GATINEAU — Rogers, Bell and Telus are asking the CRTC to dismiss a recent Part 1 application from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) that asks the Commission to investigate and clarify the rules and responsibilities telecom service providers have regarding Covid-19 contact-tracing apps.
In a letter to the Commission dated May 7, Rogers submitted the initial request to have PIAC’s application dismissed, arguing the concerns about privacy and oversight raised by PIAC in its application are already being addressed by Canada’s privacy commissioners in a joint statement outlining the principles expected to be adhered to by governments developing contact-tracing applications.
In separate procedural letters from Bell and Telus, both dated May 12, the other two big telecom companies say they support Rogers’ request to have PIAC’s application dismissed.
“Given the active engagement by Canada’s Privacy Commissioners with the issues raised by PIAC and the significant guidance and oversight already provided by them, there is no requirement for the Commission to institute a Part 1 proceeding,” reads the Bell letter.
In its letter, Telus adds: “Federal and provincial health authorities are urgently working to address public health concerns related to COVID-19. The Commission should not initiate a duplicative review of contact-tracing in Canada that could delay the use of contact-tracing applications by governments that are compliant with the framework developed by Privacy Commissioners.”
In response to the Rogers and Bell letters (but prior to receiving the Telus submission), PIAC filed its own reply to the Commission on May 12, stating: “While it is encouraging to see the Privacy Commissioners engaging so quickly with this important issue and indicating guidance at the level(s) at which they have (limited) jurisdiction, the fact is that the CRTC is the only regulator that has jurisdiction to allow or prohibit use of confidential customer information obtained from Canadians’ use of their [TSPs’] services or any other aspect of telecommunications.”
PIAC goes on to say the Commission has previously stated in some of its decisions — in Telecom Decision 2003-33, for example — that its jurisdiction over privacy of telecommunications is separate and additional to privacy commissioners’ jurisdiction under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).
“We do not believe that the Commission can avoid its jurisdiction when it has a valid application before it that addresses that exact jurisdiction, and which jurisdiction is not existing elsewhere in the legal system. It is not up to the regulated telecommunications companies to state that they are regulated in some other fashion to avoid the Commission’s jurisdiction under the Telecommunications Act,” reads the PIAC letter by John Lawford, executive director and general counsel of PIAC.
As such, PIAC asks the Commission to ignore the procedural requests to dismiss its application.
There will surely be more to come on this.
