Is Broadband Basic Service

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), today released a report that calls for establishing broadband as basic service for Canadians in the same way that telephone service was established as a need for every citizen in the last century. The report titled “Is Broadband Basic Service” describes the developments that have occurred in Europe and other countries worldwide that have made broadband service a basic right for citizens. It also sets out the models that have been evolved internationally to meet the goal and the principles that should be engaged in designing the delivery structure.
“Many consumers, particularly those in rural or remote areas, are not able to harness the full potential of the internet”, Michael Janigan, PIAC’s Executive Director stated, “Others may live in areas served by broadband providers, but lack the financial resources to obtain service”.
The report concludes that ‘access to broadband has important economic, social and cultural ramifications for Canadians and without it, Canadian consumers risk falling behind in today’s increasingly online interconnected world.’
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre is an Ottawa-based consumer organization specializing in telecommunications services. 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.
 

thumb_pdfIs Broadband Basic Service report
Download File: is_broadband_basic_service_piac_aug_2010.pdf [size: 0.75 mb]

Regulate Financial Planners in the Public Interest

(OTTAWA)— The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) called upon the provinces to regulate the practice of “financial planning” in a report released today entitled, “Holding The Purse Strings: Regulating Financial Planners.”
PIAC’s report noted that the practice of financial planning in Canada is comprised of several self-regulating bodies, except in the province of Quebec where these services are regulated. The lack of provincial regulation allows certain activities that are clearly not true financial planning services to be promoted as such, thereby misleading consumers.
PIAC counsel and report co-author John Lawford noted that individuals could claim to be “financial planners” in most provinces with no qualifications whatsoever: “The term ‘financial planner’ should be one consumers can understand and trust. Consumers are confused by the multiple agencies granting similar titles, and say they need consistent, enforceable mechanisms for consumer protection when using these services.”
The report also recommends that the federal government look into the availability of comprehensive financial planning and its potential value to Canadians as a part of the government’s commitment to investigating financial literacy in Canada.
PIAC’s report is based on two focus groups undertaken in Toronto by Environics Research Group with financial planners and their clients in November 2008.
The full report –– Holding The Purse Strings: Regulating Financial Planners–– is available for download at: http://www.piac.ca
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.
A copy of the report is found here: Holding The Purse Strings: Regulating Financial Planners
Executive Summary [pdf file: 0.02mb]
Sommaire [pdf file: 0.02mb]
For more information, please contact:
John Lawford
Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, ON K1N 7B7
(613) 562-4002×25 (Tel)
(613) 562- 0007 (Fax)
lawford@piac.ca

Tracking Consumers Online – Behavioural Targeted Advertising and a “Do Not Track List” in Canada

(OTTAWA)— The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) today released a report entitled “A ‘Do Not Track List’ for Canada?”, that examines online behavioural targeted advertising and online behavioural tracking. This practice consists of tracking consumers’ online activities to target advertising to individual consumers based on their online history, preferences and attributes. In recent years, online consumer tracking and online behavioural targeted advertising have become industry standard for marketers and website operators and consumers are at the mercy of online advertisers. These advertising practices are conducted covertly and offer consumers few options to control how their personal information is collected, used, disclosed and retained.
The report calls for Canadian regulators to study the issue of online behavioural advertising, as American and European regulators have already done and issue clear guidelines for online behavioural targeted advertising practices. “Consumers want the ability to control their personal information online – not only when and how it is collected, but how it is used and shared with other parties,” said Janet Lo, Legal Counsel for PIAC. “Canadian regulators must set down clear guidelines for online behavioural targeting and online consumer tracking practices. Only clear, enforceable rules can make a significant impact to protect consumers from unwanted online surveillance and behavioural targeted advertisements.”
A survey undertaken by PIAC from April 1 to 8, 2009 among 1,570 adult Canadians with Internet and analyzed in the report revealed that Canadian consumers are uncomfortable with online tracking for the purpose of targeted and behavioural advertising and that Canadians support the creation of a “Do Not Track List” for the internet. However, a “Do Not Track List” likely would face strong opposition and lobbying by the advertising industry.
The report also calls for special attention to the issue of behavioural advertising targeting children and youth.
“Full report – A Do Not Track List for Canada? [pdf file: 0.62mb]
Executive summary [pdf file: 0.01mb]
Sommaire [pdf file: 0.03mb]
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.
For more information, please contact:
Janet Lo
Legal Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, ON K1N 7B7
(613) 562-4002×24
(613) 562- 0007 (Fax)
 

Canadian Consumers Need More Net Neutrality

(OTTAWA)— The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) today called for more consideration of consumer rights to “net neutrality” in a report entitled “Staying Neutral: Canadian Consumers and the Fight for Net Neutrality.”
PIAC’s report called on federal legislators and policymakers to protect consumers’ rights to “use their Internet connection to access the lawful content, applications or services of their choice without discrimination, modification, interruption, or delay of their internet transmissions by any party, subject to law”, among others.
PIAC counsel and report co-author John Lawford noted that consumers in focus groups appeared unaware of the definition of “net neutrality” but had strong and clear views on throttling of their traffic by Internet service providers such Bell Canada, Rogers and other Internet service providers.
“Canadians are frustrated by interference with their Internet connections and want their rights protected,” said Lawford. “It’s not clear to them that the Internet is neutral enough in Canada.”
The report recommends that in addition to helping consumers complain about Internet slowdowns, the federal government set minimum speed standards for broadband providers.
PIAC’s report is based on six focus groups conducted by Environics Research Group with Canadian Internet users in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal in January 2009.
The full report –– Staying Neutral: Canadian Consumers and the Fight for Net Neutrality–– is available for download at: Staying Neutral: Canadian Consumers and the Fight for Net Neutrality
Executive Summary [pdf file: 0.02mb]
Sommaire [pdf file: 0.04mb]
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.
For more information, please contact:
John Lawford
Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, ON K1N 7B7
(613) 562-4002×25 (Tel)
(613) 562- 0007 (Fax)
lawford@piac.ca

New PIAC Report Studies Importance of Credit Cards to Canadians

While credit cards have become a preferred and sometimes essential means of payment, a growing group of citizens cannot get access to a card. A new report by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) studies the consequences of not being able to obtain a credit card and the use of substitutes by such individuals. The report also provides a history of credit cards, an overview of the Canadian credit card market and presents some possible alternatives to credit cards for Canadian consumers.
The PIAC report was informed by the results of several focus groups and concludes by making policy recommendations that seek to assist and protect Canadian consumers who are not able to obtain a conventional credit card. These recommendations include implementing requirements for better transparency by credit reporting agencies, and the creation of products that can assist in the establishment of creditworthiness by individuals who have not established sufficient levels to qualify for its extension.
“The use of credit cards and credit products are becoming an ordinary incident of being a full participant in economic society,’ said Michael Janigan executive director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC). “In turn, we have to work to ensure that a reasonable opportunity is afforded all consumers to eventually become fully participating”.
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 report “Credit cards and access to the digital marketplace: A priceless necessity?” is available at:
http://www.piac.ca/downloads/creditcardsaccesstodigitalmarketplace.pdf

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:

thumb_pdfPractice 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:

thumb_pdfExecutive 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

Proposed amendments to the Competition Act represent a fairly balanced take on necessary refinements

Speaking Notes: Presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance

February 23, 2009
Dr. Anu Bose
Head, Ottawa Bureau
Options Consommateurs
Michael Janigan
Executive Director and General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
Bill C-10, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and related fiscal measures
Good evening. My name is Anu Bose, the head of the Ottawa Office of Option Consommateurs. With me, is Michael Janigan, Executive Director and General Counsel of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre here in Ottawa. Both organizations have been engaged for over three decades in representing the interests of ordinary consumers in the delivery of goods and services in the market place or subject to a regime of regulation. Mr. Janigan addressed the Industry Committee on the subject of the previous legislation, Bill C-19, that was introduced, but not passed by the previous Liberal government. We are here to speak to you about the proposed amendments to the Competition Act.
We would first note that while the proposed amendments are quite comprehensive, they have certainly been the subject of considerable past discussion among stakeholders and represent a fairly balanced take on necessary refinements to the Act. For example, of the amendments complete the reform of misleading advertising or deceptive marketing that has been the consensus for over two decades. These amendments help the Competition authorities address this abuse in an economic and administrative fashion. By so doing, the intent of the provisions will be more efficiently enforced, and sanction meted out, where necessary, that is appropriate to the conduct of the offending advertiser.
Naturally, there has been an effort to bolster the effectiveness of the non-criminal enforcement procedure to encourage compliance, including more realistic maximums on administrative monetary penalties, and some new rights for complainants. In the view of Option Consommateurs, this package of amendments places appropriate emphasis on the importance of deterring anti-competitive conduct, particularly in the current difficult financial environment that all Canadians are experiencing. Michael Janigan will now give some additional comments on the importance of these amendments.
It is essential that the Committee understand that these amendments are designed to make markets work better, and to protect the legitimate interests of consumers and suppliers in open markets. The practices that are being deterred involve conduct that subverts the operation of a competitive market and prevents the existence of an informed market of customers, as well as the ability of suppliers to challenge dominant players with new products and services. When some of these changes were brought forward in Bill C-19 in 2005, there were some vociferous protests from some of the larger business players concerning the potential burdens that could be imposed upon them.
If a protest occurs again, it is important that these submissions are adjudicated on their merits, not on the basis that they represent the views of all non-governmental stakeholders. For example, you won’t be hearing from the independent business person who has used the family assets to finance a new business only to see it crushed by actions of suppliers of the new business instigated by a market incumbent. You may read about a scam luring shoppers to purchase a wonder product that is misrepresented and misdescribed, but the pensioner who has to cut back on necessities because she fell for the scam won’t be here to tell you that what happened to her is an acceptable risk that allows more creative advertising to take place.
And you won’t hear from the parties complain about increases to maximum penalties that the existence of dollar amounts sufficiently robust to deter the largest of businesses from breaching the Act will probably prevent more Bureau files from being opened because of business self-policing to avoid such sanctions.
But, it is of the highest importance that you understand that deterring anti-competitive conduct as proposed here is not the heavy hand of government in operation; instead it is supportive of open markets and less regulation. The fact is a lot of money can be made by misleading the public or unfairly stacking the deck against competitors. Unless you have the tools at hand to prevent such conduct from being rewarded, you are allowing three unfortunate things to happen:
1. You are preventing informed choice and possible innovation.
2. You are enabling inefficiency in the delivery of that product or service
3. You are ensuring that incumbents have little incentive to become more productive
As a final matter, Dr. Bose will address an issue of some importance, particularly to Quebec consumer organizations.
As the members of the Committee may know, consumer groups including my own are active in ensuring compliance with consumer protection laws by means of class actions. Most of these cases are settled or adjudicated with a provision of a percentage of the funds to consumer or public interest organizations to do education or similar pro-active work around the issues in play in the litigation. It is good public policy by having the wrongdoers pay for attempts to stop other wrongdoers.
It is likely that, in the future, the civil remedies under the new legislation may be pursued in preference to class actions in provincial courts. The former legislation, Bill C-19, recognized this fact and helped ensure that leftover restitution funds would be put to similar usage:
74.1 (1.2) The court may also designate in the order a not-for-profit organization in Canada that benefits persons who have been affected or are likely to be affected by reviewable conduct under this Part — or any other person or organization that the court considers appropriate in the circumstances — to receive any or all of the amount of the payment that remains unclaimed or undistributed in the manner and on the terms set out in the order.
74.1(1.2) Il peut en outre y prévoir que, si tout ou partie de la somme n’a pas été réclamé ou n’a pu être distribué, la somme non réclamée ou non distribuée est versée en tout ou en partie de la manière et aux conditions précisées dans l’ordonnance à un organisme à but non lucrative au Canada qu’il désigne et qui vient en aide aux personnes qui ont souffert ou risquent de souffrir de comportements susceptibles d’examen visés par la présente partie ou à toute personne ou tout organisme qu’il estime indiqués dans les circonstances
While the current wording of 74.1 (8) (g) would not prevent this from happening, for greater certainty, we would suggest that the clause from Bill C-19 be inserted as Section 74.1 (9) and Section 74.1 (9) becomes Section 74.1 (10). This way there will be no diminution in the redress available to Quebec consumers, and it will extend the same benefits to consumers across Canada.
Thank you and we would be pleased to answer any questions that the committee may have.

National Do Not Call List—Making It Work Better For You

The Canada Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has recently posted a public notice on their website calling for comments on several key issues regarding the National Do Not Call List, and specifically, the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules that govern telemarketing calls in Canada. Of particular interest to consumers is the issue concerning term of registration on the DNCL.
Currently, the term of registration for a phone number on the DNCL is three (3) years, which means that each phone number must be re-registered on the DNCL every three (3) years. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) contends that, in the best interests of consumers, the registration period of a phone number on the DNCL should be made permanent. This would remove the burden placed on consumers of having to re-register their phone number(s) every three (3) years, and place the onus on the companies making the telemarketing calls to update their lists according to re-assigned phone numbers.
At this time, the CRTC has asked for public comments regarding these issues. While PIAC is pleased to be making submissions in these proceedings on behalf of the public as a whole, we are unable to carry individual consumers’ opinions to the CRTC, as comments pertaining to these proceedings are only accepted directly from interested individuals or parties. Those individuals who do wish to have their voice(s) heard on this matter may do so by making a direct submission to:
http://support.crtc.gc.ca/crtcsubmissionmu/forms/main.aspx?lang=e
Another issue of concern to consumers with regards to the DNCL is the fact that, at present, the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules do not apply to text messaging, meaning that DNCL-registered cellular phone numbers with text messaging capabilities are only protected from telemarketing calls they receive, but not from telemarketing text messages. PIAC contends that this does not take the best interests of consumers into consideration, but instead provides telemarketing companies with a loophole through which to continue contacting consumers who clearly do not want to receive unsolicited telemarketing communications. PIAC lent their support to Rogers in their bid to bring this issue forward during the upcoming CRTC review of the DNCL, however, Rogers’ request was denied by the CRTC.
PIAC would like to urge those consumers who have concerns regarding the exclusion of text messaging under DNCL rules to pass along their comments to the CRTC.