opened its offices for the first time Monday morning and began hearing static before the end of the day from consumer groups that say the phone and cable companies that will fund the agency are jumping the gun.”
“The office is now up and running and the new commissioner for complaints for Telecommunications Service (CCTS) is, at least on an interim basis, David McKendry. In addition to the commissioner, there will be a seven-member board, three from the industry and four consumer advocates. The founding companies of the office are Bell Aliant, Bell Canada, SaskTel, Telus, MTS Allstream, Rogers, Virgin Mobile, Cogeco, Videotron and Vonage,” the Ottawa Citizen’s Deidre McMurdy reported.
“The CCTS created by industry players falls well short of providing the minimal consumer protection guarantees recommended by the TPRP, notably the power to adequately compensate consumers,” said John Lawford, PIAC counsel.
Lawford said the haste with which the telecommunications providers put in place a flawed organization which effectively serves only the interests of the industry and the strategy of the large telecommunications companies that, while appearing to respond to the government’s requirements for such an agency, uses the creation of the CCTS as a green light for deregulation of local telephone service while painting the CRTC and its public process into a corner.

Top court deals blow to online shoppers

(PIAC – 5/9/07)—On July 14 the Montreal Gazette reported: “Internet shoppers beware: the fine print on an online bill could be located a hyperlink away. A ruling yesterday by Canada’s highest court says online shoppers are expected to hunt down the terms of a sale, even if they’re linked externally.
PIAC was an intervenor in the class-action lawsuit against Dell Computer.
“The Supreme Court is going against the trend in European law, which is to list the conditions with the order. The Supreme Court is woefully out of touch with the reality of electronic commerce” said John Lawford, lawyer for the Ottawa-based Public Interest Advocacy Centre. “It’s a dark day for online shoppers in Canada, he concluded,” the Gazette’s Allison Lampert wrote.

C-11: Not enough truth in airline advertising

(PIAC – 5/9/07)—“Sick and tired of airlines advertising low prices, only to be walloped over the head with a much costlier fare when you pay for all the add-ons? Too bad. Things aren’t likely to change any time soon,” the Edmonton Sun reported on July 4,
“By the time Bill C-11 made its way through the committee stage, into the Senate, and back to the House, it was a pretty limp piece of legislation. One would have hoped that airlines would immediately be required to advertise the full cost of a ticket. Alas, that particular clause of the bill won’t come into effect until cabinet decides it’s time. In other words, prepare for a lot more so-called stakeholder consultation,” the Sun’s Mindelle Jacobs wrote.
“From our previous dealings with Transport Canada, it’s likely to be a fairly lengthy … process,” says a peeved Michael Janigan, executive director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. “It’s an effort to … frustrate the intent of the legislation and give some kind of bonus to Air Canada and WestJet,” he charges. “I don’t see how it’s politically a good idea to allow the airlines to mislead customers.”

Call for Do-not-call proposals

(PIAC – 5/9/07)—On July 2 the CRTC announced a call for proposals to establish the do-not-call list. The law which gives consumers an option to slamming the phone on telemarketers was passed in the dying days of the Martin government. During the legislative process a number of consumer friendly elements were discarded including exempting pollsters, politicians and charities.
PIAC criticized the long delay but welcomed the announcement. On July 3 Canadian Press reported: “These rules are a reasonable compromise between consumers’ right to be left alone and businesses’ desires to sell services over the telephone,’ said John Lawford, counsel with PIAC.”
“Rules for enforcement, including a fining power of up to $15,000 per violation by a telemarketing company, should help to ensure the do-not-call list is respected,” CP quoted Lawford.

Airline passengers press for consumer protection legislation in the U.S.

(PIAC – 5/9/07)—From high prices, to misleading advertising and lost luggage Canadian airline passengers have a lot to complain about. In the U.S. the Coalition for Airline Passengers’ Bill of Rights has brought legislation to the floors of both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. The bill calls for airlines to meet standards in their service in several categories, including notifying passengers about delays and adhering to rules for compensating wronged customers, the Globe and Mail reported on July 11.
“We don’t have any, first of all, assembly of consumer information upon which [consumers] can make a choice of airlines by the government, and secondly not a great deal of [industry] interest in ensuring that there are fair and adequate consumer standards,” says Michael Janigan, executive director of the PIAC,” the Globe’s Geoff Nixon wrote
“I think, by and large, customers would welcome having a set of clearly defined, explicable standards which would … codify reasonable expectations when you purchase a ticket,” the newspaper reported.

Belus belly up

(PIAC – 5/9/07) – – The Telus vision of an all-Canadian monopoly on local phone and wireless service crashed after a consumer backlash. On June 21 Telus outlined a cash and stock bid for BCE including its local telephone and wireless arms.
CTV News clipped PIAC’s Michael Janigan: “I don’t think it’s good for consumers, and I think it’s a direct result of the government interfering in the regulatory process earlier in this year to try to lower the bar for regulation and remove most of the consumer protection associated with local telephone service.
“Certainly their merger would reduce competition across the board in Canada, and would make it very unlikely that you would see other entrants to compete against this mega entity,” Janigan told CTV’s David Akin.