I had an opportunity to speak with my colleague and friend, Stewart Dresner, while he was in Canada for a variety of privacy meetings and conferences a couple weeks ago. Given my involvement with KINSA, he mentioned the Children’s Privacy Protection Network (CPPN), for which his firm, Privacy Laws and Business, provides the secretariate function.

He pointed out that many countries may have privacy laws, but woefully few are aimed at the specific needs of children. As a matter of law – or even public policy – can we expect a child, surfing on a TV network or toy manufacturer website, have informed consent to terms of service?

In the UK, companies such as the BBC, Nickelodeon UK, Turner Broadcasting, Microsoft, Vodaphone, Warner Brothers and Disney are members of the CPPN, concerned about developing and promoting best practices with regard to the protection of children’s privacy.

Is it time for Canadian firms to demonstrate some leadership in this area as well? Do we need legislative changes or will the private sector take the initiative?

Technorati Tags:
privacy, Stewart Dresner, Privacy Laws and Business, privacy policy, CPPN

One of the bright lights at this week’s poorly attended ICCM trade show in Toronto was Jeff Doran, president of Contact Centre Employer of Choice, a consulting firm that evaluates and certifies workplaces.

Jeff recognized that there is a wide variation in the working conditions for call centre employees – from sweat shops with staff crowded around folding tables in boiler rooms, through the professional call centres that are more typical of the major carriers and service providers.

His firm provides a certification program, enabling clients to use the ‘Employer of Choice‘ brand in their recruiting and perhaps allowing companies to more easily attract employees who actually want to come to work.

Call centres are the first voice heard by customers for most companies. Happier, more satisfied workers present a better corporate image, resulting in happier, more satisfied customers.

That means less churn of employees and lower churn of clients: both resulting in lower costs.

Why not get certified?

Technorati Tags:
ICCM

It is a sport in Canada to poke at the CRTC. As much as telecom insiders and the public alike enjoy griping about the telecom and broadcast regulatory authority, there is almost unanimous agreement that Canadians are better off with a single national regulatory authority, as contrasted with having to deal with 50 state Public Utility Commissions on top of the FCC in the US.

Michael Geist points out an interesting exchange in the House of Commons from Thursday. It seems that someone at the Bloc Quebecois remembered that the current Minister of Transport, Lawrence Cannon, was Quebec’s Minister of Communications in a previous life, and realized that he may have said things in the past that could come back to haunt him. The exchange included many familiar faces including former CRTC Commissioner (the current Heritage Minister) Bev Oda.

Here are some excerpts from the Hansard:

Since the government is no longer interested in regulating telecommunications, why does it not just transfer its telecommunications authority to the Government of Quebec?

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ)

Mr. Speaker, this government will continue to act responsibly towards all industrial sectors, including telecommunications. This government already has a good economic record and will continue to work with the telecommunications industry so that, like all industries, it benefits from that record.

Mr. Jason Kenney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, that does not answer the question raised.

I would like to quote from a document of the Quebec communications department, when the current federal Minister of Transport served as its minister.
“Quebec must be able to establish the rules for operating radio and television systems, and control development plans for telecommunications networks, service rates and the regulation of new telecommunications services.”
Will the government follow the advice of its Minister of Transport and transfer telecommunications and broadcasting responsibilities? This could be done through an administrative agreement, for example.

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ)

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Leader of the Bloc Québécois should also add that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in this regard with the Guèvremont decision, which confirmed federal authority over communications.

Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC)

* * *

Mr. Speaker, let us come back to the former communications minister in Quebec and current Minister of Transport who wrote in a discussion paper on telecommunications that Quebec should have full jurisdiction and use a single regulatory body.

People who once made such remarks ought to believe in what they said for the rest of their life.

In light of the fact that his colleague at Industry asked the CRTC to regulate telecommunications as little as possible, does the Minister of Transport intend to press him to have the responsibility for telecommunication regulations in Quebec delegated to the Government of Quebec?

Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L’Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ)

Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, today’s communications world is not only provincial, it is national, international and global. That is why we believe it is in the interests of Canada to have one unified voice for Canada while respecting and acknowledging the special needs of every region and province in this country.

Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, CPC)

I don’t think the Industry Minister’s intent is to lessen telecom regulation by relegating (Balkanizing?) federal authority to the provinces.

Technorati Tags:
Hansard