Bill C-37 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Telecommunications Act

This enactment amends the Telecommunications Act to permit the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to administer databases for the purpose of its power under section 41, namely the power to prohibit or regulate the use by any person of the telecommunications facilities of a Canadian carrier for the provision of unsolicited telecommunications to the extent that the Commission considers it necessary to prevent undue inconvenience or nuisance, giving due regard to freedom of expression.
The enactment also establishes an administrative monetary penalty for the contravention of prohibitions or requirements of the Commission under that section.

Telecommunications Act

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Rivière-Du-Loup—Montmagny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-37 before the House at this time has gone through all the stages here in the House. Its primary intent is to allow people to request not to receive unsolicited telephone calls. A number of surveys, as well as the general perception of our constituents, have in fact indicated that there has been a growth in unsolicited calls. I myself have received calls trying to sell me something at all hours, weekdays and weekends. If I do not want to be called by these telemarketers, it is quite logical for there to be a way to avoid it. That is the objective of this bill.

The bill has gone through all the stages in the House of Commons. We tried to strike as satisfactory a balance as possible by allowing a number of exclusions. Moreover, the Bloc Québécois focussed particularly on exclusions for not-for-profit organizations which need to carry out campaigns by phone. We wanted to be sure that a bill so filled with good intentions did not have the terrible consequence of stopping not-for-profit organizations from soliciting donations, when they depend on this type of campaign.

We proposed amendments to deal with that. In committee we also considered other types of amendments and exemptions needed with respect to business relations, for health professionals, for instance. Under the government's initial plan, health professionals would have been unable to contact their patients again. After a number of discussions, we all agreed that the best solution was to add them to the list of exemptions in the bill.

The bill has now come back to us after being examined by the Senate, as per procedure. We know how much the Senate, a chamber of unelected representatives, in a way fills a role that has become obsolete. When it was created a long time ago, some felt there were educational inadequacies among the elected members in the House of Commons. That is why they wanted a chamber of sober second thought. These days this is no longer the case, but the Senate remains an integral part of the system nonetheless.

Two amendments proposed by the Senate have been submitted for approval by the House. After they are considered, if we accept them, we will allow the bill to come into effect.

The purpose of the first amendment proposed by the Senate is to ensure that a report is submitted to both Houses of Parliament, according to the legislation review process. In reality, this bill concerns a new domain, a sector in which there is little expertise in the world. Similar legislation came into effect in the United States just a few years ago.

Accordingly, the Canadian law will be re-evaluated after three years. To do so, an annual report will be tabled in both the House of Commons and in the Senate, at its request. When a bill is re-evaluated, both the House and the Senate will have all the information at their disposal.

We can understand the logic behind this argument in terms of the system we use and the way it works. This method will also help in examining this bill and in revising it in a more logical and rational manner. We will not have to repeat in the Senate all the explanations about the annual report when the recommendations are received. The Senate committees addressing the issue will already have the information. Furthermore, we could thus avoid undue delays during the legislative review.

In my opinion, the second amendment weakens the bill somewhat, even though this will not make us vote against it. We had established the need to prohibit unsolicited calls and to impose a penalty on those who did not comply with these provisions. We had set the amount of the fine at $1,500 for individuals and $15,000 for corporations. I think that a $1,500 fine is a significant amount. Therefore, imposing a stiff enough penalty would dissuade people from breaking the law.

The Senate thought that these penalties may have been too stiff. Now it proposes maximum amounts of $1,500 for individuals and $15,000 for corporations, which could lead to some debate.

Whenever a fine is imposed, if the basis for imposing that fine is challenged, the amount of the fine could be challenged as well, which could create some problems.

At the same time, the size of the corporations or the financial situation of the individuals involved will be taken into account.

In this sense, I think it is worth giving this a try, especially since a review of the act will take place after three years. We will then be able to determine if these and other provisions are appropriate.

These are the two reasons why the bill is before us today. The Senate has proposed these two amendments. We must examine them and decide whether or not we should adopt them. We can do that by looking at the bill as a whole and see if these two amendments are indeed acceptable and if they are in keeping with the general thrust of the bill.

Let us remember that this legislation seeks, obviously, to avoid unwanted telephone calls. It also seeks to allow the CRTC to administer databases for the purposes of its power. A section of the act sets out this power to prohibit or regulate the use by any person of the telecommunications facilities of a Canadian carrier for the provision of unsolicited telecommunications to the extent that the CRTC considers it necessary to prevent undue inconvenience or nuisance.

We are talking, here, about telephone calls. In all likelihood, we will need to examine what will happen with regard to the growing use of the Internet. As a result, we have had to consider when the do not call list should not apply.

We have the right to not receive unwanted telephone calls and to put our names on the do not call list. However, we also want to ensure that this legislation does not apply to some people—meaning some organizations and individuals. It is important to strike the right balance here.

Under subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act, registered charities are, for example, excluded. So, we are talking about people who truly need to hold fundraising campaigns, meaning they need to solicit funds to ensure the survival of their organization.

We are talking about charitable organizations. We know that there is great pressure and many such phone calls. At the same time, these people fulfill an essential role in our society. If charities did not do this work, the government would be responsible for picking up the tab. I think that this exemption is something that all of the committee members consider reasonable and fair.

This is also true for business relationships. I said it earlier, this is particularly true for health care professionals.

Then there are political telecommunications. In order to be able to ensure a democratic quality of life in our society, it is essential, in our opinion, that such communications be allowed. Without such an exemption, political telecommunications during election campaigns, including the one we expect shortly, would not be allowed. Many voters would have found this quite interesting. However, overall, this would have led to other actions or illegal actions. I think however that legislation must reflect our reality.

As regards the quality of the democratic debate, those who run for office must make themselves known, present their views and have an idea of how they are perceived by voters. It seemed perfectly normal to us that this should be the case. The same goes for opinion polls.

An amendment was also made to exclude the media, so that they can still contribute to the quality of our democratic life.

According to the data provided by the Canadian Marketing Association, the telemarketing industry employs 270,000 people and has a sales figure of some $16 billion. The interesting thing about this legislation is that those who work in the telemarketing industry find it relevant. It would be useful to them because, right now, when they approach all the consumers, some of them are already on that list and do not want to receive calls.

These consumers already object to receiving calls. In fact, the calls made to these people are neither interesting nor profitable for telemarketing companies. There is a will to ensure that the list works properly so that, ultimately, companies end up dealing with people who do want to get such calls. We understand that this will was expressed by the companies themselves. We would then kill two birds with one stone, because we would exclude those who do not want to receive calls, while ensuring that telemarketing companies contact only those people who could be potential clients and who are open to listening to them.

The bill was put forward after the public expressed a will to have this industry legislated. This measure will allow us to deal with a situation that has developed over the last few decades and has now become somewhat anarchic. This industry is not yet regulated, but the situation will soon improve with this bill.

In fact, a recent Environics Research survey shows that 79% of those surveyed would support a national do not call list, and 66% likely would sign up for the service. This goes to show that there is popular support for this kind of legislation.

This bill came to be, not necessarily on the initiative of the department, but much more because the public wanted it. In that respect, in 2002, a member from the Canadian Alliance put forward Bill C-301, which died on the order paper, but paved the way for this bill. The member described the purpose of his bill as providing, and I quote:

A means for anyone who does not wish to receive telemarketing calls or faxes to place their telephone number on a list maintained by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

So, the will already existed, and the government jumped on the bandwagon. I think that the work done in committee reflects the will of all members of Parliament to legislate in that area. Furthermore, this bill was adopted in this House at various stages. The Senate amendments, however, clarify aspects which are not fundamental elements that affect the bill. As I said earlier, these amendments will be subject to review after three years, like the rest of the bill. They will not necessarily create problems.

Allow me to digress briefly to say that parliamentarians can agree on some things. But on some others, it is not possible. My colleague suggested earlier that this might be a sign that the House of Commons should keep on working. There is a consensus about the matter before us. What is at issue with respect to the motion of non-confidence is something completely different.

It is a normal thing in our society for things to be done this way. Everyone can express his or her point of view, and then today all opposition parties can judge that the government no longer has the confidence of the House. This is a reality that a minority government has to face, and this is the outcome we expect to see early next week. We cannot assume that this desire to debate subjects on which opinions differ does not at the same time allow discussion when there is consensus. That is what has happened in the case of this bill.

The mechanics of how this will be done are rather complex. Basically, however, it can be summarized as follows. There will indeed be a do not call registry, a list people can get themselves put on so that they will have the satisfaction of no longer receiving unsolicited calls.

The system will be set up so that there will, of course, be no cost to the consumer. There are economic advantages for telemarketers and also for our fellow citizens. The goal is to make people's lives easier and improve quality of life.

There is, however, one important component of telemarketing that was not addressed in the bill: telemarketing scams. This will need to be addressed at some point. There have been charges laid on this. This can be a broad-scale operation, often all over North America. Unfortunately, some of these boiler rooms are located in Canada. This is an aspect that is not addressed by the bill, possibly because it comes more under the Criminal Code. The legislators do need to do something about this, however.

What is a telemarketing scam? It is a fraudulent solicitation of certain groups of society using telecommunications or misleading advertising. The term “fraudulent” is used in this case because the victims have been persuaded to send in money in exchange for something worth more. Often this kind of scam targets more vulnerable clienteles, people who are perhaps less well informed and more easily persuaded.

We are told that all telemarketing schemes require that the victims send money in the form of a certified cheque or money order to receive a prize. Anyone receiving a phone call asking for that kind of payment should be very cautious. Indeed once the money is sent, it is very difficult to get it back. These operations can be moved very quickly and are not easy to trace after they have changed location.

We are also told that criminal organizations involved in this type of fraud are usually structured according to very specific roles. They have a chief financial officer, a manager, front-end staff, back-end staff and a mail clerk. These operations using front-end and back-end workers are also known as boiler rooms. They operate as long as the fraud continues to work. When things get too hot, they fold. This aspect has not been dealt with in the bill and should be dealt with eventually.

We have come to realize that Canada is somewhat of a paradise for fraudulent telemarketing. Right now, the amounts of the fines are too low and the prison terms are too short. In most cases, it is very difficult to convict a repeat offender. To fight against this type of crime, we try to extradite some offenders to other countries that have tougher laws, but that does not really work as we would like it to.

There is a whole aspect of fraudulent telemarketing that will have to be dealt with in legislation by the government in the months and years to come. In the meantime, the purpose of the bill before us is essentially to ensure the best control possible over unsolicited calls.

Some people are greatly affected, including the Canadian Marketing Association, which is the largest association of marketing businesses in Canada. Its members provide 480,000 jobs and generate over $151 million in annual sales. It is a powerful lobby within the marketing sector. It spoke in favour of Bill C-37 because of what I said earlier. In fact, telemarketers like the idea of having legislation that would deal with this situation.

The committee also gathered information on what was going on in other countries, particularly the United States. I think there was even a conference call with people in that country to find out what approach they developed. The approach being taken does not follow the same model, because it is more in line with our situation. Considering the large American market, there may be calls from the United States and other countries.

We have to ensure that our legislation is logical in terms of what is put forward. The bill is going in the right direction. That is probably one of the elements that will have to be studied in more detail when the bill in question is reviewed.

Consequently, we will soon be at the stage of passing this bill so that it can come into force. That includes the Senate amendments. At the same time, there has to be monitoring—the most appropriate monitoring possible—so that we know when the law is reviewed whether the entire model that is developed is adequate.

I recall the comment by my colleague in the Conservative Party who said that there should not be a repeat of what happened with the Canadian firearms registry.

We have to be vigilant. There should not be another firearms registry. We have already spent enough money on that initiative. The idea behind it was a good one. I honestly think there is a real need for a firearms control system. However, what the government did with it, the way it was set up and the costs it generated are completely unacceptable. I hope that the Auditor General will report to us quickly so that we get the most complete picture we can.

In the case at hand, we have to ensure that the new registry works in a way that avoids that type of excess so that we do not suddenly find ourselves looking at high costs a year or two down the road when the act is reviewed. When mechanisms are being put in place, the government has a responsibility to ensure that the job is done right.

It is very obvious that Canadians want a law that prevents unwanted telephone calls. However, it is also certain that they do not want a law that will generate wild expenditures far beyond what they would like us to spend on this type of system.

I therefore urge the House to vote in favour of the amendments so that the bill can be put into effect as quickly as possible.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise this morning to begin the House consideration of Senate amendments to Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act.

Bill C-37 would help protect Canadians from unwanted telemarketing phone calls by establishing the legislative framework for the creation of a national do not call list. To achieve this end, the bill would provide the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, with the powers necessary to establish a more effective regime to protect consumers against unsolicited telemarketing, while at the same time protecting their privacy.

Bill C-37 would enable the CRTC to do three fundamental things. First, it would allow the CRTC to impose administrative monetary penalties similar to fines for non-compliance; second, it would allow the CRTC to establish a third party administrator if it so desires to operate a database; and third, it would give the CRTC the ability to set fees to recover the costs associated with maintaining the do not call registry list.

The costs of maintaining such a list would include database maintenance, complaint processing, and investigation and enforcement costs. The CRTC has recommended that a third party administrator should be selected to maintain the national do not call list.

Bill C-37 would amend the Telecommunications Act to allow for a third party administrator and to allow also for cost recovery. It is expected that costs will be recovered from the telemarketing industry itself. Although the precise cost of running such a list will be dependent on the implementation details that will be determined by the CRTC, proven examples from the United States and the United Kingdom demonstrate this to be a straightforward, easily implementable and cost-effective system.

Bill C-37 seeks to balance the wishes of Canadian consumers for privacy and protection from unwanted calls while, at the same time, recognizing the need for legitimate telemarketing companies to conduct their business in a regulatory framework that enables them to do so.

As such, Bill C-37 contains a number of legislative exemptions, including organizations that would be exempted from the national list for calls. These exemptions include: registered charities, companies with existing business relationships with Canadian consumers, and calls from newspapers and from political parties. These exempt organizations would be required to maintain individual do not call lists.

In addition, survey and polling firms will also be exempt from a do not call list and would continue to be allowed to collect the views of every Canadian.

The other place has recommended two fundamental amendments to Bill C-37. The first is that the annual report which the CRTC would file on the operation of the do not call list be tabled by the minister before each House of Parliament. This amendment simply extends the requirement to table an annual report on the operation of the national do not call list to both Houses of Parliament, the House of Commons and the Senate.

The second amendment would allow flexibility in the dollar amounts imposed for infractions for fines of a do not call list. The amendment recommends that the administrative monetary penalty provision be changed from fixed or set amounts of $1,500 per offence for an individual and $15,000 per offence for a corporation to making these amounts the maximum amounts of the fine per offence.

By passing this bill we would enable the CRTC to do its job and to move forward on this issue. The CRTC would undertake further consultations to address issues such as fees and the selection of an administrative organization for the list. The CRTC expects that it would have a national do not call list up and running 19 months after Bill C-37 becomes law.

Bill C-37 requires that after three years a committee of the House of Commons or the Senate or both would be designated to review the administration and the operation of the national do not call list. This means that there would be parliamentary review of the do not call framework once the list has been operational for a little more than just one year. Parliament would at that time be able to consider the effectiveness of the list.

We have heard from Canadians from coast to coast to coast on this issue. The reality is that the inability to control telemarketing continues to be a pervasive source of frustration.

In 2003, Environics conducted a survey on consumer attitudes toward telemarketing. It concluded that 97% of respondents reported a negative reaction to unsolicited calls. Let me repeat that: 97% of respondents reported a negative reaction. Of those, 38% said they merely tolerate the calls, 35% reported being annoyed by them, and 24% said they simply hated receiving them.

Bill C-37 responds to the concerns of Canadians. They are fed up with unwanted, unsolicited telemarketing calls and they want an effective solution.

I will end my remarks with the following. Canadian consumers are overwhelmingly in favour of a national do not call list for controlling unwanted telephone solicitation. Survey results indicate that 79% of respondents support the creation of a national do not call list. Some two-thirds have indicated that they would likely sign up for the do not call list.

The time has come for an effective approach to regulating unsolicited telemarketing, an approach that would benefit both consumers and the telemarketing sector, and striking, I believe, the appropriate balance. I urge all hon. members of this House to pass this bill, as amended by the Senate, to give individual Canadians an easy way to curtail intrusive telemarketing and to protect their privacy.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, for the Minister of Industry]

moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I see the hon. member across the way is displaying his charm once more.

I also think the hon. member understands clearly that the call for the election and, ultimately, if there is an election caused, it will be the opposition members who will have to take responsibility since they will be voting to dissolve Parliament and we will be voting to sustain Parliament in order to continue the work that I will now lay out.

This afternoon we will continue with the opposition motion.

On Friday we will call consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-37, the do not call bill; report stage and third reading of Bill S-36 respecting rough diamonds; report stage and third reading of Bill C-63, respecting the Canada Elections Act; and second reading of Bill C-44, the transport legislation.

We will return to this work on Monday, adding to the list the reference before second reading of Bill C-76, the citizenship and adoption bill; and second reading of Bill C-75, the public health agency legislation.

Tuesday and Thursday of next week shall be allotted days. There are some three dozen bills before the House or in committee on which the House I am sure will want to make progress in the next period of time. They will include the bill introduced yesterday to implement the 2005 tax cuts announced on November 14; Bill C-68, the Pacific gateway bill; Bill C-67, the surplus legislation; Bill C-61, the marine bill; Bill C-72, the DNA legislation; Bill C-46, the correctional services bill; Bill C-77, the citizenship prohibitions bill; Bill C-60, the copyright legislation; Bill C-73, the Telecom bill; Bill C-60 respecting drug impaired driving; Bill C-19, the competition legislation; Bill C-50 respecting cruelty to animals; Bill C-51, the judges legislation; Bill C-52, the fisheries bill; Bill C-59 respecting Investment Canada; Bills C-64 and C-65 amending the Criminal Code.

In addition, there are the supplementary estimates introduced in October that provide spending authority for a wide variety of services to the Canadian public and we the government would certainly like to see this passed.

Supply

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the opposition motion presented by the leader of the New Democratic Party which proposes that the Prime Minister should ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament during the week of January 2, 2006, and set the date for the election for February 13, 2006.

I must admit that it is a bit disappointing that the NDP has not put forward a substantive motion for debate today. Last time around, the NDP took a constructive approach to its opposition days by putting forward issues that matter to Canadians. For example, Canadians had the benefit of a full discussion on such matters as environmental aspects of automobile emission standards, access to employment insurance, which is obviously a big concern in my riding and in other rural communities across the country, and the health risks of trans fatty acids.

Today, the NDP wants to talk about scheduling, about how to ignore constitutional convention and speed up the next general election by a mere eight weeks.

Clearly, the priorities of opposition members have changed. Today, they are more interested in procedural tactics rather than substantive issues that Canadians want this Parliament to address. Opposition parties are not interested in the process of governing. The opposition day motion today is really about manipulating the parliamentary and electoral calendar to serve what are clearly partisan interests.

The motion calls for an election to be held on February 13, 2006, despite the fact that the Prime Minister has already promised to call an election in early 2006.

The Prime Minister made that promise to Canadians last spring. We all know by now that an election will be called within 30 days of the final report and recommendations of the Gomery inquiry, which are scheduled to be tabled on February 1, 2006.

According to the Prime Minister's promise, the next election will be held in March, or early April at the latest. By then Canadians will be familiar with Justice Gomery's recommendations and will be able to benefit from a much improved legislative environment.

Nonetheless, that is not enough for the opposition. They want to hold an election in mid-February, which is 8 weeks, at the very most, before the date the Prime Minister proposed to all Canadians on national television.

An election any sooner would be held before Justice Gomery has completed his work, and therefore, before Canadians have all the answers regarding the problems with the sponsorship program and—equally important—regarding the measures that will need to be taken to prevent such a situation from happening again.

It will be incumbent upon the opposition parties to explain to Canadians why they are disrupting the work, not only of the government, but also of Parliament, in order to force a premature election in the middle of winter, thereby going against what most Canadians want. In fact, Canadians are still waiting for a good reason for all this.

The opposition parties are saying they do not have confidence in this government. Yet, they want to use opposition days to confirm their confidence for a just few more months. This flagrant contradiction highlights the purely political motivation behind today's motion.

As the government House leader indicated, some opposition members seem to believe that the notion that a government must have the confidence of the House was somehow divisible, that we could have confidence today, but tomorrow? Maybe in a few weeks they would see if they had lost confidence. The government would continue to govern, until they decided to put that loss of confidence into effect.

I said a couple of days ago that the opposition members seemed to think that confidence in government, in parliamentary terms, was like Christmas lights. We turn them on in the evening, we turn them off in the morning and then we put them away in January. Canadians will not be fooled by that simplistic analysis.

When the first minority government in 25 years was elected in 2004, the government committed to doing things differently in Parliament. Canadians expected us, as members of Parliament, to work constructively together. The record shows in many cases we have been very successful. In just 19 months we have delivered on a broad range of initiatives that will advance the interests of Canadians and continue to ensure Canada's place in the world.

For example, we passed legislation to implement the 10 year plan to strengthen health care. A federal adviser on wait times was appointed. Steps continue to be taken so we can work with the provinces to protect Canada's public health system.

We passed legislation to implement fundamental reforms to the equalization program. This balanced approach ensured that all Canadians could benefit from social services and enjoy the same quality of life, regardless of the province in which they live. These improvements mean additional resources, additional moneys being transferred to my province, the province of New Brunswick. We already have seen an improvement not only in social services, education and health care, but improvements in infrastructure as well. The government and people of New Brunswick benefit by this cooperative approach.

We passed legislation respecting civil marriage to respect the fundamental values of equality and religious freedoms as well.

We passed legislation to implement a new deal for cities and communities. This unprecedented initiative brings together the federal government, provincial governments and municipalities to ensure that the infrastructure of our communities is responsive to local needs, culturally vibrant and environmentally sustainable. Again, small rural communities in my constituency benefit from this type of initiative.

We transferred, for example, the full refund of GST paid by municipalities as simply a down payment on the new deal for cities and communities. If the government of New Brunswick would organize itself to negotiate a deal with the federal government, municipalities in my constituency and throughout New Brunswick, as well as small rural communities, would benefit from this important initiative.

We passed legislation to implement our climate change plan and meet our Kyoto commitments. In two weeks, Canada will begin hosting the conference of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol in Montreal to make further progress on our important climate change commitments.

To ensure Canadians have the best opportunities to flourish, we passed legislation to implement early childhood learning and child care agreements, which we have reached with many provinces.

To keep Canadians safe, we passed legislation to protect them from pornography and Internet luring.

I am proud of the record of this Parliament so far. We were able to pass a budget bill that further accelerated our priorities in public transit, in housing, in post-secondary education, in national defence and in foreign aid.

We made major changes to improve the employment insurance system, something that is very important to seasonal industries in my constituency. We removed many of the disincentives to work, which created a bizarre situation where a worker in a seasonal industry would go to work for what might be a shortened work period for reasons beyond the control of the worker. If the lobster season was not as productive that week, if the weather did not allow a certain harvest to take place, the workers were disadvantaged by a system which calculated employment insurance based on recent weeks as opposed to best weeks. We changed that in this Parliament and the government has served the needs of seasonal industries and seasonal workers very well, certainly in my constituency.

Contrary to the opposition parties, I believe there is still much work to be done. A premature election could jeopardize over 40 bills currently in the House, bills that would provide important benefits to the well-being of Canadians and to the competitiveness of Canada.

For example, Bill C-67, the unanticipated surpluses act, reflects the government's balanced approach to fiscal management by providing a proportional allocation of unanticipated surpluses to permanent tax reductions, targeted investments and debt relief. Our ability to allocate surpluses is a direct result of the sound financial stewardship of the Minister of Finance and of his predecessors.

Bill C-68, Canada's Pacific gateway act, provides the foundations for expanding our trade with the growing economies of countries like China and India and other Asian countries. This has been a priority for our government. The government of British Columbia has urged us to take action on the Pacific gateway. This is what the government is doing to ensure that the Canadian economy as a whole can prosper by the great opportunities that these markets present.

Bill C-11, the whistleblower's bill, is currently before the Senate and provides vital protection for employees who courageously come forward to blow the whistle on wrongdoing in their workplace. The bill reflects the hard work of many members of Parliament, members from Vegreville—Wainwright, Winnipeg Centre and Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. I do not think those members want Bill C-11 to die prematurely.

Bill C-37, the do not call list, is also before the Senate. It reached the Senate through the support of all parties. Jeopardizing this work for the sake of electioneering at Christmas time does not benefit Canadians.

Earlier this month the government supplementary estimates requesting from Parliament the funds needed to implement the programs that allow federal initiatives to operate. These supplementary estimates include additional investments for defence, immigration, climate change, infrastructure, public security, the health of first nations and federal-provincial partnerships.

For example, the estimates include $15 million to implement the veterans' charter; $36.4 million to alleviate and prevent homelessness; over $230 million for investments in first nations communities and first nations peoples; $102.9 million to mitigate the impact of BSE; $34 million to aid the softwood lumber industry; $74 million for the agricultural policy framework; and, $1.1 billion to enhance Canada's national defence.

This is only a sampling of the productive agenda the government has for the next few months and the government continues to move forward this fall to deliver on our commitments.

Next week we will have, for example, a first ministers meeting with aboriginal leaders in British Columbia to address the challenges faced by our first nations. First nations leaders have stressed how important this meeting is for their communities. It would be the responsibility of opposition parties to justify jeopardizing the results of that meeting with a premature election.

Later this month the Minister of Justice will unveil a package targeted at gun crime, which we all know is an important challenge for our cities and for the safety of our communities. This Monday the Minister of Finance presented his fall economic and fiscal update, which proposes significant tax reductions for Canadians and a prosperity plan for Canada's future.

Over the next five years more than $30 billion in tax relief is proposed and over 95% of that would be delivered through personal tax reductions. In addition, significant investments are proposed to create access to post-secondary education and encourage lifelong learning so Canadians can continue to be competitive workers in the global marketplace. Combined with investments and research, innovation and social capital, the economic update sets the stage for accelerated growth and prosperity for the nation.

It is important to highlight that student associations across the country were particularly pleased with the investments in access to post-secondary education. In my constituency I am fortunate enough to have Mount Allison University in Sackville, New Brunswick. The student groups there had spoken to me many times about the heavy financial burden of a post-secondary education. The measures announced by the Minister of Finance will help the students at Mount Allison University.

These measures will help students in my riding who are registered at the University of Moncton, for example. In fact, students across the country will benefit from these very important measures.

This is where the government's focus has been on governing. Canadians are tired of politicians playing partisan games. It is little wonder that cynicism about politicians is on the rise when people spend more time worrying about the timing of the next election than advancing the interest of their constituents in this Parliament.

Government members are here to represent their constituents and to work on making this Parliament successful. I have outlined the number of important initiatives that we have before us. We know there is an impending election that will follow the finance report of Justice Gomery. In the meantime Canadians expect us to roll up our sleeves and to get to work on delivering the commitments that we have all made to our electors.

The election will be at some point in early 2006. That was the Prime Minister's commitment. However, Canadians also want answers from the Gomery commission's final report before going back to the polls. That also was the Prime Minister's commitment. In the meantime, all parliamentarians should spend time working on the legislation that is before the House, that is in committee and that is in the Senate. They should be looking at many interesting private members' initiatives that are coming before Parliament.

In closing, I believe that Canadians want us to work together on what concerns them and on improving their lives and the lives of their families and fellow citizens. They hope the work we do here in Parliament will improve their quality of life. They do not want the debates to end in the partisan bickering that does little to honour this Parliament.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I suggest there are a number of fundamental problems with today's opposition motion. I will point to a few of them.

First, it is fundamentally inconsistent with the basic principles of a parliamentary democracy which in fact have guided us throughout the history of this institution. It is a serious matter to change long-standing principles and practices with no consideration to the future members of the House of Commons.

The opposition parties essentially are willing to play some political and partisan games with our constitutional conventions. We can hear them laughing across the way. It is exactly what Canadians expect from the opposition parties when talking about our Constitution, nothing more than heckling and laughing. Those parties have proven they do not have any respect for the Constitution.

I want to make a few points and then during the question and answer period we can allow the members opposite to stand and rant and rave, as we expect they will. Nonetheless, I would like the opportunity to make a few points.

We have seen a time when members have worked quite well and quite cooperatively in the House, even in the face of challenges with what the opposition parties were looking to do. Canadians ultimately want to see a House that works on behalf of their initiatives. The House of Commons needs to work on behalf of the citizens.

Canadians want their members of Parliament to work on public business, not the private ambitions of any one party leader. Canadians want parliamentarians to debate the issues that are important Canadians, to address their daily concerns and what they are worried about. In fact, Canadians have not been getting legislation or policy that might make their lives better, more prosperous perhaps, and secure. What they are getting from the opposition parties is endless partisan posturing, political games and positioning for electoral advantage, quite frankly.

Members opposite always quote Canadians to suit their particular position. I have talked to Canadians and they have said that things in Parliament are not going well and members are yelling and screaming at each other all the time. I continue to make the point that we put forward and passed what I believe are important initiatives. But we have a situation now where the opposition parties, in particular the leader of the NDP, has put forward a motion that in fact does not fit with the constitutional requirements of this country.

I have to say that it is not only I who might say that. I am not alone in asserting that today's motion is a violation of long-standing democratic principles and practices of Parliament. The official opposition has said, and I believe the opposition House leader just said that the government needs to have the confidence of the House. That is absolutely correct. That is the way our system works. It is based on long-standing democratic principles.

The opposition parties collectively, since they are all supporting this particular motion, through the leader of the NDP are saying they want to vote non-confidence in the government today, but they want to have the consequences essentially some time in January because it suits their political purpose. They are saying they do not want an election during Christmas, but they want to vote non-confidence today and have the election later on. In the meantime, while the House remains in session, the House presumably would be passing important initiatives for Canadians that we put forward as a government and they would be voting confidence in the government, all the while indicating that they have no confidence in the government. The opposition wants to defeat the government, but not for another month and a half or so.

Parliament does not work that way and Canadians understand that. We cannot divide confidence. Confidence is not divisible. It cannot be cut up into little pieces and apportioned over different periods of time saying, “It is okay to pass this piece of legislation which is a confidence bill and we understand that. We will pass that bill, but we do not have confidence in the government. The government should not be allowed to put forward programs that expend Canadian taxpayer money because we do not have confidence, but we will hang around while the government does that and then we will come back and say we do not have confidence in the government again in January”.

The government very clearly either needs to have the confidence of the House or not. It is very simple. It is the way the system has worked for a long time. It is very clear to Canadians that the government must have an ability to make decisions that have an impact on Canadians going forward and it must be able to do that knowing that it has the confidence of the House, or at least the confidence of the majority in the House. Even if there are people who do not have confidence in the government, if the government does not have the confidence of the majority of the House, then it is unable to function as a government.

The opposition parties, in what they are saying and what they are reporting in the media, are essentially saying that they do not have confidence in the government, but what they are afraid to do is to take responsibility for what that may cause.

When a motion of non-confidence is put on the floor of the House of Commons, when the opposition parties vote for that and the motion passes, there is an election. The opposition parties have to take responsibility for that. They should be able to say, “We are causing an election. It will be during Christmas. We are dragging Canadians back to the polls even though two-thirds of Canadians agree with what the Prime Minister is saying and his call for an election in the spring, within 30 days of Justice Gomery's report”.

The hon. member opposite said that we should wait another five months for that. He is perfectly free to say that, and I am not going to argue that position because that is the position the opposition parties have taken, but what they must do in that instance is put forward a motion of non-confidence, not a motion that suggests they do not have confidence now but the effect will take place some time in the future because they do not want to have an election at Christmas. They are trying to position themselves as not having to take responsibility for a Christmas election, but Canadians will know that is where the responsibility will lie.

The opposition parties have had an opportunity to put forward a motion of non-confidence. While they go out and speak to the media and say they do not have confidence, in the House, in this chamber, they had an opportunity to do that today and they did not. They had an opportunity to do it this past Tuesday and the opposition parties did not. They will have an opportunity to put forward that motion either next Tuesday or next Thursday. They have an opportunity to express no confidence in the government by voting down confidence bills or important bills to the government. They have an opportunity to express non-confidence and vote down the government's spending estimates which provide moneys for ongoing programs.

The fact that the opposition parties have sought not to do so clearly shows to Canadians that it is not just an issue of confidence that is truly at stake here, there are some partisan political considerations.

The leader of the New Democratic Party has cited a couple of constitutional experts, but the majority of constitutional experts have sided with the government's approach on this motion. The opposition parties continue to say that even in this minority government, the Prime Minister does not have the right to set the election date.

I will quote Ned Franks, a professor at Queen's University who said:

It is the Prime Minister's right and prerogative to go to the Governor General and ask for a dissolution of the House. It is not Parliament's. That's very clear.

David Docherty has said:

[The opposition's] saying, “We like the things you've done but unless you let the opposition decide when there's an election, we will pull the plug and not only not get things done that we think are important, but quite frankly, not get things done our supporters think are important”. In short, they simply can't do it. Parliamentary non-confidence is very specific. It's non-confidence when there is a vote of non-confidence. If it's a money bill, a speech from the throne, a matter the government says is confidence or there is a motion of non-confidence, those are the times that it's clear.

That is what we are saying. Canadians should not be fooled. There is a lot of political rhetoric that is swirling around this place, but the government either has the confidence or does not have the confidence of the House and it is up to the opposition parties to express that.

When Canadians elected their first minority government in 25 years they expected their representatives to work together. They still expect that. They also indicated they wanted us to continue working on their priorities, Canadian priorities, not the political priorities of opposition parties.

The Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians. He went on national television and said that he would call an election within 30 days of the second Gomery report. He made that commitment and he wants to adhere to it.

I would say that Canadians want their government and their Parliament to deliver results and that is exactly what I have been trying to do and what the government has been doing. We have almost 90 bills before this Parliament.

The opposition parties have indicated that the House of Commons has no confidence in the government but the government has successfully met more than 40 confidence challenges and has been able to continue.

We have a strong record with respect to legislation passed on health care, equalization, a new deal for cities and communities, the offshore accords, climate change and early learning and child care. It is a strong record that we will take to the Canadian people and the Canadian people will decide.

We know Canadians want government and Parliament to focus on their priorities. They do not want a premature election. They do not want their representatives to be focused on political gamesmanship. They want the government and Parliament to deliver results, which is exactly what we are doing.

We are continuing to move forward with these priorities. The Minister of Finance has presented his fall economic and fiscal update that proposes further tax reductions for Canadians, a prosperity plan for Canada's future and it delivers more than $30 billion in tax relief in the current year and the next five years. Over 95% of that tax relief will be delivered through personal income tax.

Sadly, on the one opposition day available to the NDP in this supply cycle, it has chosen to focus on tearing this House down rather than building up this country. I have to say that the opposition day motion is an attempt by the opposition parties to demonstrate no confidence by not putting a motion before the House of Commons and saying that they have no confidence, but having that effect happen some time in January, is pretty convoluted. There has not been an expert out there who has been able to understand it.

We go back to the point of Gomery and when Gomery reports a second time. I know the opposition parties are arguing that can happen anyway and that this is all about some strategy.

The Prime Minister, when making that commitment to Canadians on national television, said that Canadians had the right to all of the facts of the Gomery Commission and all of his recommendations. However they also have a right to hear the response of the government and the response of the opposition parties before they cast their ballots. The opposition should be able to tell Canadians why they are afraid to wait for the final Gomery report before an election is called. If the opposition parties are not afraid, then they should be able to say that.

The commitment made by the Prime Minister was very clear. He said that within 30 days of the final report he would make that call. Obviously, it is not good enough for the opposition. They want an election to take place some time in February, which is four to eight weeks earlier than the Prime Minister's commitment to Canadians, but that is the choice they can make. What they should not do is try to hide behind some muddy motion that is not clear to Canadians.

We are talking about four to eight weeks and, if they want an election earlier than four to eight weeks, then they should stand in their place, put down their motion and have this place work the way it is supposed to work. If there is no confidence in the government, then drag Canadians back to the polls during the holiday season and have Canadians ultimately decide. That is the way it works.

The opposition parties are insisting that if we do not accept today's motion, then they will vote non-confidence in the government. They either have the confidence or not. We are focused on moving forward important government initiatives, not spending this day debating a motion that really has no effect.

As I have said, it is the opposition's right to defeat the government if they do not have confidence in the government, but let us consider for a moment the cost of defeating the government before we get through this legislative agenda.

We have Bill C-67, the unanticipated surplus bill; Bill C-68, the Canada Pacific gateway bill; the whistleblower bill in the Senate, which is essentially a bill that has come out of committee with a number of amendments that all parliamentarians provided; and Bill C-37, the do not call list, which is also before the Senate.

By defeating the government from passing its supplementary estimates, it would prevents $1.1 billion for the Department of National Defence, nearly $200 million for investments in public infrastructure and nearly $120 million to promote peace and stability in fragile states.

The opposition parties also jeopardize the possibility of real concrete action stemming from the first ministers' meeting with aboriginal leaders in Kelowna next week. Phil Fontaine, Chief of the Assembly of First Nations who is opposed to Mr. Layton's motion, said that Mr. Layton's pledge to defeat the government could erase “all of the good work that we've done”.

Unanticipated Surpluses Act

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that there has been some confusion as to whether or not unexpected expenses and so on can come out of the budget. I gather from the parliamentary secretary's answer that any type of contingency can be covered off in the current budget.

I would ask the hon. member for Victoria not to worry himself too much about this aspect of the bill because the bill is nothing more than a pre-election ploy. It is done for a purpose, as the government has done in many other bills, such as Bill C-37, the do not call registry. We had no rules or regulations but the public was concerned about unsolicited calls so the Liberals put together a shoestring bill and left it to the CRTC to manage the workings of it, without regard to cost, so that they could direct their attention to the segment of the population that was interested in that type of legislation. An election is looming, which is why they would do that and why they have a surplus.

The surplus in the last number of years has been embarrassingly large and they know the public is upset, especially those members of the public who are running the treadmill attempting to stay alive, trying to make their mortgage, car and loan payments and are barely able to stay ahead, when the government is accumulating surpluses that have never been surpassed in the past, year after year. It has the audacity to call the bill itself an unanticipated surpluses act, when the surpluses have been anticipated year by year and are even larger than anticipated.

The legislation reads:

Recognizing that it is in the public interest to predetermine how annual unanticipated surpluses, if any, are to be applied among competing priorities...

It is not the public interest so much that the government has in mind. It is its own interest and in preserving its own political hide, and attempting to sow seeds toward what will be an imminent election that causes this bill to come forward.

The bill talks about applying, in a balanced way, the surpluses to spending priorities, to the deficit and to tax relief. Remarkably, it says “surpluses, if any”, so the government has reserved to itself the right to ensure that there is no surplus by tabling legislation that will eat the surplus, which really is not unanticipated, which it anticipates and knows well in advance of closing its books.

Insofar as tax relief is concerned, it is also remarkable that the government indicates that will happen as long as the increases are considered to be fiscally sustainable. Who decides that? The Minister of Finance decides that, the same Minister of Finance who tabled the budget in this House and said that he would entertain only technical changes to his budget. When it became apparent that the government might fall, the same minister and his officers prepared to enter into the one page NDP $2.5 billion budget bill to spend what was already in the surplus in order to preserve its own hide and stay alive because at that time it was not prepared to face the electorate.

What the government has done in this legislation, as it has done in other legislation, is it has built in contingencies and conditions that would make it appear as if it is doing something when in fact it is not, or has reserved for itself the option not to do it. In fact, it is an addiction to spending that must be cured, and the only way that addiction can be cured is by voting that particular party out of office and cleaning house. So addicted is it to spending that it has said in this legislation that the surplus would only be determined after some specific spending priorities were put into their budget.

In fact, in the spending area, the note I have says that as well, the extent to which one-third of the unanticipated surplus is allocated to spending every year would depend upon the spending priorities identified by the government. Therefore if it chose to spend in advance, it could. As the parliamentary secretary said, if there were a disaster or if there were some other aspect that required spending, the government could spend the money on that.

What would that do? That would simply eliminate the surplus. The government reserves unto itself the right to spend and says that if it has not misspent and there is some money left, it still wants to reserve unto itself the right to spend one-third.

At present it is required that the surpluses be applied to pay down the debt. Something which the hon. member from Victoria indicated and which makes good sense is that any family with a debt would try to focus all of its efforts on paying down its debt. That is the way it is now. What has the government done with this new legislation and the humongous surplus instead of giving it back to the public? It has decided to put only a portion of it toward the debt, a portion of it toward tax reduction and only if the minister decides that it is sustainable, and more spending.

When talking about spending, we have to wonder if the spending priority of the government is what it should be when we look at the NDP budget bill. As I read the legislation, subclauses 2(1) and 2(2) indicate that the whole bill is subject to clause 4 which means that the bill is subject to the spending of $2.5 billion that was agreed to in the NDP budget bill. Even into the future, not only has the government reserved the right to ensure there is no surplus, but the bill would only apply in 2005-06 and 2006-07 after the NDP budget and spending was put in place.

I found it remarkable that the leader of the New Democratic Party would say he was surprised that they did not receive that money immediately following the passage of the bill. I would instruct the leader of the New Democratic Party that any legislation tabled by the government needs to be read very carefully. There was no requirement in that bill to spend the money immediately after its passage; it was in time and it was conditional. The government has learned how to make things conditional, reserving unto itself the right to spend or not spend. Optically the Liberals want to create an illusion to satisfy public opinion, to try to bolster their opportunities in an election.

Perhaps this would be a good time for me to read an article by Roy MacGregor. It was written in anticipation of the visit some days ago of Condoleezza Rice, the United States secretary of state. He said in his note to her:

You are arriving at a time when there is much talk of tax breaks in the air. That is because there may be an election soon. Or there may not be. Or there may be, too. No one knows.

No one knows for sure but there is something in the air. I am a farm boy from the prairies. I can tell when rain is coming because I can smell rain in the air and I can smell an election coming. That is why we are debating this legislation that is dressed up and painted to make it look like it is something when in fact it is nothing. Lawyers have spent time drafting this legislation to make it appear that we are getting something substantial when in fact we are getting very little, depending on the whims of the government of the day which has reserved unto itself the right to spend and has reserved unto itself the right to have discretion. In real terms it could amount to nothing.

Roy MacGregor went on to say that Ottawa, the capital, collects far more taxes than necessary. That is the truth. Ask those Canadians who work 10 hours or 12 hours a day, five or six days a week, just to feed their families. They are paying taxes, lots of taxes, in the thousands. Where are those taxes going? To the government, and where are we getting the surpluses?

Regarding the goods and services tax, the government made a promise in the red book. I heard it with my own ears from the then prime minister who said that the GST would be cancelled but he did not do it. The Liberals are happy to have it now and they allow it to accumulate. Where else are the resources coming for the surpluses? There are the high energy and gasoline prices. Consumers are paying more and more money and the government is watching. The government is becoming embarrassed by the surplus that is accumulating without it doing anything. The Liberals have done a good job trying to spend it, and misspend it on the sponsorship scandal, on the Dingwall affair, on $500,000 severance packages, on André Ouellet spending $1 million without receipts, and on having departments that are not operating frugally or efficiently.

The Liberals are embarrassed. They have done all of that and they still have a big pile of money left, so they say we have to have some legislation.

Roy MacGregor went on to say in his column:

Ottawa...collects far more taxes than necessary and then, every three months or so, announces an enormous surplus, which millions of Canadians take to mean the government has turned a profit and is cause for celebration.

It is no cause for celebration that despite mismanagement, despite misspending, despite program goodies being given up for an election, still has a big pile of money left as a surplus. What is that telling us? The government is not running a good operation and is not turning a good bottom line. It is charging people too much money and thinking it is its own, or it is taking it from the provinces or municipalities.

Roy MacGregor went on to say that the government “then takes some of this 'profit' and gives it back to the people as a minor tax break”, maybe at the discretion of the minister. It is like taking a lot of money out of my wallet, giving 20% of it to the government and telling me I should feel good about it. That type of attitude needs to change.

It would be one thing if the government used some of that money for appropriate spending, but look at what is happening in government and the situation that farmers in my province are facing. One must ask how the government has had humongous surpluses for a number of years and a crisis has developed in the Prairies and the Liberals are not doing anything about it. Farmers have been trying to get the ear and attention of the government about what is happening on the Prairies and they have been ignored. The NDP that engineered the $2.5 billion budget did not even mention the word agriculture.

I asked a question in the House of the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board as to why the government would set such low initial prices when our farmers cannot afford to pay their input costs. They cannot afford to pay them and need additional funds at this critical time, extra cash flow. What has the government done? It has ensured that initial prices are about 60% to 64% of what they actually expect them to be. The government is playing big daddy to the farmers, holding back money in the thousands of dollars when the farmers need it, but the government does not care.

The minister had the audacity to say in the House that he has known about this for a number of weeks, that he is looking at it and thinking about it. That is what is happening in the CAIS program. He is looking at it and studying it. That one simple example shows a government that is out of touch with a segment of its people when it has huge surpluses and it is mismanaging and misspending.

In fact, the price for feed barley has been set so low in my constituency that after deducting the costs of taking the feed barley from the elevator to port, it nets the farmers 18¢ or 19¢ a bushel and it costs them almost that much to deliver it. It is an embarrassment that the government would even allow that kind of circumstance to come to be without addressing it immediately. It has not done it. I challenge the government to do it now, to raise that price so at least the farmers can put some extra dollars in their pockets as opposed to losing it totally in transportation by paying it in handling costs.

There was also an issue in my constituency about farmers having own use permits to allow them to save a few thousand dollars to eke out an existence. The government did not take any steps to extend the deadline beyond September 30 to allow them to acquire own use permits at considerable savings. Where are the government's priorities? Where is it going?

Let me indicate to the House how dire the situation is. I do not know what our farmers have to do to get the ear of the government. How drastic must the situation get? Must it get as bad as what we witnessed the other day with the first nations before the House turns its ear to it? The problem is severe.

I received a letter from a constituent recently with respect to the state of agriculture. She said, “Dealing with the government in areas of income tax, GST and CAIS has become extremely frustrating. I have had to deal with the death of a close family member, watched sibling family members struggle through farm bankruptcy and near farm bankruptcy and had to deal with some health crisis. I informed CAIS personnel that I may as well just go home and shoot myself. Then I proceeded to leave work and go home to do just that. Were it not for my husband and daughter, I would not be writing this letter”.

In fact, there were at least two suicides in my consistency. Most people have loans for machinery, for cattle, for land, for operating. The letter went on to say, “For two years we lost our crop to hail and frost and now when we finally have grown one, we have to pile it on the ground while the fuel bill reaches $15,000 and we can't sell it”.

And the government is embarrassed about sitting on surpluses when these kinds of conditions are happening. The Liberals had the opportunity to address the energy crisis and fuel bills on the farm. Fuel bills and fertilizer bills are getting very near to or exceeding the cost of the low commodity prices and the Liberals have done nothing. In the energy bill, they have tried to address a very narrow segment of the population, and again have forgotten my constituents. My constituent asked, “What are we supposed to do?” They cannot sell the grain. She said, “I love my family but this farming is killing me. I do all the things my mother did to raise a family, plus hold down a full time job, and when I look at my bank account today, I have $91 to buy groceries until the end of the month”.

The government is sitting on billions of dollars, doing nothing and then, because it was embarrassed, is pretending to divide it up for more spending, tax cuts potentially, just to save itself some embarrassment. It is not being done to help people because this problem has existed for a long time.

My constituent went on to say, “We are doing our best to keep the farm going. It sometimes becomes overwhelming trying to keep straight all the deadlines and rules for all the government programs which include income tax, payroll, GST, NISA wind-down, CAIS, Saskatchewan crop insurance, hail insurance, feeder calf set aside, TISP, Canadian farm income plan, business risk management, Saskatchewan farm fuel program and Canadian Wheat Board permits to name a few” not to mention the own use permits. The government has administered and regulated and made bookwork such a difficult thing for farmers that most of them are almost prepared to give up in desperation. She went on to say, “while trying to expand your operation, hold down a full time job, watching our bottom lines shrink away and our costs go up”.

This is what is happening in the midst of plenty. I fail to understand how the government could put a few billion dollars into the CAIS program, half of which is eaten up in administration, half of which never reaches the farm gate, causing farmers to operate with very little. How can the Liberals justify that?

A farmer from my area gave me some figures. He said wheat at 25 bushels an acre at $2 cost him $50 an acre. His chemicals cost $22 and fertilizer costs $26 for a total of $48 on two items and he has $2 left to cover fuel and operating expenses, not to mention the opportunity to feed his family. He and his wife are both working off farm. His brother is working off farm. They are doing whatever they can and are struggling to get by. They think it is galling to see the misspending and the waste that happens and the government cannot help an entire industry that is about to go down in Saskatchewan.

The government is doing nothing about it. The Liberals are not looking forward. They are not looking at any kind of a program that will preserve farmers in their hour of need. Instead, the Liberals are quibbling about whether they can frame the bill to show them as being magnanimous in dealing with the surplus by dividing it in thirds. If they were really doing that, at least that would be of some satisfaction. But they built in the opportunity for them to do their own thing, like they always have, to continue gouging and taxing on the backs of ordinary people who are attempting to make a living. The Liberals want to continue to get their surpluses and spend the money in government departments with waste and mismanagement, as common people on the ground have a hard time making a living. How can that be in this country?

Why has the government not addressed this situation and the economic impact in my home constituency? Instead, the government introduces a trifling bill such as this just to save its face and have an election gimmick. This is hard for my constituents and my constituency to take.

Telecommunications Act

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Jean, on his accurate and enlightened remarks on Bill C-37.

Naturally, like him, I am concerned about protecting my fellow citizens against telemarketing abuse. I agree with him on some of the exemptions that should be included in this bill on telemarketing, namely charities such as United Way and the Red Cross. It is important that they not be on the list that will be established.

I also share the concern of the hon. member for Saint-Jean about the abuse that has taken place in the management of the gun registry. We now know that this abuse has resulted in unconscionable costs in excess of $2 billion.

How does the hon. member for Saint-Jean suggest that the Liberal government avoid allocating excessive funding to the establishment of such a registry?

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today on Bill C-37. I had spoken last week on this bill, beginning that presentation with my story of being solicited at home for a vacuum cleaner, one fine Saturday morning at 9 a.m. I find that these examples are far too frequent in recent years.

We know that the field of technology is evolving. The marketing companies are pushing sales more and more, and their salespersons as well. So we have reached the point where, today, this bill will become a kind of consumer protection act, to protect consumer privacy.

I consider the type of call I was mentioning earlier to be out of place, coming on a Saturday morning or often at dinner time. For salespersons know that, as people are very busy these days, it is often early in the morning, at dinner time or after dinner that they can be most easily reached. This is an infringement of the privacy of consumers.

Ours is a world in which everything is moving faster and faster, where the entire working class is confronted with more and more demands. When anyone who works comes back home in the evening, he or she deserves a little relaxation, a little time to spend with the family. This is important, and we speak often about it. There are all kinds of projects for balancing work and family. In Quebec, this is in fact a very important issue.

Imagine, in the evening, when you are at home, receiving two or three telephone calls like this. Often the people who call are persistent. It is difficult to simply hang up on them. They have a good psychological approach: they are open-minded and very kind. People spend time with them, and finally realize that they are being solicited. The more time goes by, the greater the pressure. Often people hesitate to hang up. They can lose 5, 10 or 15 minutes of their time, of their privacy, at the end of which they may say no. All the same, they will have wasted time to the detriment of their family.

The bill we have before us today protects consumers and privacy generally.

Neither can the do not call principle be applied to everyone. We have understood this. At present, the bill provides that charities will be exempt from its application. That means that a charity cannot be prohibited from calling a certain list of persons. The reason for this is fundamental. As I often say to the community groups and charitable organizations in my own riding, if we did not have these groups, it would be very difficult for society to function.

Everyone knows that public finances are limited, both in the provinces and in Canada. Obviously there is growing pressure on public finances, particularly in the provinces, whereas in Ottawa there is a big surplus. In the provinces there are many restrictions. Consequently the government sometimes withdraws from certain sectors of activity, especially social activity. As a result, it is the community groups that come to the rescue of those who are somewhat more disadvantaged.

I find it totally unjustified to tell the Red Cross for example that it will be on an exemption list and will no longer be allowed to phone a number of people whose names are on a do not call list because they do not want to be called. The Red Cross may be a case in point these days, in light of the earthquake in Pakistan and all that is happening in that part of the world.

I believe that they need funding. We can depend on the governments, but we must also depend on organizations of this type. These are often non governmental organizations, people who go to the rescue of victims who are in a very bad situation. The government is not the only one asked to act; organizations of this type also get involved.

They are also active, on a smaller scale, in our respective ridings. Who does not know of the organizations looking after children or battered women?

Solicitation is very important to them. Cutting their funding by telling them that, in the future, they will no longer be allowed to phone 40% or 50% of the citizens of St-Jean is not helping them. And it is not helping the society at large either.

It is therefore perfectly understandable that the bill provide for exemptions. Charities—registered ones naturally—will be in a separate category and protected, because there are sometimes charlatans in that field as well. Traps are to be avoided. People must necessarily be registered to have their names on the do not call list.

The bill also deals with the issue of business relationships. This week, I visited a very dynamic business in my region. It is a computer company and it markets absolutely fantastic software. I was introduced to the woman in charge of marketing. That is all she does all day long. It is quite usual for companies to solicit bilateral service exchanges or to sell each other services, whether they are in the same field or different ones.

Business relationships are very important. We do not want to suppress them with a bill of this kind. However, I do not think the bill is aimed at that issue but rather at excessive marketing to individuals. Business relationships must continue to be protected. I obviously do not need to spell it all out. It is important for companies to be identified and protected so that all business relationships continue.

There are also political calls. Here we are kind of making our own sales pitch. It is important to preserve this right, which I think is a right to information. I often say to young people or people who do not have a lot of confidence in politics: “You know, everything you do is political. Everything you put on your table, the children you send to school or daycare, when you use hospitals, those are all political issues.

It is important, therefore, for political calls to continue. Otherwise, we would be risking anarchy. Many people do not believe in politics. Nevertheless, we must continue, with the means at our disposal, to make as many people as possible aware of how important politics still are. It is a basic right to information.

The same is true of opinion polls. I am not speaking just of political opinion polls but of opinion polls in general about what people like or do not like about society or how they feel social problems should be addressed. We feel that these polls are a very important right to information that must absolutely be maintained.

I was very happy to arrive this morning and discover before delivering my speech that our Liberal friends had finally agreed to unanimous consent on newspapers. That might seem strange because the opposition members, both in the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois, had tried furiously last week to get unanimous consent but could not. Our colleagues must have received some food for thought over the weekend. Maybe they got some telephone calls from representatives of major newspapers such as The Globe and Mail and the National Post saying, “Listen, our Liberal friends, we would like to be exempted from that, too”. However it came about, the result is the same.

So, this morning we found out that newspapers were excluded, just like registered charities and political telecommunications. It is important that newspapers be excluded because, again, we are talking about the right to information. I can say unequivocally that we have some very good newspapers in my riding. Le Canada français is one of them. There are people there whose job is specifically to do telemarketing all day long. If we want our local newspapers to survive, it is important that they be able to go and get subscribers, which are often individuals. It is important to read a newspaper once a week or once a day. I am not talking about advertisement, but about the importance for a citizen to keep informed, both at the local and national levels. So, it is important that the instruments that ensure the survival of these newspapers be protected.

In the end, there was unanimous consent on this issue. I will be pleased to support the bill, which now also includes newspapers.

What is also interesting about the bill is that it provides for a review after three years, to see how things are working out. Some irritants will likely surface, but we will be able to review the legislation three years from now. Such a review is often not included in bills, although it may be less indicated in some cases. However, I think that, in this case, it is perfectly suited to the bill now before us. In three years, we will see if other organizations should be excluded from the scope of the act.

There may be other ways of looking at how the list should be controlled. I will talk about this later on. So, if there is a major problem, we will be able to change some provisions of the act three years from now. This will prevent the government from deciding alone the political agenda, setting the procedure and selecting the issues that come before the House, and from deciding to not present this bill again to the House, even if there are irritants. Such a provision will benefit everyone. It is a safeguard, a protection. If we find out that we erred or that we did not have all the information, we will be able to correct the situation.

I was also surprised to see that the Canadian Marketing Association did not object to the bill. In fact, the CMA president himself said that it was about time we did something. With the deregulation that currently prevails, whereby there are practically no rules in effect in Canada, we are witnessing, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, a proliferation of this kind of approach. Frankly, consumers, myself included, are tired of constantly being disturbed. We are also noticing a change, although not for the better, in that there is an increasing number of these calls and companies are becoming more and more insistent. The situation has reached the point where, when I get home, there are always messages on my answering machine. These companies called and they left messages. Out of all the messages that will be waiting when I get home on Thursday, probably one quarter of them will have been left by organizations or individuals doing solicitation and urging me to call them back. Of course, I will not do so. Not only do I not have the time because of my duties as a member of Parliament, but I am also somewhat reluctant to do so because I find these companies to be quite insistent.

So, the CMA too confirmed the existence of a problem that needs to be corrected. It did not object to Bill C-37. I will talk about it in a little while. It wants to be involved to some degree, particularly as regards the registry issue. However, the Bloc Québécois' position on this is quite clear.

Not only is the CMA saying that such legislation was needed, it is also realizing that, in any case, the people whose names will be on that do not call list were not buying from these companies. In its opinion, the impact of such a list will not be that great on its members. So, in the end, it agrees with this measure.

We did not start from square one on that issue. The Americans had a bit of a head start on us. In 2003, they noted the same kind of problem and legislated to establish what is called a do not call registry. It seems to be working. I do not know whether that particular piece of legislation includes a provision like ours for review in three years. One thing that is for sure is that it is already working. Sixty two million Americans have registered. This type of solicitation was bothering them, and they wanted the companies to stop phoning them. The legislation provides for penalties. That is another thing. If we pass legislation, the legislation must not be too soft. It must not be merely an incentive; it should make a real impact. It is important that marketing experts understand that certain conditions have to be met, failing which there will be stiff penalties to pay. This is already in place in the United States. The majority of the 62 million people I referred to earlier are already reporting a sharp decrease in the number of calls received; in fact, 87% reported receiving hardly any calls.

So they are very happy with this legislation. It is time now in Canada to act accordingly.

I want to speak now about the registry and how the CMA wants to become involved. When anyone says registry, of course, the nightmare that people usually think of is the gun registry. I took part in the debate last week. There were a lot of questions about this registry. Let us be very clear. The legislation must be as specific as possible and there must be as much information as possible about this registry.

It would be good if they could tell us every three or four months how much the operation cost for the previous months. We do not want to have the kind of surprise we had with the firearms control registry. It was supposed to cost $2 million a year and now it costs $2 billion. It is the taxpayers who pay for that. This is another scandal. People often talk about the sponsorship scandal, but there is also the gun registry scandal. That is probably the biggest scandal in dollar terms. There is quite a difference between $2 million and $2 billion. A thousand times more. Everyone agrees that this did not make sense.

Our fears are understandable, therefore, when they talk about registries. We want to ensure that there are as many guarantees as possible. But we do not want to throw the baby out with the bath water. We believe that this is important legislation and one way to exercise control is to have a registry. We are in a tough spot, though, because we saw what happened with the gun registry. It cost $2 million instead of $2 billion. On the other hand, we cannot just cast all these kinds of bills aside whenever the word “registry” appears. That is not the way to see things. By the way, there are a lot of discussions every year when the time arrives for requests for budget surpluses to be given to the Canadian firearms program. People do say that they can hardly believe it.

The basic principle was to control firearms. I get telephone calls myself from mothers who lost their daughters in the massacre of students at the Polytechnique. I cannot resist these mothers who tell me that we have to keep the firearms registry. It is useless for me to tell them that it costs $80 million extra; for them, it is not a question of money. For a society to control firearms, for them, it is non-negotiable.

It is always a bit awkward to be asked to vote more funding for a program that has already cost $2 billion, when it was meant to cost only $2 million annually.

The same thing applies here. We have some concerns, but we do believe that the bill is a valuable one. We just need to pin down the matter of the registry to ensure that it does not get out of hand like the last time. I should make that clear, out of the Liberal Party's hands.

Once again, the opposition members are the ones who raised the issue. The Liberal Party was asked at one point whether it did not find $2 billion instead of $2 million to be sufficient. We are not the ones who dropped the ball. All we did was block it so that it did not roll further out of bounds. If we had not, the tab might well have gone over the $2 billion mark by now.

We keep on insisting that the expenditures be reduced to acceptable levels. We will also insist that the registry that is an integral part of this bill be monitored as closely as possible to avoid a repetition of this pillaging of public funds.

We also do not want the registry to be kept by the Canadian Marketing Association. They will certainly not be given responsibility for it. That would be a bit like asking Colonel Sanders to keep an eye on the chicken coop. That is not what we want.

In closing, I will point out that we will need to address fraudulent telemarketing at a later time. The laws on this are very severe in the U.S., thereby driving the phony telemarketers back to Canada. They operate what are called boiler rooms, from which they systematically swindle people.

Unfortunately, the bill before us does not take this into account. I get the feeling that we would have to amend the Criminal Code instead.

Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois will be supporting Bill C-37. We are, moreover, very pleased that newspapers have been added to the list of exemptions.

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Kelowna--Lake Country for sharing his time.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Newton--North Delta to participate in the third reading debate on Bill C-37. This bill addresses telemarketing calls by enabling the CRTC to establish and enforce a do not call registry similar to ones already found in the United States and the United Kingdom.

Specifically, Bill C-37 would amend the section of the Telecommunications Act that deals with telemarketers by adding the power to establish databases and to make any order with respect to these databases.

It would also also give the CRTC the power to levy substantial penalties against telemarketers and to contract with a private sector third party to operate the service. Penalties of $1,500 per offending call for individuals and $15,000 per offending call for corporations would be imposed for telemarketers who do not respect the list.

Previous to this bill, Canadians have had access to privately operated do not call registries. The Canadian Marketing Association, CMA, would register consumers for their do not call list. However, not all telemarketers are members of the CMA, so this registration did not eliminate all unsolicited telemarketing calls.

In addition, the CRTC required that each telemarketing company maintain their own do not call list. Consumers could ask to be placed on the list, but only after receiving a call. The list was maintained by the telemarketing company for three years.

We have all received unwanted calls from people attempting to sell goods or services. It could be a telemarketing pitch from the local newspaper, a credit card company, a cleaning service, a charity, or even a politician wanting one's vote.

Sometimes we may welcome these calls because they would provide useful information or a product that we are interested in, but other times, they are nothing but an annoyance.

The Conservative Party supports the establishment of a Canadian do not call registry within parameters clearly defined by this Parliament and with reasonable exemptions provided for charities, political parties, polling firms and companies that wish to contact their current customers. In the original version of Bill C-37, these exemptions were not laid out by the government.

Furthermore, the power to determine these details was delegated by the Liberals to the CRTC and its regulatory powers rather than to the elected representatives of the House. In fact, before going to committee, the bill was almost an empty shell, with most of the details left to the regulations.

The bill is extremely light on details. There are no exceptions to the list. There are no details about how the list would be maintained, what information would be required from consumers, how telemarketers would check the list, how often they must check the list, and who would have access to the list or any reporting on how the list would be run.

As a result, we did not know if there would be any exclusions to the list, how much it would cost or who would operate the list and so on. Maybe it would be like the gun registry fiasco, costing $2 billion rather than $2 million. Those things are not clear.

The government habitually introduces shell bills that lack substance, are written in, often, incomplete, general terms and are very vague in intent. So, no substance, no nitty-gritty, no details, but only a shell.

Much of the law that affects Canadians is not found in the Statutes of Canada but in the thousands and thousands of regulations made pursuant to powers granted by acts of Parliament. This leaves the door wide open to put through regulations that define our laws, without the proper checks and balances.

To curtail that, to plug that big black hole in the regulatory process, I introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-205, which in fact was the only private member's bill to receive royal assent. That bill was introduced by the Canadian Alliance. It restored some accountability to the regulation making process because it brought under the umbrella of the government all the quasi-government organizations like the CRTC and many others. They used to make the regulations but they were not under the purview of parliamentary scrutiny.

I plugged that black hole in the regulatory reforms, but still the government habitually introduces legislation without any detail. It leaves all the details to the regulatory process. In doing so, the Liberal government has effectively gutted the parliamentary process of accountability and transparency in the formulation of laws. Parliament is no longer at the centre of the law making process.

The Prime Minister can talk all the talk about regulatory or democratic reforms, but his track record is the weakest in the history of Canada for democratic reforms existing in this House the way that democracy exists in Canada. In fact, in this minority government, I do not see any real democracy in existence, as the House leader of the Conservative Party said earlier.

During second reading debate I outlined all of these concerns. I concluded my speech by saying that:

—the registry, if established, must be “within parameters clearly defined by Parliament and with reasonable exemptions provided for charities, political parties and companies that wish to contact their current customers” and that we must craft a more detailed piece of legislation so both consumers and telemarketers are clear as to how the do not call registry will work.

After second reading, at committee, the Conservative Party members worked to amend the bill and to add several new clauses to the Telecommunications Act. The following are among the amendments passed at committee.

Three years after the do not call list comes into force, it will be reviewed by Parliament.

Next, any person making a telecommunications call must, at the beginning of the call, identify the purpose of the call and the person or the organization on whose behalf the call is being made. This was a Conservative amendment.

Exemptions are being granted to the following: charities, political parties, candidates, the riding associations, et cetera, and surveys, or calls made for the sole purpose of collecting information for a survey of members of the public.

As for individual lists, all the parties that have been made exempt must still keep individual no not call lists. If a person is called by a charity and asks to be placed on the do not call list held by that charity, the charity is forced to comply and is not allowed to call that individual for three years, which is the current time limit. Of course, the length of time could be changed by the CRTC through the regulations once the bill is passed.

All of these were Conservative amendments.

As I have only one minute left, I will summarize. Seniors are not protected under the bill. Telemarketing companies scam seniors, selling gambling, lotteries, et cetera to them. The bill also does not address unsolicited ads on the Internet, the pop-ups. As well, young children, when learning on the Internet and doing their homework, are bombarded with vulgar and pornographic ads. Nothing has been done about this.

To conclude, I would like to say that a centrally administered national do not call list provides the means for consumers to avoid unsolicited telemarketing calls. A well-run do not call list will provide consumers with choice and protection.

The Conservative Party supports the establishment of a do not call registry within the parameters I have clearly defined. I personally still have many concerns. I have tried to allude to them, but my time is up, so let me close by saying that I will be watching closely and will protect the best interests of my constituents of Newton—North Delta and all Canadians.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have found the debate so far to be very constructive. I am pleased that all parties appear to be in support of Bill C-37, the do not call list legislation, for the obvious reasons. Canadians are absolutely fed up with the intrusions on their personal lives.

I will comment briefly about the bill and then address the issue about registries and the relationship some members have drawn between the firearms registry and the do not call registry. As well, I will comment on the point raised by the member in his speech with regard to the impact of Bill C-37 on charities, which is not exactly a fair reflection of what we are talking about. These organizations are not for profit and are not registered charities. They do not issue receipts but fundraise for charitable purposes. That is the difference.

Based on polls cited by Industry Canada, 97% of Canadians have a negative reaction to these kinds of calls. Anyone with a valid telephone number will get a call and it will come at the worst possible time. All hon. members have received those kinds of calls.

Under the existing regulatory framework, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission is responsible for this area. The CRTC definition of telemarketing is the use of telecommunication facilities to make unsolicited calls for the purpose of solicitation where solicitation is defined as selling or promoting a product or service or soliciting money or moneys worth whether directly or indirectly and whether on behalf of another party. This includes solicitation for donations by or on behalf of charitable organizations. That is the way the law exists today.

As many members have noted, the industry committee has made a number of changes. These substantial changes have been highlighted on the reprint that came back from committee.

Current CRTC regulations state that telemarketers must remove a customer's name and telephone number from their calling lists upon request. Most members are well aware that it is pretty difficult for someone to get a word in edgewise with a telemarketer. If an individual has not given some indication that there is some interest in listening to the rest of the message, that call is terminated fairly quickly. Clearly something had to be done.

Under the current regulations, telemarketers who fail to comply with that regulation or other regulations can have their service suspended or disconnected by the telecommunications service provider. Penalties range anywhere from $10,000 to $250,000.

Telemarketing is a very lucrative business. About 18% of telemarketing calls result in some business being done. That is the reason why many telemarketing businesses are opposed to the legislation. It will impact their business.

The commission observed specifically that there would be better enforcement if the commission itself imposed appropriate fines on telemarketers that breached the rules. This is included in the bill. There also is the ability for the commission to delegate various administrative duties. It means that another independent organization could be established to administer the operations and administration of the do not call list. This is yet to be determined. I know a number of questions have been raised about the operations, the administration and certainly the cost.

As indicated at committee stage, a number of changes were made. When one thinks about it, the bill would establish a do not call list and would provide the legislative framework for the creation of the list and the administration of a national do not call list. This is important because now we would provide a one-instrument vehicle in which Canadians could say that they wanted to be on the list because they did not want to receive unsolicited calls from people trying to sell them goods or services for profit.

The major changes that have been made to the bill by the committee have to do with exemptions. The member who spoke previously talked about the exemptions, most significantly the exemption for a registered charity within the meaning of section 248 of the Income Tax Act.

We all understand the importance of charitable giving. I also have received a number of interventions from charitable groups and organizations that have registered charities, have a licence number and are able to issue receipts to Canadians who patronize their organizations, whether it be the local hospital, the Red Cross, the Terry Fox campaign or whatever it might be. These kinds of things the committee believe, and I think Canadians would acknowledge, are very significant instruments which have been used by the charitable sector to seek support for their charities.

The member who just spoke stated that there would be some impairment on the charitable sector. That is not exactly the case for a registered charity. We are talking about not for profit organizations that may very well do what would be characterized as charitable work or community service work. He mentioned, for example, the local Lions Club or Mothers Against Drunk Driving, et cetera. These organizations are not registered charities. They would not be exempt and would have to apply.

They are eligible, however, to apply to register as a charity and to have the full exemption that other charities enjoy. To the extent that traditional telemarketing techniques are a principal source of their revenue, it may very well be in their interest to register as a charity pursuant to section 248(1) of the Income Tax Act.

Three other exemptions that have not been talked about very much are also important. Political parties would be exempt. This probably will not excite a lot of the public because that means political parties will be able to continue to utilize their broadcast calling techniques for support purposes. A nomination contestant, a leadership contestant or a candidate of a political party also would be exempt, as well as an association of members of a political party. Therefore, the local riding associations would be exempt.

Under the Canada Elections Act, we have laws which try to enhance and promote our democratic electoral system. It is extremely important. I know members have come across the situation from time to time where they meet resistance. It might be a superintendent of a particular apartment building who says that he does not want anyone disturbing the residents. Under the elections law, candidates have the legal right to access the electors. It is here to complement existing law and it received the support of all parties.

Although it may seem like an exception that maybe Canadians were not thinking about, I very much expect that they would understand that it is important that those who seek to represent them at any political level of government have the ability to communicate with people using the telephone and why it would not be prohibited under this act.

The bill contains substantial definitions consequential to the exemptions that I mentioned. There are some administrative, monetary penalties that I am not going to go through. Members have already handled this very well.

The issue of funding has come up as well. The registry is expected to be funded on a cost recovery basis from the telemarketers themselves. As I have indicated, about 18% of the calls they make do generate revenue for them. It is a very substantial business and obviously there has been a reaction to this, but there appears to be considerable support for the do not call list. In a survey that Environics did on behalf of the Government of Canada, 79% of the respondents queried on telemarketing supported a national do not call list and 66% of the respondents said that they would likely sign up for this service.

There are a number of important priorities to balance. Obviously, it is important for telemarketers to be able to do their business, but there does come a point in time in which there is an intrusion which is beyond reasonable. Anybody who is in political life knows that prime time is during the dinner hour. This is when most people will get their calls. I am not sure what others' experiences are, but I consider phone calls to my home to be important. I ensure that I answer the phone within a reasonable period of time and it is quite a disappointment to be called away from dinner or from my family to answer a call from somebody who cannot pronounce my name.

I would mention that there is a proviso under the bill which says:

Any person making a telecommunication referred to in subsection (1)--

That means people who are entitled to do this.

--must, at the beginning of the telecommunication, identify the purpose of the telecommunication and the person or organization on whose behalf the telecommunication is made.

Therefore, even with regard to those who have an exemption under this, people are going to get, for the first time, information about who they are being called on behalf of and what this is all about. I think that is extremely important because often it starts off with “Hi, how are you” and a few other things to find out whether or not this is possibly a reasonable time to get our attention.

It is part of the marketing technique, but it is very clear that if people know right off the bat who they are being contacted on behalf of and the organization is identified, even from those who are authorized to make these calls, it will give Canadians an opportunity to indicate whether or not they are interested at all and to get off the phone and back to their families or their meal.

I suggested that some telemarketers did not support this legislation. There were some comments made by them. One suggested that the current rules for telemarketing are sufficient to regulate marketers, through voluntary means or company specific do not call lists that had been an industry standard for years among legitimate firms. That is an interesting statement for someone to have made, but the fact remains that 97% of Canadians have said they are annoyed by receiving these calls, so the current regulations are not working. This is not a valid position to be taken by the telemarketing industry.

It was further argued that being on a do not call list removes a customer's chance to learn about new products and services that could improve their lives in some way. It removes a business opportunity to reach a consumer direction.

I am sure that it does remove an opportunity, but all of a sudden now there is this balance between a consumer's right not to be effectively harassed. It seems that most people who have a need for a product or a service have ample opportunity, through the flyers in the various newspapers or that are deposited in their mailboxes or through the yellow pages or through the advertising that happens on television or radio or whatever, to apprise themselves of who is in the business and where they can get it. I really do not believe that is a compelling reason for this do not call list to proceed.

Some of the commentators have pointed out that there is an alternative to adding more regulation or more bureaucracy. When called by a telemarketer, an individual may request to be put on the company's do not call list and then hang up. In fact, that is the current regulation. Someone can make a specific request and under the current CRTC regulations telemarketers must do that, so I am a little concerned that even the telemarketing industry for some odd reason does not understand that these arrangements are already in place.

There are a number of organizations, particularly the Canadian Marketing Association, which support this legislation. It also represents the telemarketing group as well. Looking at what is necessary here, there is probably ample evidence that even the industry itself realizes that there is a balance to be maintained and that it should be self-funded by the telemarketing industry, and that there should be penalties for those who do not follow the legislation.

Let me conclude with regard to the costs. A number of members have suggested that while we know how bad registries can be, look at this terrible national gun registry and how much it costs. It was only supposed to cost $2 million and it actually cost $2 billion. However, when someone hears that, it seems to be incredible. How could that possibly happen? What they do not say, and watch the temperature of the water go up in here, is that there was a very significant backlash to establishing a national firearms registry. Handguns had been registered since 1966, I believe.

The additional registry was to register long arms. Let me suggest that long arms were in fact the addition to it. I was here at the time when Alan Rock was the justice minister. It really surprised me that criminal activity using long arms was actually greater than for handguns. I know that today criminal activity due to the use of long arms actually is half of what it was prior to the gun registry coming into effect.

I know that over 90% of the applications to register firearms under the new registry were deliberately submitted with errors on them to the extent that we could not have them processed electronically. This meant that human resources had to be hired in extensive numbers to process them manually and to contact all of the registrants.

I would suggest that when the lobby against having a national gun registry counsels gun owners to falsify information or to make mistakes on their registry applications so that it messes up the system, it is going to cost more money. It is like the demonstrators in the Los Angeles riots. The local people were trashing their own neighbourhood and said, “there, take that”. Well, yes, it did take more money to do it.

What are the consequences? We do know that long arm crime has gone down. We do know that front line policing officers consult and go to the national firearms registry on an average of 5,000 times each and every day. That is over 1.8 million consultations with the national gun registry. Furthermore, one would ask, why is it that front line police officers would want to go and look at the national firearms register?

I can think of some examples. For instance, if I am a police officer and I am called to a particular address for an incident of some sort, I want to consult the registry to find out whether or not there is a firearm in that home and whether or not I should take specific precautions. I also want to know that if I find guns, whether or not I can find out whether a firearm has been properly registered and, if not, whether additional charges are to be laid.

When we objectively look at this, we can say that Canadians support it. I know that in my riding, when we did a survey, we had over 75% of the constituents, and in fact in Ontario, supporting a national firearms registry for safe communities, for safe streets and to protect Canadians.

The national firearms registry has nothing to do with some grandiose plans to somehow run away with everyone's guns. All I know is that we have a national firearms registry that is consulted at least 5,000 times each and every day by front line policing officers.

I know that gun owners can continue to collect firearms today. I know that target shooters and sports shooters can continue their hobby. I also know that collectors can continue to collect and to hunt. Nothing has changed. The cost of registration for individuals was not an enormous amount of mone; it was a reasonable amount.

Probably the most important feature of this national registry is in terms of its operating costs. Costs are now being limited to a maximum of $20 million a year. It has been demonstrated to Canadians that there are rules to the game and responsibilities of owning a firearm. People have now properly registered their guns and been properly trained. Gun owners properly store their guns and their ammunition, and use it appropriately in terms of transportation and use.

Having said that, it is very clear that Canadians now are familiar that gun owners who are registered owners are really the responsible ones and Canadians as a whole feel more comfortable knowing that firearms are being used more responsibly. That is the benefit of the national firearms registry system. That is why this government supported it back then and that is why we support it still today.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act, now at third reading stage in Parliament. It has had several amendments made to it, including one today that provides an exemption for the newspaper industry, which I am glad to support.

As well, the bill has been part of a committee process that I think has been quite fruitful in making sure that this bill was changed significantly from its original form to its current form, and I believe that it will be passed by a unanimous vote in the House of Commons. All major political parties are supporting the bill. I think there is also support for this bill from the industry itself. I hope that it will get the support of Canadians.

It is the first time that this country will be creating a do not call registry with specific elements which will add penalties and an administration system that is accountable to and also will also report back to Parliament on a regular basis. Not only will the CRTC, once it has this system up and operating, have the responsibility of reporting back to Parliament, but the legislation itself will be reviewed entirely in three years, thanks to an amendment that the NDP proposed and which was supported by everyone else.

This is important because the bill proposes a significant change for not only the rights of individuals in their homes but also potentially for two other sectors, the first one being the call centres that employ Canadians across this country. The second would be the charitable organizations and businesses that rely upon this type of venue in terms of telephone solicitation, as an opportunity to either support their causes and/or secure and procure business or expand upon it for their companies, resulting in profits and jobs for the communities.

These are important discussions that have to take place on a regular basis, because significant shifts could take place in the Canadian economy and alter Canadian lives and objectives. Individuals may have rights in their homes protected further, but charitable organizations could have repercussions to services, and lastly, businesses could too.

With that, I do want to highlight the general public support out there for a do not call registry. In many respects, Canadians have been bombarded by the growth of this industry and the intrusions that it can create in their lives. I think we have all experienced sitting down for dinner to spend some quality time with our families, only to be interrupted by telephone solicitation. Sometimes we are okay with that and other times we are not.

That is why I think the introduction of this legislation as a solid first step is important. At home, in our basic place of residence, which we work every single day to provide for ourselves and our families, we should have the right of protection. That is going to be the first step. We as individuals pay for our homes and for the services of the telephone company operation we subscribe to. We pay for the hardware in our homes, but it is then used as a vehicle to tap into our personal and private lives. That is an issue of civil liberties. There is an element of intrusion into our most important place, our personal residence, and that needs to be looked at.

Also, in our committee we have heard testimony over the duration of the months during which we have dealt with this. Some businesses are predicating upon other businesses and the fact is that it creates problems in the workforce, not only in terms of time management, with time taken up by unsolicited phone calls that are trying to procure additional business, but also in terms of the relationships and the dynamics at a company. In that case, individuals who are in different positions in the company are making decisions about who should or should not contact them about different types of businesses. As well, we have heard indirectly through testimony about faxing, email and spam also contributing to frustration, not only in homes but also in businesses.

A 2003 Environics study showed that 81% of respondents reported receiving unsolicited calls, on average receiving 3.43 calls per week. That was in 2003 before there was an explosion of the industry in terms of more companies using access to telephone numbers to move their products and services. As well, charitable organizations did it too, as they were finding it more difficult to raise funds like they had done traditionally through other venues. In my constituency in Windsor, Ontario, the bingo industry suffered significant losses and challenges due to public policy. As well, there were tourism and border issues that affected not only the tourism industry itself but also the charitable organizations that depend upon it to provide services in the community.

It is important to note what services these charitable organizations are actually providing. Their lost revenue is a loss to the community in terms of what individuals have decided to do in joining together to raise funds to attack a social problem or an issue that is localized or very specific in terms of the remediation that they want to perform in their communities. The loss of these revenue streams has caused significant changes. In the bingo industry it has presented significant challenges in Windsor, Ontario, as well as lost revenues for charitable organizations.

We do know that there has been an increase in calls, with the largest segment of calls from charitable organizations, at 44%. We know that they are particularly vulnerable under the bill. I would take the opportunity at this point to note that charitable organizations contribute significantly to the Canadian economy. It is important to note not just the fact that they do affect individual lives through the programs and services they provide, but also the fact that the entire Canadian economy is significantly impacted.

For example, I will quote Imagine Canada's submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology on May 4, 2005. It said:

Cumulatively, nonprofit and voluntary sector groups contribute $75.9 billion annually to the national economy--$34.7 billion if such institutional charities as hospitals, universities and colleges are excluded. This constitutes 8.5% of GDP; 4.0% excluding institutional charities.

This is not an issue just for softball teams or community organizations and groups. Let us say, for example, that it is the Lions Clubs or the different types of Rotary Clubs or groups and organizations that might use some type of system employing telephone solicitation. But hospitals and universities and other types of institutions also require the additional funds derived through either a campaign of giving or of contacting alumni and making cold calls to people outside of their universe to expand their internal revenue sources in order to meet the demands and public policy applied to them, as well as the general goals of society. For example, the colleges and universities training our young people for the future, to meet the demands of a changing economy, have to reduce themselves to being active in these types of venues at times to make sure they can provide those services.

I would also note a specific example of a vulnerable charity, that of MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, with over 90% of its funds raised through personal donations. That was the testimony of Dawn Regan, director of finance and fundraising for MADD Canada. She said:

Last year we made 775,000 cold calls in our outreach program and MADD Canada received complaints by less than one-half of one per cent of those we called.

That is a massive campaign, very much related to the type of work MADD does, and if it is in jeopardy because of this bill we will see MADD going to the CRTC with an application to make sure that they are going to be exempted so they will not be frozen out. It will have to make major adjustments to its actual operations.

It is important to note that when we looked at the first changes to the bill back at first reading, it was the intent at the time for the government to create two types of lists that would be on the do not call registry, one with a complete element that would have all of the different charities pooled into one and separated. There was criticism of that. I give the government credit for listening to the opposition parties, as well as those individuals who provided testimony at the committee, and making the change to Bill C-37 so that this would not happen. Hence, we have an improved bill.

The CRTC will be responsible for creating the independent body. I am somewhat concerned about that. The really important measure is that it will be able to impose fines on individuals and companies. There will be automatic mandatory penalties. This will put some focus on those that are doing the abusive telephone solicitation, which is what has created some of the ill will regarding telephone solicitation.

A committee member noted previously that regarding these intrusions that usually the person on the other end of the line is someone who is often trying to provide for his or her family. It is someone who wants to be productive and is involved in a very successful and growing industry. However, at times we find the calls frustrating.

What is important about this change is that it imposes administrative monetary penalties, AMPs. This is different from the situation right now with the Canadian Marketing Association which has only a voluntary list and does not have those penalties.

It is important because those people, companies or charities who are abusive will have to deal with the complaints and the penalties within a short period of time. There is a two year timeframe for resolution to make some type of decision on a claim.

I know it takes a long time to get through the system and it probably seems very long for the individual who has made the complaint. Multiple complaints about a person or a company can stack up. Hopefully, with the original complaint process and the fact that the investigation will take place we would see the behaviour adapt. Otherwise it will take a maximum of two years to get from the complaint to the final adjudication of whether or not it has happened and whether it is valid. That could be frustrating. It will cause the industry to be more accountable and many Canadians are talking about accountability these days.

One of the Environics polls indicated that 38% of people said they tolerated telemarketers, 35% of people were annoyed by telemarketers and 24% of people said they hated telemarketers. We know we have a significant issue here from Canadians who are expressing some dissatisfaction. This is another reason that all parties support this bill. It is one that I would like to reflect upon in terms of what has happened in the United States.

I think the U.S. has had a successful introduction. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission allowed for a national do not call registry in late 2002 and it began in October 2003. Over 62 million Americans registered their phone numbers in the first year. A survey reported that 92% reported fewer telemarketing calls. U.S. telemarketers are required to scrub telephone numbers from their calling lists every three months and are charged fees for access to the do not call registry.

It is also important to note that the registry itself will be paid for by the users of the registry. We have had discussions about the costs of other registries and their implications to Canadian taxpayers. This registry will be paid for by the industry.

We have to make sure that when the CRTC is setting up the registry that it is efficient. The problems that will be associated with the charities and the business organizations will be compounded if the registry is not efficient. They will potentially be going through a transition, depending upon their industry, related to this legislation. At the same time they will also have to pay which could lead to a compounding system.

The United States has a registry. In Canada I believe the CRTC is to have the registry up and running within 19 months. Nineteen months was the target date expressed at committee to have it set up so that Canadians could start to register and have that screening process evolve. Following that there will be the three year review which will take place in the House of Commons. A report must also be tabled in the House of Commons within six months after the end of each fiscal year.

There will be some ongoing information once we pass the bill that will keep it very much primed. It will not move away from this House for five years or more with very little to do in terms of parliamentary business.

That has been one thing I have expressed some difficulty with on the issue of regulations. When we pass regulations in different bills, often parliamentarians do not get to see the effects of whether the regulations are having the influence or are following the right process in the legislation that we passed. That is currently being done atrociously in our drug industry. One of the issues at the industry committee was the continued evergreening and the draconian laws that affect our generic drug industry versus the pharmaceutical companies. This bill makes sure that we would review the legislation on a regular basis.

I do want to point out that call centres created 40,000 new jobs between 2002 and 2003 and forecasts are for a 7.9% growth in the industry over the next three years. The Canadian customer contact centre study noted that 90% of the call centres have an inbound focus, being hotel reservations, help desks, et cetera, and that only 10% deal with making outbound calls. Of that 10% of the centres that make outbound calls, 50% of those are to the U.S. We have an industry that is very important to the Canadian economy and it has been growing. Once again, I think it is important to be taking a first step in this bill that is a little more timid in the sense that there will be some exemptions. Some changes to the bill might happen later on.

I will conclude my speech by noting a couple of different points related to the industry. There were changes noted to the business relationships and I congratulate the government and all committee members for doing so. There were reservations expressed by the Canadian Association of Direct Response Insurers, H&R Block Canada and a series of other small businesses which have different types of relationships with customers that were not necessarily what we would normally think them to be. Some of them have contact with their clients in a matter of months, and for others it is years. It differs depending on the industry.

There were some amendments made that really improve this bill. This is something that we can point toward. On many days it is like a soap opera in the House of Commons and there is a lot of discussion about high profile things. At the same time when parliamentarians work together, we can accomplish things that are often in the best interests of all parties. The Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology did a good job on this bill. I thank the chair of the committee for making sure that we completed this legislation.

This is something that was in the New Democratic Party's election platform. We are certainly happy that we have been able to be part of this for Canadians. We look forward to making sure that the bill really works for us. We will be calling for supports if there are harmful effects from this intervention on the industry, charitable organizations and businesses. We believe that our role has not finished in this regard. Our role has just begun. We are happy that this is something that can be rolled out to Canadians very soon.

[Marc Boulianne, Bloc, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act , and thus to participate in the debate on third reading.

I will start, if I may, by congratulating all parties for their unanimity on the amendment:

That Bill C-37, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 26 on page 3 with the following:

“paragraph (c) for an electoral district;

f) made for the sole purpose of collecting information for a survey of members of the public; or

(g) made for the sole purpose of soliciting a subscription for a newspaper of general circulation.”

This amendment has already been referred to by my colleague and vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, Science and Technology, the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup , who was very keen on it. His argument then—and now—is that first of all it is an improvement to the bill and second it reflects the wishes of the public.

There has been much consultation on this subject. Nearly 80% of the Quebec or Canadian population were in favour of this bill. With this amendment, this bill is thus completed. Furthermore, this amendment responds to the desires of the committee. You will recall that there was unanimity on this subject and that the amendment had been abandoned for purely technical reasons. Therefore, once again, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I want to congratulate all of the parties for having agreed to this amendment.

Second, my colleague indicated earlier that the bill would permit the CRTC to administer databases. This is important, particularly with respect to two very specific objectives, namely to prohibit or regulate the use of telecommunications facilities. First, such use must be regulated up to an honest and objective point. Second, any Canadian carrier or any person must be prohibited from engaging in unsolicited telecommunications. That is what we are talking about. This is an extremely important step for the future.

There is a second aspect to this bill: it will provide for penalties. The severity of those penalties should dissuade persons who engage deliberately or fraudulently in unsolicited telecommunications.

My colleague indicated earlier that one of our roles as members of Parliament is to legislate so as to protect the interests of consumers. In that regard, we all know how constantly our fellow citizens are being solicited, mainly by telephone, or by fax. I have received such calls, as I am sure you all have. Families and children under age 18 are also highly solicited—be it for credit cards or pressure buying. The problem exists.

Not only is Parliament responsible for passing legislation in this matter and regulating telecommunications, but it may also prohibit fraudulent telecommunications. This is very difficult. It comes more under the Criminal Code. All the same, we have to send a very clear message that Parliament, Canada, will no longer tolerate these fraudulent telecommunications.

One need only check a few statistics to realize that, at present, Canada is a haven for fraudulent telemarketing. For example, Montreal is the North American hub for unsolicited or fraudulent telemarketing. According to an RCMP investigation, nearly 90% of the premises and facilities for these con artists are to be found in Montreal.

This bill will sound the alarm. After evaluation, however, we will have to be able to take very productive action on this subject. These fraudsters have illicit revenue estimated at $60 million, with individuals easily earning $5,000 a week.

At the moment, the section in the Code allows these criminals to get off with just a very light fine or a short term of imprisonment. So it is difficult in Canada to convict this type of criminal. Furthermore they are very often repeat offenders.

When a bill provides ways of getting around the law, repeat offenders continue to come out on top. They get rich at the expense of those who, unfortunately, are the most vulnerable in our society. Some very honest people are easily fleeced by these professional con artists.

The bill provides for administrative monetary penalties. This is also linked to the authority to investigate, inspect and enforce. We are convinced this will be effective. This is in the bill. Again, this will be instrumental in putting a stop to these crimes.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-37, as is the Canadian Marketing Association. As we have already mentioned, we support this for a number of reasons.

One of our primary concerns is consumer protection, which we feel is essential. There are other reasons. As I was saying earlier, statistics show that the telemarketing industry employed some 270,000 people in Canada in the year 2000, which is quite significant. This industry plays a role in the economy and has done $16 billion worth of business. It therefore has a considerable impact on communities in Canada and Quebec. If a bill is passed that sets out principles of use and possible penalties for such a large industry, then we will have been effective.

The Bloc Québécois and the Canadian Marketing Association are in favour of this bill. We know that the big players are involved in this association, which is currently the largest marketing industry association in Canada. Its member companies contribute to the Canadian economy by essentially providing 480,000 jobs and by making more than $51 billion in annual sales. These companies have also said they are in favour of this bill.

This association is also a powerful lobby for the marketing sector. Like the Bloc Québécois, it has said that it supports Bill C-37, while at the same time having certain concerns regarding the powers given to the CRTC in the area of regulations. This will have to be monitored closely to ensure that the bill remains as realistic in its final form as in its purpose.

As far as committee proceedings are concerned, the Bloc Québécois helped get the bill amended, to include the necessary exemptions for charities and the media for example. For a bill to be significant, it has to cover all that has to be covered, respect freedom of expression and involve everyone concerned.

Like the Canadian Marketing Association, however, the Bloc Québécois also has some reservations. This is fundamental. Obviously, the bill deals with the registration process. The Bloc Québécois would like the mechanism for putting the registry in place and the associated costs to be clearly stated.

When we talk about the registry, of course, this includes the operation, implementation, monitoring and other costs associated with this registry. Hon. members will recall the gun registry. That was not a very pleasant experience. We have seen the money wasted on that. Originally, it was supposed to cost between $2 million and $3 million. Now, estimates are in the billions of dollars.

When administering a registry, one has to beware of costs. Right from the start, the costs have to be planned and established as realistically as possible. The same is true for the registry's operation. It is imperative that the registry be under the responsibility of an independent organization. We are wary in this regard.

Administration of the registry and everything related to the do not call list must be free of any electoral or partisan intent. This is what the Bloc Québécois is concerned about. Even though the Canadian Marketing Association wants to be entrusted with managing the system that will be established to administer this list, that is not necessarily our preference. The institution that will be in charge must demonstrate greater independence. We must avoid falling into the same situation we have in the oil industry. In this case, a private organization has provided the information in good faith. Eventually, one always gets back to certain protected interests or interests that are in these institutions. In the view of Canadians, the institution that will supervise the registry must be above all suspicion in order to be credible. We must not commit the same mistake that was made with the gun registry. We must arrange things so that the organization responsible for establishing this registry is seen as having the necessary independence, its mandate its clear, and it is managed according to ethical principles.

The Bloc Québécois also wants the law to cover as many people as possible and to be administered in a very fair way. It is interesting to see that all the political parties supported this bill and the amendment. We recognized, first, that there was a problem, that Canadian and Quebec consumers had a serious problem in this regard or as consumers. While taking freedom of expression into account, I think that it is just as important to combat harassment and fraud.

We were speaking earlier about consent for this national list, which is at the heart of this bill. The Canadian Marketing Association has shown beyond any doubt, once again on the basis of a survey, that this bill is important to Canadians and Quebeckers. In the Industry Canada background documents on this bill, an Environics poll done in 2004 showed that 79% of the respondents said they were in favour of the national do not call list and 66% said they were likely to subscribe to such a service. That is very revealing. Ninety-seven per cent of Canadians said that they were annoyed by unsolicited telemarketing calls.

When there is a bill as important as this, which covers virtually all areas of consumer protection regarding unsolicited telecommunications, it is important to support it. The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill. We are very happy that there was unanimous support for the proposed amendment. I would also like to ask our colleagues to vote in favour of this bill, which will benefit all Canadians and all Quebeckers.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on a piece of legislation that has been a long time coming. As my colleagues who spoke earlier said, when we sat on committee, we all laboured with best intentions to get a piece of legislation that would be good for the Canadian public.

We know that no piece of legislation is perfect. This is one of those situations where this piece of legislation will be an improvement over the current situation.

This is the first speech in which I have the ability to speak a full 20 minutes in my short time in the House. I will take a few minutes to explain the overall general process that I take to approach all legislation. It is important for citizens to understand the overall philosophy and principle of their legislature and I will use as an example, of what is in many ways viewed as a non-ideological and non-philosophical piece of legislation, Bill C-37.

I will go through not only the technical aspects of the legislation, what specifically are the amendments and the overall intent of the bill, but the principles and thought processes I used to arrive at certain decisions to help me decide how to vote on the amendments to the bill.

I find it important to do this with any piece of legislation, no matter how mundane, for two reasons. I believe the principles of all legislation need to be dealt with.

First, one must deal with the principles in legislation because principles provide the logic of legislation for consistency in all law. If we do not deal from an objective principle basis when dealing with law, we end up with chaos. We end up with a purely utilitarian approach to the law and the law does not become a law of justice but becomes the law of the jungle. I think it is important to understand that if we are to have actual good legislation, we must always do it on a principle basis.

The second reason is accountability. As a voter, even as a committee member or as a member of this House, it is impossible to completely keep up on all pieces of legislation. The government and the bureaucracy is so vast that even committee work can sometimes seem like the details are weighing us down.

If one can reference certain key principles, certain key statements, certain key benchmarks to begin with, it helps to be accountable to the electorate because ultimately democracy is the voice of the people. Therefore, if the people can understand the principles, they can understand the fruits of those principles which is the applicable legislation.

I want to explain my thought process. Sometimes principles can come into collision with each other. There can be a little bit of weighing of principles and values and so forth. It is important to understand the thought process and the application because it enhances the accountability of the situation. I believe that accountability is what all members of this House stand for.

It also helps to understand the weighing of the options. That is how I approach the overall body of the bill when dealing with each of these specific amendments. There is an intermixing of the practical in this in order to understand the logic as people in the future read this speech in Hansard or watch it on TV.

I endorse the underlying basic principle of this bill because ultimately, it is a protection of individual personal rights as to the rights of property. I come from the school of thought which has a belief in inalienable rights, balanced, as I have said before in this House, with inalienable responsibilities. One of the inalienable rights that are granted to all citizens is the right of personal property, protection, preservation and promotion of that personal property. This to some degree involves privacy.

Under the British common law concept, in this modern world, our home is our castle. This can sometimes be violated by our technology. We have derived and created various technologies, the Internet, the computer and the telephone for the specific purpose of enhancing our communications. However, there are times when they can all be intrusive and violate our home, our defence, our property, and the key right of an individual.

That is one reason why I specifically support the underlying general principle of this legislation. With the do not call legislation, we are allowing people to say, “My home is my castle. Thank you very kindly, but I do not wish to be bothered. This is my privacy. You are decreasing the enjoyment of my property”.

There are other principles involved here: the principle of personal property, the free exchange of goods, and the property of other people. We have to have some interaction and some balance on that level.

The other thing is that it is not really about commercial transactions. There is the freedom of speech element, and this balances with what I would call the unalienable right of the citizen to liberty and the unalienable responsibility to liberty. This political discourse will come in as I talk about some of the exceptions because all these communication tools enhance liberty by letting us receive and transmit ideas for a free exchange of thought. The telephone has become one of those methods, with of course the Internet, the post office system, door-knocking, face to face communications and other elements. That is another principle that we deal with here, particularly when it comes to political thought.

When we get into the charitable exemptions element of this bill, I will deal with why I think responsibility to community gets involved in that, but there is a principle I believe involved on that level.

That is the overall basis and approach that I take to this. Every element must have some basis in principle. There must be some logic. There must be some application to this. What is my thought process and how did I apply it to each and every one of the specific exemptions put into the legislation: the who, the what, the why, et cetera?

One of the first amendments we made when we got to committee was to put in a three year review, not for some delegated powers to the CRTC or the bureaucracy but to bring the three year review under the authority of Parliament. I supported that. We could argue about the timelines but that was more of a practical application of what would be the best purpose for it. I supported the underlying concept because it does provide for accountability right here in this House. The buck stops here, not just proverbially but in reality.

We are the elected representatives of the people of Canada. We cannot be delegating any more powers than we have to to the bureaucracy, to people who are not directly in that line. For practical purposes, yes, we can. We cannot have 308 persons running the entirety of the government, but we are the people who are responsible. We are the voice. We are one of the defenders, along with the law, the legal system, et cetera, of the basic unalienable rights and responsibilities of the people of Canada.

That is why I supported the concept of a review that comes to the House of Commons, delegated of course to the committee. It is very important for accountability because this piece of legislation, along with all legislation, is fallible. We are not all-knowing; we are not all-wise. We are very fallible as in previous legislation, so it is very important that the element of accountability be put in.

A second amendment that was put forward at committee was to exempt political parties, candidates, ridings, et cetera, from the do not call registry. Again there are exceptions. If people say “Please do not call me”, that will be honoured. I will admit that part of my first thought was that this helps the challengers more than it helps the incumbents because we have better name recognition. So from a purely selfish perspective, the incumbents of this House should in many ways have a self-interest to oppose putting this in, but there is the balance of the unalienable political right of liberty and the unalienable responsibility of liberty that is applied here.

I will admit that for some people political calls can be some of the most annoying calls but the freedom of speech element must be protected everywhere, not just on the liberty side but on the responsibility side. It is the responsibility and duty of every citizen, if they want to have inalienable rights, to follow through on inalienable responsibilities, and that includes being fully aware and fully informed of the debate that is going on in the political process, the guarantor of the rights that underline and protect the property rights that underline the legislation. The candidates, the ridings and so forth all tend to blend in on that one level.

Again, there are good arguments as to why this should be a little more restricted but the underlying principles hold and the safeguard of allowing people to personally state that they do not wish to be called should be helpful on everything.

I will note the other exemption built in here, which is the one for polling and surveying. I would hope that when this comes up for a three year review that it will be looked at in a more detailed and thoughtful fashion. The reasoning I have on this is the following. Yes, it is important to have particular information to help in the processing of the dialogue and to help in the dialogue of what people are thinking so that everyone may know back and forth, and polling and surveying does, to a certain degree, help that.

However a fairly interesting thing to note, on a very practical level, is the last two British elections where polling was done both by telephone and survey methods that we are accustomed to in Canada and by an Internet based pollster, YouGuv in particular. It was interesting to note that in the last couple of elections the Internet based pollster was the most accurate.

What I am saying is that perhaps in the future there could be less intrusive ways of still preserving the responsibility of liberty, the responsibility to gather information that there be a free and open dialogue of principle, and perhaps the Internet might be one of the ways because, spam mail notwithstanding, it is a somewhat less intrusive method than a phone call in the middle of suppertime and intruding on one's life at that point.

Another exemption in the act is for charities. This is, again, a question. One of the things that was noted by a witnesses at committee was that when we actually ask people specifically what calls bother them, it tends to be much more the commercial transaction ones than the particular charities.

We all saw the generosity of Canadians when it came to some of the disasters overseas, such as the horrible and horrific tsunami that devastated Southeast Asia. One of the methods the charities use to gather funds is through the phones, which makes up a significant portion of their revenues. In fact, some of the charities were particularly concerned because this could have the devastating effect of wiping them out. I believe the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, if memory serves me correct, was one of the most articulate, but Mothers Against Drunk Driving, et cetera, were also put there.

What principle did I use when I was weighing my vote back and forth? I believe the inalienable right of property also has an inalienable responsibility of property, which is the responsibility to use it for the good, not just of oneself but for the whole community. Taxation does it by force but it is a more compassionate society when people do it willingly and based on an argument not of force but of grace. One of the reasons I supported it is that it does imply a responsibility of the electorate of the populace. Merely to put up a sign saying, “Please don't bother me”, lowers the threshold of our level of responsibility, which is why I supported the underlying concept of exempting charities on that.

I will note again that when it comes to the charity exemption, individual call lists are kept by the charities, et cetera. Undoubtedly they will share these because there is no point calling persons who are considerably hostile and not particularly generous toward certain callers. Very practically, charities call those who have been the most generous.

The next exemption in the bill concerns the identification and purpose of organizations at the beginning of the call. I support this because of an honesty and integrity factor. Unfortunately, Canada has a reputation of being one of the major centres for call scams around the world. I believe this would increase the level of trust and the level of efficiency. It respects people's privacy and their right to utilize their property in a free and non-harassed way.

The final practical amendment to the legislation is the existing business relationship. We heard considerable concern in the committee that even mom and pop operations would not be allowed to call their 50 or 60 customers or their close friends and so on. I do not think that was the intention of the bill. A mechanic would not be able to call up a neighbour to tell him that it has been so many years since he had his car fixed and that it should be taken care of, and so on.

There were also some very practical applications that people might not understand or completely remember. We can think of car dealerships when they have to call a customer because of a defect in an automobile that needs to be recalled. We would not want anything that might in the least way impinge on those business relationships.

Once someone has made a commercial transaction they have indicated a certain willingness already to deal with it. Again, the exceptions and so on can be dealt with on this.

I would note that all these amendments were made at committee, which disturbs me considerably. We often seem to get incomplete legislation being rushed through to committee. There does not seem to be a lot of thought. The government sees a headline, gets itself into an emergency and then tries to put something together without any thought.

We will see this later this week with Bill C-66, the home rebate bill where, after years of not thinking anything about energy policy or the cost to the population for home heating, et cetera, the government quickly pulled something out when it saw gasoline prices spiking.

Perhaps the government should take more time to think things out, to actually have a vision and not just react to every headline. A vision actually gets good legislation done years in advance.

Another comment I wish to make is about the administration of the system. We have seen the government's most famous long gun firearms registry balloon to I believe a cost of $2 billion. I hope this registry is much better handled than that one.

The government has a reputation, which it has earned, of incompetence when it comes to administration, be it in its delegation to the crown corporations by choosing inadequate appointees or just the particular administration of contracts, be it advertising in Quebec or the firearms registry. I would caution the government to actually use some oversight and principles of administration that it has neglected in its previous endeavours.

Those are the principal and practical reasons that I support the legislation and will be voting for it.

However I would caution all members of the House to be careful how we proceed with this one. On a personal note, one summer when I was in university I had finished my tree planting and was waiting for my cheque and I needed to turn a little extra cash. I worked in a call centre for about six weeks while taking an intercession class at the University of Saskatchewan. The one thing we should remember is that many people earn their living from these places. We should be very sensitive to anyone who may be unemployed due general overall economic conditions. Many of these people who receive a minimum wage or slightly more are not well represented in the House of Commons.

I do not think many members in the House came from minimum wage backgrounds and perhaps we should remember the economic effects as we pass legislation and be somewhat cognizant about the people this may affect in the long term. I think with the exemptions and the way it is handled it will provide a reasonable way to handle it.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to begin the third reading debate of Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act.

This bill would augment the powers of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, to establish a more effective regime and protect consumers against unsolicited telemarketing in Canada.

The bill provides the legislative framework for the creation of a national do not call list. I am sure that every member of the House and probably everyone watching the proceedings today can recall being interrupted by telemarketers during dinner or when spending some quality time with their family and friends. There are times when we are willing to listen to people who want to sell us something. There are also times when we do not want to listen. There are times when pitches made in our homes by certain corporations are just not acceptable. This bill responds to those concerns that Canadians have strongly voiced. They are fed up with unwanted unsolicited telemarketing calls and want an effective solution.

In 2003 Environics conducted a survey of consumers' attitudes toward telemarketing. Eighty-one per cent of the respondents reported receiving unsolicited calls. On average, respondents received over three unsolicited calls each week.

Public opinion polls tell us that unsolicited telecommunications have indeed become an inconvenience and a nuisance to many Canadians. In fact, during the survey conducted in 2003, 97% of the respondents reported a negative reaction to unsolicited calls. Of those, 38% said they would tolerate the calls, 35% said they were highly annoyed and 24% hated receiving those telephone calls. It is clear that Canadians think that unsolicited calls are a problem.

Unsolicited telemarketing has become a serious irritant for many Canadians as existing rules provide little protection for consumers against intrusive unwanted calls. Under the 1994 rules, telemarketers are required to maintain individual do not call lists. These rules have been in place for the past 10 years. Since they were implemented by the CRTC they have been found to be ineffective for the following reasons.

First, the rules have resulted in some confusion among consumers. For one thing, few consumers know that they have the right to register a specific company on a do not call list, but even for those consumers who wish to take advantage of these lists, the task is daunting. Consumers who do not want to receive calls need to put their registration in place on the do not call list of hundreds of different companies. These registrations are placed for three years, after which the consumer must register again.

The current regime is ineffective because it is difficult to enforce. When consumers receive further calls from firms for which they registered on the individual do not call list, it is hard for them to prove that they were registered with that specific company.

Some 14% of the people Environics polled reported that they had tried to make a complaint regarding an unsolicited call. Among this subgroup, a majority of 59% said their complaint was never resolved.

We have heard from Canadians. The reality is that the inability to control telemarketing continues to be a pervasive source of frustration. The time has come for a more effective approach to regulating unsolicited telemarketing, an approach that will benefit both consumers and the telemarketing industry and one that will be easier to enforce.

At the heart of the issue is the need to have an effective tool for enforcement and compliance, and that is the focus of the bill before us. If we create an effective enforcement and compliance regime through rules that are fair and transparent, we have the foundation for smart regulation of telemarketing. For that reason the CRTC requires legislated authority to impose administrative monetary penalties, that is to fine businesses that continue to make unsolicited calls to persons who have registered on a do not call list.

With the ability to fine a marketing company, CRTC will be able to apply penalties that will provide a deterrent and stop companies from making many of those unwanted calls. The use of a national do not call list will improve the effectiveness of the system. For these reasons, we are seeking through the bill to amend the Telecommunications Act to provide administrative monetary penalties for violations of the national do not call list.

The costs of maintaining such a list would include database maintenance, complaint processing and the investigative and enforcement costs. The CRTC has recommended that a third party administrator who specializes in databases should be selected to maintain the national do not call list. With this bill we amend the Telecommunications Act to allow for a third party administrator and cost recovery.

Legislative amendments have been recommended and would exempt calls from the national do not call list for registered charities as defined under section 248 of the Income Tax Act, for companies with existing business relationships, and for calls from political parties. Exempt organizations would be required to maintain individual do not call lists. In addition, survey and polling firms would also be exempt from the do not call list and would continue to be exempt to collect the views of Canadians.

There are certain implementation details that arise from the establishment of a do not call list. For example, how would telemarketers access the do not call data and how often? It is not our intention to delve into these details, but rather to ask the CRTC to undertake consultations with concerned Canadians to determine the do not call system that best suits the needs of all Canadians.

We want to ensure that Canadian consumers have their privacy needs met and give them the ability to choose to be protected from inconvenience and nuisance. The current rules have been ineffective in giving consumers this choice. With this bill we create a system where consumers can take effective steps to stop unwanted telemarketing calls. In this way we will address an issue that Canadians consider to be a major irritant in their daily lives.

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Ms. Jennifer Stoddart, congratulated the industry minister on proposed legislation to create a national do not call list for telemarketers. She said:

I think this is a great step forward for privacy. Our Office has been concerned about this issue for some time and we have certainly heard from many members of the public who are frustrated by intrusive phone calls. We welcome this initiative.

Recently, in front of the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology the federal Privacy Commissioner delivered a statement backed by nine of the provincial and territorial information and privacy commissioners that once again supported the creation of a national do not call list that would enhance privacy by making it easier for individual Canadians to control intrusive telephone calls.

Consumer groups, including the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, are in favour of the creation of a national do not call list. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre has indicated that the creation of a do not call registry would be the most effective, elegant and enforceable solution to the present telemarketing situation. It also indicated that a single list is simple to administer and it is easy to determine when a telemarketer is in non-compliance.

The Canadian Marketing Association, the largest marketing association in the country that represents hundreds of telemarketing companies, supports the bill. Since 2001 the Canadian Marketing Association has recommended that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, establish a national do not call list to cover all telemarketers in Canada.

Mr. John Gustavson, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Marketing Association, stated:

We are pleased to see the federal government has responded to our request to establish a national do-not-call service to address the increasing number of consumer complaints regarding some telemarketing practices in Canada... We believe a compulsory do-not-call service for all companies that use the telephone to market their goods and services to potential customers is the most effective means to curtail consumer annoyance with telemarketers.

Telemarketing has become more and more pervasive. There is no sign that it is going away. The inability to control telemarketers' access to telephones in our homes and businesses has become a source of frustration for a large percentage of Canadians.

The bill creates the right regulatory environment for sensible, smart telecommunicating. It will safeguard the privacy of Canadians and their right to choose with whom they wish to communicate. For thousands of Canadians who may opt to register on the national do not call list, it will mean quiet evenings with their families free of commercial interruption.

Canadian consumers are overwhelmingly in favour of this method of controlling unwanted telephone solicitation. The majority of respondents, nearly four out of five, supported the creation of a national do not call list. Some two-thirds indicated they would likely sign up for a do not call service.

The government is taking steps to give individual Canadians an effective, easy way to curtail intrusive telemarketing and to protect their privacy. I urge hon. members to support the bill.

I also feel it is my responsibility to comment on the work the committee did in making sure that all of the concerns of Canadians across the country were brought to committee. They were raised and dealt with in a very reasonable way. I am very pleased that all parties seem to be very much on side with this bill. I hope for its speedy passage in the House.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I think you would find unanimous consent to order that Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act, be deemed to have been amended as follows. I move:

That Bill C-37, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 26 on page 3 with the following:

“paragraph (c) for an electoral district;

(f) made for the sole purpose of collecting information for a survey of members of the public; or

(g) made for the sole purpose of soliciting a subscription for a newspaper of general circulation”.

This motion, as you will note, is identical to Motion No. 7, which was not selected for consideration at report stage.

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, for the Minister of Industry]

moved that Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Telecommunications Act, be read the third time and passed.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I find the last part of that question a little puzzling, given that the hon. member was at the meeting where I in fact outlined the opposition days. They will begin the week of November 14 and will go right to December 8. We are meeting our commitment and our obligation to provide seven opposition days during this supply period.

We will continue this afternoon with the second reading debate of Bill C-65, the street racing bill, followed by Bill C-64, the vehicle identification legislation, Bill S-37, respecting the Hague convention, Bill S-36, the rough diamonds bill, and reference to committee before second reading of Bill C-50, respecting cruelty to animals.

Tomorrow, we will start with any bills not completed today. As time permits, we will turn to second reading of Bill C-44, the transportation bill, and reference to committee before second reading of Bill C-46, the correctional services legislation. This will be followed by second reading of Bill C-52, respecting fisheries.

I expect that these bills will keep the House occupied into next week.

On Monday we will start with third reading of Bill C-37, the do not call legislation. I also hope to begin consideration of Bill C-66, the energy legislation, by midweek. We will follow this with Bill C-67, the surpluses bill.

Some time ago the House leaders agreed to hold a take note debate on the softwood lumber issue on the evening of Tuesday, October 25.

We also agreed on an urgent basis to have such a debate on the issue of the U.S. western hemisphere travel initiative on the evening of Monday, October 24.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1(1), I move:

That debates pursuant to Standing Order 53.1 take place as follows:

(1) on Monday, October 24, 2005, on the impact on Canada of the United States western hemisphere travel initiative;

(2) on Tuesday, October 25, 2005, on softwood lumber.

Telecommunications Act

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, for the Minister of Industry]

moved that Bill C-37, as amended, be concurred in with further amendment and read the second time.

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Yes, Madam Speaker, that is why we have a do not call list here, which we are debating.

I am very pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Newton—North Delta to participate in the report stage debate on Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act. The bill addresses telemarketing calls by enabling the CRTC to establish and enforce a do not call registry similar to those already found in the U.S. and the United Kingdom.

We all have received unwanted calls at awkward times, even sometimes in the House, from people attempting to sell goods or services or convey some sort of message. Sometimes these calls are invasive, disruptive, time consuming and incredibly annoying.

Telemarketing scored number four in Time magazine's survey of the worst ideas of the 20th century. A survey conducted by Decima Research, undoubtedly by telephone, found that 75% of Canadians want the federal government to institute a do not call list to protect them against unsolicited telephone calls.

In 2003 the U.S. responded to the unwanted telemarketing calls by establishing a national do not call list. Americans were quick to sign on, registering more than seven million phone numbers on the first day. This summer, registrations surpassed the 100 million mark in the United States.

Since its origin, the registry, run by the Federal Trade Commission, has received nearly one million complaints, nine violation cases and four fraud cases in the United States.

Before going to committee, Bill C-37 was almost an empty shell, with most of the details left to the regulations. As a result, we did not know if there would be any exclusions to the list, how much it would cost, who would operate the list and so on.

This government habitually introduces shell bills that lack substance and are written in often incomplete general terms that are vague in their intent.

Much of the law that affects Canadians is found not in the Consolidated Statutes of Canada, but in the thousands of regulations made pursuant to powers granted by acts of Parliament. This leaves the door wide open to put through regulations that define our laws, without the proper checks and balances.

What is surprising is that 80% of the law that governs Canada is done through the back door by regulations, not by laws passed in Parliament. By doing so, the Liberal government has effectively gutted the parliamentary process of accountability and transparency in the formulation of its laws. Parliament is no longer at the centre of the law-making process. It is the bureaucrats who are at the centre.

During second reading debate, if members recall, I outlined all these concerns. I concluded my speech by saying that the registry, if established, must be “within parameters clearly defined by Parliament and with reasonable exemptions provided for charities, political parties and companies that wish to contact their current customers” and that we must craft a more detailed piece of legislation so that both consumers and telemarketers will know how the do not call registry will work.

After second reading, at committee, the Conservative Party members, my colleagues, worked to amend the bill and to add several new clauses to the Telecommunications Act. These amendments require the CRTC to report to the minister annually on the operation of the national do not call list and further require a review of the do not call legislation three years after the coming into force of the act as amended.

Most significantly, the bill was amended to provide certain exemptions from inclusion on the national do not call list, notably for charities, “existing business relationships”, political parties and pollsters.

In the original version of Bill C-37, these exemptions were not laid out by the government. Furthermore, the power to determine these details was delegated by the Liberals to the CRTC and its regulatory powers rather than the elected representatives in this House.

There are more concerns. Sometimes aggressive telemarketers call the most vulnerable in our society, such as seniors on fixed incomes, to induce them into gambling or lotteries or to scam and defraud them. These citizens need and deserve our protection.

Bill C-37 does not address unsolicited ads on the Internet. When young children are learning through the Internet or surfing the web to do their homework projects, they are bombarded with pornographic and vulgar ads. They are not suitable for young children or even in a family setting.

I am disappointed that the protection of children against vulgar images and the temptation that is forced upon them is not within the scope of this bill. So far nothing has been done by this weak Liberal government to provide any protection to those who deserve it and who need it.

The bill does not address the unsolicited faxes ringing on shared residential telephone lines, many times in the middle of the night. As we know, the faxes sometimes do not display the telephone number of the sender. I do not know how those numbers will be added to the do not call list.

These are very important details that deserve the consideration of Parliament.

Even with the amendments in place, I am still concerned over how much this scheme will cost when implemented. The government says that the registry would be self-financing. Of course, the government said the same thing for the long gun registry also introduced by this government. The gun registry was supposed to cost a mere $2 million. It now has a tab approaching $2 billion, and that is billion with a “b”.

Canadians obviously do not want another fiasco like the gun registry. The Conservative Party will monitor the cost of maintaining this registry. It will make sure the registry operates smoothly, efficiently and in a way that best protects the interests of Canadians.

Some of the motions on this bill are housekeeping amendments, but one of the CPC amendments that was passed in committee forces everyone who is exempted, such as charities, political parties, candidates, polling firms and existing business relationship callers, to immediately identify themselves and state the nature of their business when they make a call.

The Liberals argue that this identification will bias survey answers. We agree, thus we are supporting this motion.

Generally in the telemarketing industry, Canadians buy more than $16 billion in goods and services over the telephone each year. This generates employment for more than a quarter of a million Canadians. The telemarketing industry is important to the livelihood of many of my constituents. B.C. is home over 300 call centres, ranging in size from a few agents to several hundred. There are currently an estimated 14,000 call centre jobs in the greater Vancouver area.

It is unclear what impact a national do not call registry would have on the Canadian telemarketing industry. It can be assumed, however, with the exemptions the Conservative Party successfully pushed for in committee, that the impact would be less than it would have been under the original bill put forward by the government.

To conclude, let me point out that a centrally administered national do not call list provides the means for consumers to avoid unsolicited telemarketing calls. A well-run do not call list will provide consumers with choice while protecting Canadian businesses and jobs.

The Conservative Party supports the establishment of a do not call list within parameters clearly defined by Parliament and with reasonable exemptions provided for charities, political parties, polling firms and companies that wish to contact their current customers.

While I personally still have some concerns with the bill, as I mentioned earlier, particularly about the management of the registry, I will be watching closely to protect the best interests of my constituents of Newton--North Delta and of all Canadians who are watching this debate.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, like all Canadians I hate receiving calls, like the one I just received right now. Telemarketing calls always seem to come at the most inopportune time, which is why I welcome a do not call list.

Now that Bill C-37 has been amended, thanks to the hard work of the Conservative members in the committee, my only concern is with the management of the registry. We have seen how the government has managed other registries. Canadians cannot forget about the gun registry that was supposed to cost us $200 million and now it is $2 billion.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood--Port Kells to participate in the debate on Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act, or the national do not call registry.

I understand the frustrations of the general public who are often inundated with phone calls that interrupt family dinners, entertainment and their lives, which is why I am generally supportive of such a bill. Do not call registries give the public a tool in controlling their own lives. It allows Canadians to protect their privacy and protect their personal lives from usual intrusive measures by telemarketers. Everyone has a story of being called late in the night or early on a weekend morning and having their day upset by obnoxious telemarketers.

Canadians in their busy lives are asking Parliament for simple solutions. We in the Conservative Party recognize this need and are supportive of a do not call registry.

However we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

The telemarketing industry in Canada is important to the livelihood of many of my constituents and people across Canada. The industry employs more than 270,000 people and is worth approximately $16 billion in goods and services. With such an economic impact, it is important that the bill be specific in its intent and impact and contains no potential loopholes for Liberal regulators to go beyond the boundaries of the bill.

Earlier this year I rose to speak against the original bill because of its many flaws, especially for the potential of Liberal loopholes. At that time I and many of my colleagues were concerned with the bill's vagueness. Exceptions to the registry were not included in the bill and neither were any details on how the list would be maintained or checked by the respective companies involved. In the original version of Bill C-37, these exemptions were not laid out by the government.

Furthermore, the power to determine these details was delegated by the Liberals to the CRTC and its regulatory powers rather than to elected representatives. The irony was that even the CRTC in committee expressed its desire that Parliament be specific in its regulations to avoid confusion.

The CRTC is a regulatory body and should not be taking over the policy making capacity of the House of Commons or the government. Broadly worded legislation invites the potential for abuse and exports democracy to unelected people when that role is properly contained within the House of Commons.

I and many members of the House have reason to be concerned about such matters. The sponsorship program shows what poorly designed programs with Liberal loopholes can do: the waste and theft of millions of taxpayer dollars.

Before I support legislation creating another program, proper safeguards must be put in place to avoid bureaucratic bungling and political interference. We have already seen in the past what happens when such safeguards are not in place.

At the committee stage, I was happy to see that some of my concerns were addressed in the bill. Possible exemptions were clearly laid out thanks to the Conservatives and other opposition amendments. Political parties, charities and polling firms were all exempted, which is clearly in the public interest.

In a democracy, it is important that political parties, candidates and riding associations have the necessary tools to engage the public. Telephoning constituents is a necessary tool for members of Parliament and political parties to remain engaged with the public. We cannot afford as a democracy to enact legislation that could potentially lessen voter turnout even more.

Exceptions were also made for party candidates and riding associations, which I think is in keeping with my democratic concerns. Candidates and riding associations have even more reasons to be given an exemption. As the local representative of parties, riding associations and party candidates are connected to the grassroots. To take away the ability to phone constituents would be an affront to the right of political expression, not to mention further weakening of democratic participation in Canada.

Similarly, the exception made for charities remains key to the viability of our non-profit sectors. These organizations are already struggling to get funds due to overtaxation by the government.

In the United States, for instance, Americans give almost twice as much to charities as Canadians. It is not because Americans are more charitable that they give more. It is because they are taxed less.

Canadian charities need every tool available to them to continue their good work in our communities: feeding the poor, sheltering the homeless and providing places of worship for people of faith.

An exception for polling firms is also clearly in the public interest. While polling as an institution has its pros and cons, polling still provides a snapshot of Canadian opinion on a whole host of issues. We should not be led by polls but neither should we be ignorant of them. Polling also contributes to private sector research in product development and marketing, providing Canadians with better products and economic growth.

Who knows, without polls we may not have had the swiffer wet jet or the Mr. Clean eraser, which would be a travesty for housecleaners the world over.

Seriously, these exemptions are important to all democratic and market oriented societies. They can no doubt be abused but in the end they provide better democracy, improved products, more jobs and stronger economic growth.

However there is still concern as to whether another program under Liberal control will be adequately managed. I am committed to my constituents to keep a close eye on the do not call registry to ensure that the Liberals do not overrun their budgets like the gun registry program or the HRDC boondoggle.

Thankfully, a future Conservative government will ensure that this program is run within cost and does not become another gun registry or HRDC boondoggle.

Another major concern is fraud through telephones, for instance, gambling and lottery sales by telemarketers to vulnerable members of society, particularly the seniors on fixed incomes. There should be tough measures in place to prevent and deal with it.

Already in this minority Parliament we have substantially rewritten this bill and others and have shown the benefits of having a check on Liberal corruption, waste and mismanagement.

The bill attempts to bridge a divide between protecting a valued industry in Canada and the privacy rights of Canadians. With the exemptions now provided in the bill, I believe that legitimate business practice will continue and that political parties and charities can continue to reach out to the constituents of Fleetwood--Port Kells and the Canadian people.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Yorkton for his insightful comments. There are a few things I want to put on record in terms of putting this debate into perspective as well.

Bill C-37 is an act to amend the Telecommunications Act. I want to make some comments regarding the establishment of the national do not call registry. This registry has merit. Based on the amendments that were put into the bill at committee, the Conservative Party supports the establishment of a national do not call registry with reasonable exemptions provided for charities, political parties and companies that wish to contact their current customers.

Whenever the word registry is put forward by the current government, it sends chills down the spines of Canadians. The intent of the bills put forward sounds good and certainly the political spin is well recorded on the front pages of many newspapers, especially when plane rides and announcements can be made on the taxpayers' backs. When the Prime Minister and his colleagues go across Canada repeatedly making announcements, the taxpayers are finding more and more that they are the ones who are actually paying for it. It is actually a pre-election campaign.

Having said that, something else has been disconcerting, and that is the gun registry. The gun registry is like a black hole. All across the country when the subject of the registry comes up, red flags go up all over the place.

Originally Bill C-37 had some serious issues that needed to be addressed. I must commend the work of the committee. The committee tried very hard to address some of the concerns.

The original version of Bill C-37 had no reasonable exemptions laid out for charities, political parties, polling firms or companies. That was a serious concern to the general public. There has to be control on fraudulent calls, especially calls to our most vulnerable citizens such as our senior citizens and make sure that the calls are not to fraudulently get money from our senior citizens or cause them distress. Usually telemarketers call at five or six in the evening during the dinner hour. Often this is the only time when families get a chance to sit down together and have some down time.

No one is arguing that there are many reasons that this bill is necessary. For those reasons and because of the amendments to the bill, the Conservative Party will support the bill.

One very important amendment is that three years after the do not call list comes into force, it will be reviewed by Parliament. That is very necessary. Because of the gun registry and because of the fraudulent use of taxpayers' money for more than a decade that the current government has been in power, there have to be checks and balances put in place to protect Canadian taxpayers' well-being, their money and quality of life.

Another amendment was that any person making a telecommunication must at the beginning of the call identify the purpose of the call and the person or organization on whose behalf the call is being made.

The amendments were the result of a leadership role by the Conservative members on the committee. The NDP did have input and supported the review after three years of the do not call list coming into force. Those were very important.

There are some other valuable amendments which exempt calls on behalf of registered charities, within the meaning of charities under the Income Tax Act; calls made on behalf of political parties as defined by the Canada Elections Act; calls made on behalf of a nomination contestant, a leadership contestant or a candidate of a party as defined in the Canada Elections Act; calls made on behalf of an electoral district association within the meaning of the Canada Elections Act; and calls made for the sole purpose of collecting information for a survey of members of the public.

In addition, all of the parties who have been made exempt must keep individual do not call lists. If a person is called by a charity and asks to be placed on the do not call list held by that charity, the charity is forced to comply and is not allowed to call that individual for three years. That is the current time limit. The length of time could be changed by the CRTC once the bill is passed.

All those amendments are valuable. Telecommunications and telemarketing is a huge business in Canada. A lot of companies rely on telemarketing to build their businesses. It is important to note that there are legitimate companies that value their customers and whose customers do rely on the telemarketing for contact with them.

In my riding of Kildonan—St. Paul many charitable organizations use telemarketing to reach out to my constituents. One example is Mothers Against Drunk Driving, MADD. Mothers Against Drunk Driving actually made a submission to committee and said that the bill in its original form would have a devastating financial impact on that organization.

When I was a member of the Manitoba legislature, I had a big fundraiser for Mothers Against Drunk Driving. All the proceeds, every cent, went to the organization. It was a fashion show. Prior to the fashion show people from Mothers Against Drunk Driving got up and recited all the important things that the organization did. There were testimonials from different people who had experienced loss of life in their families due to drunk drivers. I continue to financially and verbally support Mothers Against Drunk Driving. It is a very worthwhile initiative in Canada. My constituents in Kildonan—St. Paul certainly support MADD.

There are some very important initiatives and charities that do use telemarketing for very good purposes. It was important to ensure in Bill C-37 that charities, businesses and political parties were still allowed to use the telemarketing component in a very fair and reasoned way by putting in different checks and balances that would protect people from fraudulent telemarketing from other sources.

I will be supporting the bill because of the reasonable work that was done by committee. However a large red flag does go up. We need to ensure that the registry is used prudently and that the money is used solely for the registry.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have sat here for a couple of days now and listened to the debate. I support Bill C-37 in principle. It protects the privacy of Canadians and prevents them from harassment.

However, when I hear the Liberals mention the word “registry”, a red flag is immediately raised. I have not heard very much discussion on what it will cost.

The Liberal member who just spoke is absolving himself of responsibility in this area. He is in a sense almost blaming the opposition if this thing does not turn out right, if a bloated bureaucracy develops that is not effective while the opposition had a chance to correct it. The government administers these programs. The government's own bureaucracy will be responsible for the program. The minister has to take responsibility for it.

I have seen a gun registry that was supposed to have good intentions and results spin out of control and become so flawed as to be completely unusable. It ultimately became a big joke and a sinkhole for our tax dollars.

The Liberal MP has said that he has confidence that the costs will not spin out of control. I do not have that same confidence. I saw the government try to quietly sneak by a $273 million contract on the gun registry in March of this year. It did not even follow its own rules as to where these things should be listed and accounted for. I am a bit concerned.

I want to move on to something else. This is the main point of what I have to say today. In a sense this is putting the whole discussion in perspective from the average Canadian living outside of the Ottawa bubble.

Canadians look at what we are doing here today and they are asking me if this is all we have right now or if this is all we have in the agenda.

I just returned from a tour of my riding last week. Agriculture producers in the northern part of my riding are struggling with a harvest that is almost impossible to bring in. Imagine 17 inches of rain falling on the prairie in just a couple of weeks and the water has no place to go. The water sits on crops that were supposed to be the salvation of farmers who have struggled through a year of drought in 2003 and a killer frost in 2004. They had a nice crop coming along and suddenly they had rains that far surpassed what Katrina dumped on Louisiana and Texas. This rain has devastated what they had.

If we want to put a perspective on what we are debating here today, if we were to stand where these farmers are standing and look at what we are doing today, we might have a very different perspective. If we were surrounded by water that made it almost impossible to maintain our livelihood, this discussion today would seem quite irrelevant.

I do not have many opportunities to bring issues such as the flooding forward. The government dismisses the livelihood of farmers and agriculture producers as not a big factor with which it wants to deal. That is extremely unfortunate.

The people of my riding say that it is nice to pass this kind of legislation. It will allow people to sit on their couches and not be annoyed by someone phoning them to sell some vacation in Florida. However, when a farmer is losing his farm that has taken generations to build because the government has inadequate disaster relief available for grain producers, what we are doing today seems quite trite to them.

My constituents are asking me why Parliament is not dealing with issues that are of a higher priority to them. There are issues such as forcing a farmer to try to salvage a crop because he is trying to comply with some government imposed rules for crop insurance or a farm support program, such as the CAIS program. This is a problem which makes getting off the sofa to answer the phone look pretty insignificant.

That is the perspective in relation to which I want us to see this debate. We have spent so much time in the past two years blowing a lot of hot air past our teeth discussing nuances in legislation which for most Canadians is not a great priority. As they see us here today, they are thinking that it would be nice to have a do not call registry, and I support it, but they would rather have lower taxes so they could spend their money on their priorities, stay on their farms and not have more government programs imposed on them. That is their fear with another big registry. They quiver when they hear the word registry.

Farmers may also have some difficulties, but when they look at what we do here they ask why we cannot debate how our farm programs could be designed to be effective, because right now they are not working. The farmer sees government make big announcements about money flowing to agriculture, but he is frustrated by the fact that it just fuels a load of bureaucracy. It takes 50% to administer the government assistance programs. The farmer sees very little of the money coming in assistance to him.

I witnessed some unbelievable events this past week. Craig and Sharon Stegeman took me on a tour of their farm. We are not allowed to use props so I will just have to describe the pictures that they gave me. Standing on a bridge, as far as one can see there is water. The bridge happens to be the highest point of land. In another picture of their farm, the only things that show up are a few power and telephone poles sticking up through the water and maybe a few blades of grass that are a little longer than most. As far as one can see there is water, a high grid road with water covering it, or fields of grain standing in water. There is picture after picture of water. Then there is a place with trees and it looks as if the beavers have a built a dam, but they have not. That is just the natural result of 17 inches of rain. Swaths of grain have been washed into the ditches. There is no more swathed grain left in the fields.

A month after the rains, farmers tried to harvest their fields with their combines. They had to fit their combines with dual wheels. It cost them more than $20,000 to adapt their combines to drive through the water to cut the heads off the grain that was standing in the water. That is what these people are faced with and they have to do it. The farmers cannot even access any of the crop insurance or farm assistance if they do not make an attempt to harvest. They are ruining their land when they do this. It is unbelievable. I rode on one of the combines. The farmers do not want to scoop up water in case it gets into the grain they are harvesting. The grain is reasonably dry standing in the water.

The average city person probably does not even understand. These are not pictures from Louisiana and Texas. These are pictures from an area north of Yorkton.

When I went there last week there were 30 farmers waiting to talk to me. Every farmer in that area was there. We had a tailgate meeting. They poured their hearts out to me. It would have made members weep to hear the young farmers, their wives, and the older farmers tell the stories of how they have been working so hard. They have been killed by fuel costs. They have been hurt by fertilizer and chemical costs.

The Liberals have 40 pieces of legislation before the House. They have given the impression that we are really busy here. All these committees are working, but where the rubber hits the road, where the average person is trying to make a living, this seems to be quite irrelevant. The government sweeps agriculture problems under the rug. It gives the impression that CAIS and crop insurance are helping, but the claims for the year 2003 have not even been filled. The assistance that should have been coming is not there.

We need our city cousins to realize what is happening in rural areas, because what is happening is going to impact on them. The cheap food, the good quality food they have been enjoying will no longer be there when corporations take over because farmers cannot make a living supplying our city cousins with good quality food.

Let us take note of this. Let us put this whole debate in perspective because I am concerned for my constituents.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think we have established that the new approach of bringing bills to committee before second reading is extremely important.

To repeat the point, normally when we have bills the first thing that happens after they are printed is we have second reading debate. All parties have an opportunity to debate the bill and we then have a vote in principle. If it is passed in principle, it goes to committee. The committee then gets an opportunity to have witnesses and can make amendments, but the amendments have to be within the framework of the bill that was passed at second reading by the House. There are limits on what the committee can do.

By allowing a bill to go to committee after first reading, a committee virtually can rewrite the entire bill. One excellent example was Bill C-11 on the protection for whistleblowers. It took a long time for us to work on that. We took a bill that in fact I thought was on its deathbed, but after some very good work and excellent cooperation on the committee, as this committee had with its Bill C-37, the bill became one that everyone could get behind. We intend to work very hard to ensure that it fully achieves the objectives.

It was a good decision to refer it to committee. The committee should be commended for making the changes. I think all members would agree that they are constructive and productive amendments.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to be on the record on this bill because it is a subject matter which has been a source of a lot of aggravation to many Canadians and I have certainly heard from many of my own constituents.

In listening to the debate, there seems to be some question about the bill not providing enough detail as to how this or that is going to work. Members will know that the bill was actually referred to committee after first reading. This is a very important new approach that the House has adopted which permits a bill to go straight to committee before we have had second reading debate and vote for approval in principle. Once we have the vote at second reading, the committee is restricted in the changes that it can make. It must deal within the approval of the principle. Therefore, it really takes the teeth out of the committee's ability to make a better bill.

First of all, it is important to recognize that it was better for the bill to go to committee after first reading in order to not include all of the wishes of those who may have crafted it but only provide the framework under which the bill should operate. This would allow the committee the greatest latitude to build the detail that is necessary and to rely on the development, drafting and promulgation of regulations, and subsequently, to fine tune the micromanagement of the operation and administration.

I tend to disagree with the argument of some members that the bill just does not describe how each and every thing is going to work, Frankly, it is not a criticism of the bill or of the government; it is a criticism of the committee. It is the committee that reviewed the bill and voted on it. The committee unanimously changed a number of aspects of the bill. It added some elements to make exemptions for charities, politicians, candidates, et cetera. It had the opportunity to change each and every clause, to add, delete and to do absolutely everything.

The committee brought this bill back to the House in its current form with a number of amendments to reflect what it felt was necessary to ensure that this bill could in fact be effective in terms of achieving this objective. I wanted to point out that it is not the drafters of the bill who present it in the House who did not do the job. If there are still changes to be made, we have ways to make those changes even yet. As members know, if they want to refer it back to committee as a motion at third reading, it can happen if they feel they really want to do that.

I am not a big fan of micromanaging bills. Obviously there has to be some latitude in the implementation and regulations. The reason we have regulations is to include the fine details. We have many bills that require regulations that have to be drafted, and in some cases reviewed by the standing committee before they are gazetted and promulgated.

We have this opportunity. Indeed, many bills actually state that the regulations must go to committee for comment and in some cases even approval. On top of that, as members well know, the bill also provides for a three year review. It is going to take some time to actually shake down the process. I suspect most members would concede that this is not going to be perfect by any means.

The important point is that there is a problem and the problem has to be addressed. I think members agree and that is why all parties appear to be supporting this bill because on balance it is in the best interests of Canadians.

There are people in my riding in the telemarketing business who told me about how important it was for their business. Yes, there are 270,000 people employed and yes, it is a $16 billion business, but there comes a point at which there must be some balance and order in this business as well.

I know the experience of some telemarketers. All they have to do is find one person out of a thousand to do business with for it to be cost effective. Imagine how many people have to be contacted, and in many cases disrupted, at probably the worst possible time. Being in political life, members will know that prime time for dinner is between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. That is when these calls come in and everybody's phones rings. One member has said that the phone companies have call block. We cannot get that service without paying for it. Why should we have to pay for it? Caller ID is another service provided by the phone company. We cannot expect each and every Canadian to pay for this.

I understand telemarketing has been successful for many businesses, but it is not the only opportunity, certainly with regard to the consequences of making a thousand calls to make one sale. On top of that, how many times do we talk to people who have no idea to whom they are speaking, they mispronounce our names and then they start into some spiel which for a lot of people, who may be considered to be vulnerable or exposed, causes them some grief and consternation.

For instance seniors are often the victims of fraud. They are often the victims of those who would take advantage of their acceptance and trust in people. This is a very important aspect. However, it is not just seniors. It is others in our society who also are susceptible, those who cannot say no, those who do not know how delicately to get off the call. How about a mother who is upstairs nursing her baby, the phone rings and she runs to pick up the phone? Imagine how many people in Canada have been doing something that is important to their families. They are expecting a call or they do not receive many calls, so when the phone rings, they want to ensure they answer it on time. What they get when they answer is somebody wanting to know if they want to buy vacuum filters or something like that.

It is important that consumers have access to the opportunities to buy products. However, in the vast majority of cases when people need something, they know how to get it. They have the yellow pages. They know how to contact people. They receive an equal amount of other ad mail and flyers in virtually every newspaper, particularly the weekend newspaper. There is a standing joke in our house about how many trees were delivered to our house on Saturday morning, with the amount of papers we receive. It is absolutely ridiculous.

There are certain principles with which we have to deal. We have to be smart in our legislation. There comes a point where it is a critical threshold, it is a point at which the disruption to the many to the benefit of a few is way out of whack.

The bill is important. I think the members have conceded, from a macro standpoint, or from the view of the big picture, that we would have a registry on which people could put their names. It would tell that business to take their numbers off the list and not to call them ever again. It will take some work on behalf of the consumers to get their names on this, but it also is important that they have the opportunity to do so.

I understand that there may be some concern about the cost, the administration and operation. However, I think members are probably confident that there are good people within the CRTC or available to the CRTC to ensure that the do not call registry is implemented within a reasonable time, that it will be workable and that it will do the job it is intended to do.

I certainly will support Bill C-37.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the spirit of Bill C-37. This bill provides the framework for establishing a national do not call registry to protect Canadians from unsolicited and unwanted telemarketing calls.

The bill as originally presented was weak. It did not allow for those organizations such as charities, political parties and pre-existing customer relationships to continue. What it did was make it illegal for anyone to make an unsolicited telephone call to any individual whose name was included on the do not call registry.

Through the extensive efforts of many of my colleagues in the Conservative Party as well as those in the NDP, important amendments to the bill were made and adopted at committee. As a direct result of these amendments, I can now support the bill although I would say that I am cautiously optimistic.

It has become increasingly clear that Canadians want and indeed need a national do not call registry. Telemarketing is on the increase as more and more legitimate businesses are making use of the telephone as their primary source of reaching the consumer. Not only do Canadian consumers believe that this bill is necessary, so does the CMA.

The Canadian Marketing Association supports the bill and in fact has been lobbying for the creation of a national do not call registry since 2001. CMA president John Gustavson had this to say: “We believe a compulsory call service for all companies that use the telephone to market their goods and services to potential customers is the most effective means to curtail customer annoyance with telemarketers”.

There are many telemarketing analysts who do not agree with the need for a national do not call registry. They believe that the current rules are adequate in regulating telemarketers through voluntary or company specific do not call lists that have been in the industry standard form.

Some also believe that it removes a company's opportunity to reach a customer directly and therefore reduces the customer's knowledge of new products and services that could improve their lives. This argument does not hold water. Telemarketers who feel that their livelihood is being taken away from them are the ones who are generally working outside the system. In response, Mr. Gustavson said that such a service will help protect the viability of a marketing medium that employs over 270,000 Canadians and generates more than $16 billion in sales each year.

The bottom line is that Canadians are tired of being harassed and sometimes bullied by telemarketers. They are fed up with telemarketers being able to intrude on their lives, especially at home. Many of the interruptions usually come at a bad time and disrupt household and family routines. I am sure everyone here has experienced one of these calls personally. For example, we are just about to sit down for a nice dinner with the family after a long intense day at the office and the phone rings. There on the other end of the line is one of those pesky telemarketers who just will not take no for an answer. At the end of the call the telemarketer has us so frustrated that when we finally get off the phone our mood spills over to the family dinner and ruins the evening.

Many Canadians consider calls from telemarketing firms to be annoying and would prefer not to receive them at all. A recent poll conducted by Environics for Industry Canada cited that 97% of Canadians reported having negative reactions to telemarketing calls. The same poll indicated that 79% of people surveyed supported a national do not call directory, 66% of whom said they would sign up for the service.

A similar do not call registry was implemented in the United States in 2003 and has become very popular. Over 65 million people have registered thus far. As for whether the program is working or not, recent evidence shows it has been an overwhelming success. Many Americans who had received 30 or more telemarketing calls a month say the calls have dropped to less than five per month since they have registered. More than half of the people on the list say they do not receive any calls at all.

There is a greater importance to a national do not call registry than the ability to stop being annoyed by telemarketing calls.

The Canadian Association of Retired Persons has estimated that telemarketing investment schemes and fraud costs Canadians $3 billion per year. Seniors lose more than anyone else on a dollar per dollar basis. The organization PhoneBusters estimates that those over the age of 60 represent 56% of the total victims of telemarketing fraud with an average dollar loss of $12,000 per person.

Of all the victims of telemarketing fraud, seniors represent 85% of those who have lost more than $5,000. While telemarketing is a nuisance to some Canadians, unwanted telemarketing can be financially devastating to seniors.

Seniors make easy targets to telemarketing fraud because they often live alone and tend to have savings, assets or disposable income. Seniors are more trusting and are more likely to fall for a bogus sales pitch. Those seniors who have been scammed before usually do not report losing their money in fear of embarrassment. Telemarketing fraudsters know this and target them again and again. In fact their names and numbers are sold to other telemarketing fraudsters so they can also sucker them in to buying products and services they do not need and in many cases may not even receive.

Telemarketing con artists are experts at gaining the trust of seniors and making them feel as though they have their best interest in mind. Trusting seniors will give away personal information such as bank information, credit and debit card information, and before they know it their savings and investments could be cleaned out and they are left with nothing. They literally give away the house because the telemarketers convince them that this opportunity will help better their quality of life or they will help them and their families be financially independent for years to come.

I am sure all members of the House have heard the following story. An elderly woman living alone gets a call from a friendly telemarketer who takes the time to talk with her, not only about the product he or she is trying to sell but appears to genuinely care about her. After a few additional phone calls from the same telemarketer, the elderly woman decides to buy what the telemarketer is offering. She says she has spoken with this person a number of times, she does not consider the person a stranger and trusts giving her or him money.

Soon after the senior has handed over her entire life savings to this new phone friend, she realizes she has been scammed. This is about the time the telemarketing fraudster is enjoying the luxury vacation on a sunny south Pacific island.

Perhaps this is not the most common type of telemarketing activity, but it is a reality. I for one worry about the well-being of my parents and grandparents and other elderly relatives. I want them protected from these telemarketers. They have all worked hard throughout their lives to accumulate savings for their retirement and no one has the right to take that away from them. No one here wants to find out that their elderly parents, grandparents or relatives have lost their life savings because of some telemarketing scam. I am sure everyone here feels the same way.

The establishment of a national do not call list is long overdue in this country. Bill C-37 will assist in preventing telemarketing fraud.

Despite my support for the national do not call registry, I have a major cause for concern over the potential cost of the program. We all know what happened the last time the Liberal government created a national registry. The history of spending by the Liberal government can be described as nothing more than astonishing and incompetent as displayed by the national gun registry, the cost of which now is approaching $2 billion.

A national do not call registry could be effective and popular with Canadians. However, as the federal gun registry has shown, the government has an uncanny way of turning a modest project into a billion dollar fiasco. In other words, this project would be worthwhile but only if it is implemented properly and is cost effective. It must also include checks and balances in relation to monitoring its affordability and effectiveness.

I am pleased that we are considering a national do not call registry in Canada, but I would like to once again emphasize my concern regarding the cost and implementation.

I am not so sure that CRTC is the body to run it. The government has stated that if the bill is passed, the CRTC would embark on a series of consultations with industry and consumers to determine how best to implement the changes in the way in which telemarketing calls are regulated. What is not clear is how the list will operate, how much it will cost and whether telemarketing companies that break the rules be punished.

The current Telecommunications Act provides for the possibility of criminal prosecution for the contravention of a CRTC order with respect to telemarketing calls. Such prosecutions are rare and the CRTC itself lacks the power to impose fines.

The CRTC has become blind to increasingly rapid changes in the telecommunications industry, archaic in its approach to regulation, and unresponsive to the needs of Canadians. The role of database administrator as it relates to the national do no call registry will be new to the CRTC and arguably outside of its mandate.

For this reason, Parliament must have more details of how the CRTC plans to administer and regulate the do not call registry. The citizens of this country deserve to enjoy the privacy of their own homes and not to be disturbed by telemarketing rants. Most importantly, we need to protect our seniors from fraudulent telemarketing scams.

Finally, the question of implementation, administration and overall cost of the registry has to be addressed. We have seen that the Liberal government has a track record of foolishly spending taxpayers' money. Measures must be put in place to guarantee that this registry does not end up as an other Liberal spending spree. After all, nothing is scarier than seeing a Liberal hand sifting through our pockets.

[Marc Boulianne, Bloc, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on this bill. I want to congratulate my colleague, the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, for his excellent work not only on this issue but also as a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology. Furthermore, I congratulate him on his recent appointment as vice-chair.

I want to come back to Bill C-37 to amend the Telecommunications Act, because it is very important. This enactment will allow the CRTC to regulate or prohibit certain telecommunications practices. The regulations must leave room for freedom of expression. In my opinion, this principle is clearly expressed in the bill and it must be respected. This bill will prohibit or regulate the use by any person of the telecommunications facilities of a Canadian carrier for the provision of unsolicited telecommunications. This is the fundamental principle and basis of the bill.

Quite often, there is a laissez faire approach to telemarketing. But this industry is extremely important to Canada and Quebec and has a large presence.

There is another interesting aspect to the bill: its penalties for the contravention of prohibitions or requirements of the CRTC. As far as sanctions are concerned, we are told that Canada is a paradise for telemarketing scams. Telemarketing is covered by section 380 of the Criminal Code, but Canadian law is far too easy on it. Criminals generally get off with a fine or a really light sentence. It is hard to convict someone of this offence at present in Canada. What is more, the majority of these criminals reoffend. So there is a problem.

The RCMP even tries to get offenders extradited to the United States where the law is far harsher. For example, there an individual found guilty of fraudulent telemarketing involving a person over the age of 55 years is liable to five years imprisonment. This bill must be more rigorous. Any bill, regardless of its topic, must include incentives, of course, but sanctions or penalties as well.

As we indicated in committee—and there was unanimity on this, moreover—the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-37 for a number of reasons. One of our primary concerns is consumer protection, which we feel is essential. There are other reasons. According to the statistics, the telemarketing industry employed some 270,000 people in the year 2000, and did $16 billion worth of business. It therefore has a considerable impact on communities, consumers and Canadians and Quebeckers in general. For a business of that size, there will be major consequences as soon as a bill is passed that sets out principles of use and penalties it will be subject to.

We held consultations leading up to this bill. It is essential because it meets a need the public has expressed. A recent Environics poll reported that 79% of respondents were in favour of a national do-not-call list. This is important. In reality, such a thing is already in existence. The public is prepared to punish wrongdoers and work to achieve a bill that sets out these principles. What is more, 66% of respondents indicated that they already subscribed to such a service.

When we inform and consult with the public before developing a bill like this, which received unanimous support in committee, we know that it will be helpful and useful to the public.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour and has also proposed some amendments. Nonetheless, the Bloc Québécois also has some reservations. First, we want the mechanisms for setting up the registry and the costs involved to be clearly defined. We remember the gun registry. What a waste by the Liberal government. At one point it was supposed to cost $2 million or $3 million and now the cost is in the billions of dollars. That registry was botched. A lot of money was spent.

We are mistrustful when it comes to the registry. We have to be. It is our responsibility to enquire about the basic principles that will govern this registry. It cannot be left once again to a party or a government that has partisan or election-minded intentions. That is the primary concern of the Bloc Québécois. We have to see this bill through with this primary consideration in mind.

There is s second concern, and the Bloc Québécois would like the registry to be managed by someone outside the marketing community and the Canadian market. That is essential. Too often, the people looking into situations are the same ones who created the situations. That is unacceptable, and we have to prevent these forces from systematically distorting the verification process. This will require structures and independent organizations to, again, check how the registry is managed.

I am coming back to this point and I insist on this feature of a registry. The past is often said to be an indication of what the future holds. As I said earlier, we have seen how a registry can be handled by this government.

Another element was viewed as very important by the Bloc Québécois, which has put forward amendments in this respect. We wanted exemptions considered necessary to be included. We cannot have blanket bills, always expecting them to apply systematically.

In a society like ours, flexibility and open-mindedness are in order. Some organizations may not be affected and, if they are, the impact of the bill must at least be mitigated. I am thinking of registered charities for example. While protecting freedom of expression, they have to be allowed to function well within the system.

Under this bill, every new measure that will be put in place is essentially designed to put tighter controls on the telemarketing industry in order to protect consumers. That is what this bill is all about. That is also what the Bloc Québécois has been fighting for. We must always have at heart the interest of Canadians, Quebeckers, and consumers. This bill is testimony to that.

An amendment was put forward in committee concerning a number of exemptions, which was unanimously approved. Unfortunately, we realized yesterday that it was out of order. We even sought the unanimous consent of the House for this amendment. To no avail, because of the Liberal Party's opposition. That is unfortunate because the committee was unanimous. The Bloc Québécois is, once again, seeking the unanimous consent of the House to approve this amendment. We are convinced that it will improve the bill.

Again, the Bloc Québécois believes that this is an important bill. It will protect consumers and improve telemarketing practices.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak on Bill C-37, which is intended to create a national do not call registry.

Before I go further, I want to assure all members of the House that I have my home telephone publicly listed and I receive the same telephone calls that all my constituents do.

Canadians by the tens of thousands are interrupted every day by unsolicited telephone calls. I, too, share their feelings of intrusion, interruption and harassment. I have taken steps to inform my constituents of a national registry that already exists, but I am also quick to point out its shortcomings.

The Canadian Marketing Association will register a person for free on its DNC list. It can be done either through its website or by fax. Unfortunately, not all telemarketing companies are members of the Canadian Marketing Association, so we will not eliminate all calls if we register with the association.

The CRTC also requires that each company maintain its own DNC list, but we have to get at least one call first and the listing is only good for three years.

In my community brochures, I have provided a number of tips on how to handle unsolicited calls. I also provided information on how citizens can report fraud, scams and suspicions to the RCMP. At the end of that information, I asked four questions and obtained some interesting results.

We contacted and sent out brochures to 2,900 constituents. When I asked if they supported the concept of a national do not call list, 95% said yes and 5% said they were undecided. When I asked if the do not call lists should be maintained at taxpayers' expense by the government, 18% said yes, 65% said no and the other 18% were undecided. When I asked if they planned to add their names to the Canadian Marketing Association's DNC list, 68% said yes, 11% said no and 21% were undecided. Perhaps most interesting was when I asked if they were aware of the do not call list before receiving this brochure. A full 37% said yes, 58% said no, and 5% said they did not know.

The conclusion is that my constituents support such a list, but not with the government running it. This does not surprise me. The Liberal government's track record on national registries is abysmal. It has failed with the gun registry and also with the boat operators licensing registry.

I cannot blame my constituents for not wanting the Liberals to be in charge of another list. However, today we have Bill C-37 before us, which proposes to do just that. The bill is very sketchy on details and asks Parliament to grant the CRTC a great deal of power with minimal direction. This is a recipe for another failed registry.

The bill does not give any details on how the list will be maintained. While those who want their number on the list will be happy to have it there, it is likely they will remove that number if they change their phone number. Believe it or not, there are others who would be upset to find out that their new phone number was restricted when that was not their wish. Already the complexity of the list becomes apparent.

The bill raises a number of privacy concerns, as it fails to specify what information is required of consumers. I know that my constituents are very concerned about privacy issues and I am hesitant to support legislation that does not adequately address these issues. However, a number of amendments have been made and I will be supporting the legislation, as I believe it heads us in the right direction. Changes can be made.

I have some questions, though. How will telemarketers check this list? How much information would they have access to? How often would they be required to check the national list against their own? There are so many questions and, unfortunately, so few answers.

As we have seen in the national gun registry, reporting and accountability issues are rampant. On a DNC registry, who would provide the reporting? How timely would it be? How accurate would it be? Again, there are a lot of questions and no answers.

Perhaps one of the most interesting and debatable issues is that of exemptions. Clearly not all unsolicited calls can be classified as intrusive, hassles or frauds.

In addition, a number of organizations, from charitable, polling and survey firms to political organizations and candidates, make a valid case for exemption. Also, would such a list preclude companies from randomly contacting their customers without prior permission?

Who will decide on the exemptions? Under this bill, it will not be Parliament. I have a problem with that. Any restrictions to free speech require serious legal and political considerations.

According to the CRTC, the do not call list would be self-funding. Many question the CRTC's authority in handling the do not call list. Program funding would come from the fines imposed on those who fail to comply with the law.

In theory, if everyone follows the rules there will be no revenue from fines. I cannot believe the government wants to establish a funding mechanism based on the failure of Canadians to follow the law.

If the government has done studies to determine if we are delinquent enough to maintain funding for such a list, it should put them on the table. Or is the government really trying to tell us that such a list will be so ineffective that opportunities for fines will always exist?

Also, the CRTC is expecting to have very broad and far-reaching powers to create, maintain and enforce this list. Many say that the CRTC has demonstrated its inability to keep up with technology and the general wishes of Canadians.

Such a list was established in the United States with a great deal of fanfare. In fact, on its opening day, a whopping 1,000 website hits a second were received. I take it, then, that such a list is needed and wanted, but I truly question whether the government is capable of undertaking such a project.

As I stated earlier, 95% of my constituents who answered the questionnaire want such a list, but 65% of them do not want the government to run it. Carl S. of Saskatoon even suggested that telephone companies be responsible for maintaining such a list. Then, if a telemarketer failed to comply with the list, the phone company could charge the offending firm.

I will be supporting the bill only because I agree with the intent, not the method. If the Liberal government wants my full support, it would have to bring forward a detailed bill, not just the framework of one. In addition, it would need to justify why the government is the only one that can and should operate such a registry. This is a problem, created when one telephone customer irritates another.

Ironically, the phone companies have been largely silent in this regard. Perhaps it is because telemarketers are very profitable clients compared to individual subscribers. Perhaps it is because this causes many people to pay additional fees for phone features like caller ID, from which the phone company benefits financially.

I would like to see the government, before asking taxpayers to fund such a list, approach the phone companies for a solution first. I know that the phone companies already have the technology to block calls from one number to another. Why is this not the focus of our efforts?

Once again, I encourage the government not to abandon the issue but to instead come back to Parliament with a truly sustainable, detailed piece of legislation for us to debate and vote on.

Finally, I would like to thank all my constituents who participated in the survey. For the record, it was conducted by mail.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you on your great efficiency. Over the last while, routine proceedings have been dealt with very expeditiously.

I am extremely pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-37, to amend the Telecommunications Act. This bill will ensure that the irritants associated with the system, because telephone solicitation calls have unfortunately become too frequent, are finally eliminated to a large extent. Such calls are intruding into the privacy of the home.

The bill before us today provides some protection for consumers and the general public. As we know, thanks to new technologies, we are bombarded night and day by solicitations. For example, a few weeks ago, someone called me at 8 a.m. I was told about an amazing new vacuum that I just had to try. Obviously, at 8 a.m. on a Saturday, there are better things to do than see how our vacuum cleaner compares to the one we are being asked to buy. It has become a kind of pollution. I believe that it is important for us, as legislators, to ensure privacy protection, because things have gone a bit too far.

Naturally, the Bloc will support Bill C-37. This bill contains provisions we like. We have looked at how this kind of system has worked elsewhere. The United States has the national do not call registry. This registry has allowed 62 million people, in a country with a population of 250 million, to say that they do not want to receive such calls. Companies must comply or pay significant fines.

People will say that this has resulted in another, related, problem. A number of these American companies relocated to Canada because things are more relaxed here. Now, we are going to set some restrictions and also be respectful to the general public.

However, there are some exemptions. Be it the vacuum cleaner I mentioned earlier, encyclopedias or cookware, people will have to comply and work within the legislation. However, there are some important exemptions, such as charitable organizations.

It is wise to state in the bill that such organizations are exempted. They will be allowed to phone people. The employees of charitable organizations have a certain amount of professionalism. I do not believe that they would call at 8 or 9 a.m. or very late at night. In fact, it would not be profitable for them to do so. If they did, they might offend whoever answers the phone at 9 a.m. In all likelihood, they would not raise much money for their charity that way. These people are professionals and therefore giving them this exemption is the right thing.

The same goes for business relationships. A pharmacist, for instance, cannot be prevented from calling a client to notify him or her that a prescription is ready to be picked up. This type of situation can justify a phone call at 8 or 9 in the morning. We agree that these are exceptions and the bill will not apply to them.

The same also goes for political calls, which are important, after all. Politics are the heart and soul of a society. The legislators are the ones who make final decisions on numerous subjects, including this one. It is very important for another exception to be made so that political parties can make phone calls. There would be reasonable rules on this. No one will solicit votes at 8 am or midnight. I therefore think this exception is a proper one.

As for opinion polls, it is a matter of the right to information. People are entitled to know what the standing of the political parties is, in the country as a whole or in specific provinces. This exception is important for us.

There is one regrettable point, however. There was consensus in the committee for another sector to be added to the exceptions: newspapers.

This can include the national papers as well as the local papers. It is very important for them to be able to conduct some form of solicitation. Unfortunately, even though the committee was in favour, this seems to have slipped through the cracks and disappeared.

Mr. Speaker, I regret to point out that you made a slight error. We asked for this to be included as an exception. Unfortunately, you turned down this request. Yesterday, we sought unanimous consent of the House. I was there. I do not understand why the Liberals refused, when they were in favour of this in committee. Why do they want to prevent our local papers, or the national papers, from soliciting subscriptions?

Earlier it was even said that political parties were an exception to the legislation, so why would newspapers not be as well? What they do is just as important as what legislators do. We thought it a shame that the Liberal Party did not give its consent yesterday to include newspapers in the exceptions.

Furthermore, in the bill, we like the fact that a three-year period will apply. This is part of a new section of the legislation. We will have to see what impact this will have on consumers and on marketing companies. By the way, marketing companies are in favour of this bill. These companies have already said that people who want to be excluded, who say they do not want to be solicited, refused to answer them anyway. Accordingly, the Canadian Marketing Association, or CMA, said it would give the bill its blessing.

The three-year period will apply. When the bill receives royal assent, a period of three years will apply, after which Parliament could re-evaluate the entire scope of this section of the legislation. We think this is a reasonable timeframe that will ensure everyone is protected and the bill can truly meet its objectives.

There are some gaping holes in this bill. We have been told, unfortunately, that telemarketing fraud could not be included. The typical psychological profile of the people who fall victim to this is as follows. They are often people who live alone and are around 70 years of age and their money is literally extorted from them. We were told that to deal with this, amendments would have to be made to the Criminal Code.

Still it is a shame to see this going on. People report for work in some little hidden away spot, known as a boiler room, and start making calls. These people are often paid according to how successful they are. For example, they get 40% of what they take in.

Unfortunately, people can make a fortune extorting money from this kind of client. In their view, it is paradise here. The legislation in the United States imposes heavy penalties on these people. They are sentenced to prison and given heavy fines. The result is that people who want to engage in this kind of extortion, from these boiler rooms, come to Canada and make their calls to the United States from here. At the same time, of course, they swindle Canadians and Quebeckers as well.

It is too bad that this is not covered by the bill. I know that my hon. colleague, who sits on the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology, wants to meet with my hon. colleague from justice to try to correct this defect.

Nevertheless, taking the bill as a whole, the Bloc members are pleased with it. It is time that the private lives of Canadians were protected. People never have enough time nowadays, and they have less and less for their families, for example. This time should be protected. We should make sure that people can enjoy breakfast with their families on Saturday morning without being disturbed by three, four or five phone calls trying to sell them all sorts of things or soliciting them about everything under the sun.

I take great pleasure therefore in saying that I support Bill C-37. I think that my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois will be in favour of the Bloc's position, which is to amend the telecommunications bill in order to do something about the inappropriate solicitation problem.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Clarington—Scugog—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-37. I commend the member for Edmonton—Leduc in his leadership and work on this bill. I also commend our other representatives on the committee.

How many of us have sat down to dinner or a relaxing evening and the phone rings and upon answering the phone we have heard a taped or live voice selling us carpet cleaning, driveway paving or a new roof? Other calls may have been for the purpose of fundraising on behalf of worthwhile charitable organizations. Still others may have been polls or surveys wanting our opinion on what food we eat, where we shop or a myriad of other subjects, even whom a person might vote for in the next election.

As we have all experienced, there are countless reasons, many legitimate purposes for these unexpected calls and for telemarketing. However, these calls are not necessarily a welcomed intrusion into the homes of many Canadians. According to a survey by Industry Canada, 97% of Canadians claimed to find these calls irritating and have a negative reaction to them, even after the CRTC has done a great deal to manage and improve the telemarketing practices in Canada.

When I was a commissioner of the CRTC I remember dealing with complaints, for example, automated diallers that would cause the phones by patients' beds in the hospital to ring one after another down a hallway. These irritants and other concerns have been dealt with by the commission, and yet still in the 2004 survey undertaken by Environics, Canadians indicated considerable support for another step, a national do not call registry. To date, we have companies and smaller organizations offering such a service on a company by company basis, but this bill introduces a national registry. The survey also showed that 66% of those surveyed said they would sign up for a do not call registry.

The Canadian Marketing Association itself supports a national registry. In its wisdom it recognizes that phoning people who do not want to be called is a waste of their time and resources. A responsible effective registry would benefit all marketers in their public relations and reputations.

The Conservative Party supports this bill insofar as it will respond to the demands of so many Canadians. We believe that a national do not call registry set up within the parameters outlined by Parliament would be in the public interest. We do, however, see the need for the amendments now associated with the bill. These are amendments that will balance the needs of telemarketers with the demands of the public in a simple and responsible way.

The amendments under consideration would in fact address a number of shortcomings not included in the initial bill introduced by the government. Even the CRTC, the agency to be given the responsibility, has asked for more information and details. The commission observed that there were serious flaws in the bill as introduced. It recognized that the job at hand was outside of its current abilities and responsibilities.

Many of the commission's concerns have been addressed in the amendments dealing with the power to impose fines, the delegation of various administrative duties and the introduction of categories allowed exemption to the registry. These amendments have been passed at committee and are part of the debate today.

A three year review once the registry comes into force has been set up. The CRTC is to undertake an investigation as to the best way of setting it up and the associated costs. I do have a concern that the business plan of the CRTC and of the registry should be reviewed prior to the three year review timetable. The public should know how this operation will be set up and what will be the projected cost to the public so that in three years we have something to measure against and we have accountability.

The review is essential because we have to also make sure that we have given the CRTC effective tools to enforce the registry requirements. We would expect careful monitoring of the rate of compliance and complaints received over the three year period.

We would see the effectiveness of the fines and the rates applied. These should be measured as to their ability to limit contravention of registry obligations.

Most importantly, we would caution the government and the CRTC that the government's history with registries is not stellar. We have seen the gun registry and had discussions earlier on it. A promise of a few million dollars now surpasses a billion dollars and at the same time there has been an increase in gun violence.

We must ensure that there will be public accountability in the cost of this registry. The cost presented to the committee for a Canadian do not call registry raises red flags when compared to the cost of the American registry to service a country 10 times the size of Canada. We should learn from the American experience. As the saying goes, “let's not re-invent the wheel”.

Although I support the amendments regarding the anonymity of the identification of the caller and the purpose of the call when surveys are being undertaken, I would ask for clarification by the government on this point. The amendment allows polling companies to make calls without identifying their clients or the purpose of the call.

I agree that the name of the client should be allowed to be withheld. I agree that the name of the client for whom the survey is being conducted may skew the response given, but total anonymity should not exclude the need to identify the surveying company or polling company. I do not see any problem with the caller saying, “We are calling from company X and are conducting a survey or poll”. The public deserves this much. Total anonymity is not acceptable, as far as I am concerned.

As to the other exemptions from the do not call registry, I agree that charities, existing business relationships and political parties should be exempted. We have been told how the effectiveness and challenges for charities, and very worthwhile organizations, would be more difficult if they did not receive this exemption. Consequently, in supporting their causes and supporting their work, I believe the exemption is deserved.

I recommend that the amendment regarding anonymity might be reconsidered to ensure that the underlining principles and purposes of the exemptions proposed would be considered, and that we do have a fair balance between the needs of the telemarketers and the public interest.

In conclusion, I ask that we have a public report as to the initial business plan that the registry might set out with, so that the public is aware of the cost and the tools that are being proposed. We would then have something to measure at the end of the three year review. I also ask that some thought be given in refining the anonymity consideration. I support all the amendments in the bill and I commend the member for Edmonton—Leduc and his work. I am sure he will take my suggestions into consideration.

I know that a national do not call registry would answer the needs of many Canadians, would be a mechanism that would be welcomed by many Canadians and I hope it would also allow many Canadians to finish their dinners.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate at this stage of the debate on Bill C-37, an act more commonly known to create a do not call list for the country.

I want to commend all members of the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology for an excellent piece of work. I am honoured to chair that committee and I can only say that our ability to work is only because we have cooperation on all sides. The government's willingness, as brought forward by the parliamentary secretary, to look at amendments and the good amendments that were brought forward by all members, especially the critics from the three parties, all provided the House with a better bill to deal with here today.

The bill is not perfect. I do not know if we ever find a government bill that is, but we have struck an excellent balance. I know certain groups or persons may not be entirely happy with it, referring to the comments by the member for Windsor West and others. However it was the amendment of the member for Windsor West which, if I recall correctly, changed the five year review to a three year review. At the three year review, hopefully any serious or minor problems we may have created can be dealt with.

I believe the bill would balance the needs of the marketplace to sell its goods and the needs of consumers who are entitled to privacy in their dwellings. The day is long past where we see door to door salesmen. I do not think anybody here can remember the last time a Fuller Brush salesman was at their door. The times have changed and now the equivalent of the door to door salesman is the telephone telemarketer.

When door to door salesmen go up to a door there could be a sign saying “No solicitors”. I do not think it means lawyers. I think it means no peddlers, no door to door salesmen. That is a clear message to the salesman not to knock at that door. In the telephone marketing business, they need to have the equivalent of that sign on the door and that is what the do not call registry will do.

The registry would in no way impair the ability of telemarketers to conduct their business on behalf of their clients. As the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup said quite effectively, it would reduce the set of calls that the telemarketing company has to make and therefore the percentage of successful calls on behalf of clients will go up because they have taken out a lot of people who do not want the calls and who are not likely to be potential customers of the caller. I think certain efficiencies would be brought to the industry that would be welcomed. We did hear great support from the telemarketing community. We have found that balance.

When I have been the recipient of a nuisance telemarketing call, I have gotten into the habit of politely asking the person to take me off the list. I do not recall ever having a call back from that particular company again. However I am away from home so much, as my colleagues are, that maybe the chances of a telemarketer finding us at home are low.

That said, the bill would simply extend the right of every citizen to be taken off a particular company's or telemarketer's list and creating a centralized list.

However it was important that we consider some exemptions and most particularly, which all parties supported, was an exemption for non-profit organizations. I know the member for Edmonton—Leduc was very effective in bringing forward what I thought was a very balanced approach. Suggestions were made to make the exemption for non-profits much broader, resulting in being more difficult to administer. It is now defined as a list based on the Income Tax Act, which should be, for the do not call administrator, a much easier system to administer.

We also made sure that businesses that had existing relationships with customers could contact those customers for a year and a half after the last significant commercial interaction and six months if it were a relatively minor interaction such as ordering a catalogue.

With those two exemptions for business, I think a balance has been struck. I know there was one particular businessman from British Columbia who contacted all of us. I know his member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca spoke to me about his concern. I respect his concern but I think, in balance, a year and a half was the right amount, at least for the first three years of the system.

Concerns were raised too about the cost. I understand from the CRTC's presentation that it is estimating about a $2 million one time implementation cost. The ongoing costs will be taken care of by the telemarketing community, those who do the calls, because they will essentially pay the administration of keeping their lists up to date. There should not be a serious ongoing cost to taxpayers. Since this is a cost that these companies have now in maintaining their own lists, now they can simply allocate those resources as a contribution, I presume, to a national do not call list.

I hope the House will deal with the bill expeditiously. There seems to be a consensus to move forward, notwithstanding a desire for some tweaking here and there, but on balance it is a good bill. It should be dealt with here and I hope expeditiously in the other place so that consumers can have the protection of their privacy to which they are entitled so that each consumer can make his or her decision on whether they shall be subject to the calls from telemarketers, people who wish to sell them a good or service.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when I heard we would be discussing do not call lists today, I became a little excited because I thought we might get to the bottom of why President Bush seemed to be on the Prime Minister's do not call list for so many months when we had the crisis in softwood lumber. It took months and months to get that first phone call in. Or, why the provincial government seems to be on the health minister's do not call list when it comes to enforcing the provisions of the Canada Health Act around credit card medicine or for profit clinics. Or, why the finance minister in British Columbia is on the immigration minister's do not call list when it comes to ensuring that the money sent to B.C. for settlement services is actually spent on settlement services. Or, why in my own riding the Norman Bethune housing co-op is on the housing minister's do not call list when it comes to getting help to fix the leaky building situation that it faces.

There are a lot of do not call lists around this place that merit some of our investigation. However I am really glad that we are dealing with Bill C-37 because it is important legislation to many people in my constituency. It was something I heard a lot about during the past election campaign and is certainly something I support strongly. I congratulate all the members of the committee and, in particular, the member for Windsor West, on the hard work they have done on this. It certainly sounds like there was a real spirit of cooperation among the committee members.

This afternoon the member for Windsor West said a couple of times that he thought the legislation was a first step and that there were still some serious problems that he tried to change with regard to charities that were included in the legislation. I wonder if he might comment a little further on what next steps need to be taken and about the charity situation.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-37 on behalf of the New Democratic Party. I was part of a meaningful committee, led by our chair who did due diligence to ensure that all members had an adequate opportunity to contribute to the bill. He also ensured that the bill was shepherded through the process of a very difficult parliamentary session.

At the end of the day, this shows there can be all party cooperation to create a bill, in a balanced approach, to deal with a situation with which Canadians have expressed some frustration and concern. Canadians do not want unsolicited phone calls to their homes, which invade their privacy. However, genuine interests of businesses and not for profit organizations use telemarketing as a way of being productive, not only in terms of reaching their goal to be profitable but also providing employment in different regions across the country.

This is a good bill. It creates a solid first step. It is important to talk about the privacy aspect first and what ordinary Canadians feel with regard to telephones calls to their homes.

Canadians foot the bill to have telephones installed in their homes. They pay service charges to maintain the service. There also is the hardware that is necessary for the service to be completed. These calls come through something that they pay for on a regular basis. Service charges eat into their household incomes. At the same time, they are frustrated with unsolicited phone calls from people seeking their support for good causes or from entrepreneurs wanting to introduce them to a business opportunity. There does not seem to be much regulation to ensure that people have the opportunity to opt out. Alternatively, there does not seem be accountability in the system.

It is important to note the voluntary registry under the Canadian Marketing Association, which supports Bill C-37. From experience, it knew it had to update its list often, and there was an administrative capacity to that. There also was a bit of frustration in the sense that, because it is a voluntary registry, there were no penalties associated to those who violated the list. There were also oversight issues related to updating the list for those people who did not want telephone solicitation and marketing to their homes.

It is important to note that in 2003 an Environics survey showed that 81% of respondents reported receiving unsolicited calls and on average received 3.43 calls per week. It has probably increased since 2003. Often people will joke that they receive that amount of calls per dinner time from different organizations.

It also is important to note that those are the calls about which people knew. Canadians face the antagonizing experience of the computerization of this industry, where they are ghost calling into homes. This occurs when a person is at home, the telephone rings, the person picks up the phone and there is no one on the other end. What happens is a computer identifies that person as being home. A caller will then use that information to take advantage of the time the person is there and a call is made soon thereafter.

Quite frankly, this tactic should be eliminated in Canada. I find it difficult to accept the frustration because if individuals are picking the phone up and no one is there, then it is a further intrusion.

While 38% of people said that they tolerated telemarketing, 35% of people were annoyed by telemarketing and 24% hated it. There is a significant divide in the Canadian culture about how tolerant they want to be with regard to this industry, hence the reason for this bill.

An important amendment put forward by the New Democratic Party, which was supported by all parties, was to have a review in three years. The three-year review is important because this is very much a dynamic issue related to employment and privacy. At the same time it can have significant consequences on charitable organizations and businesses that depend upon this type of industry to be profitable and successful. Once again, that also relates to the employment they provide for citizens in our country.

It was noted that amendment 7 would not be discussed here today because it was brought forward after the committee had finished its due diligence on the bill. It is unfortunate that the Speaker has ruled against it. However, I would note that if we had unanimous consent, we could correct the situation, and I would encourage all parties to do so.

The member for Edmonton—Leduc noted that there were significant problems with the bill at first. There were questions about whether the CRTC had the required administrative capacity for which that the government asked. There was a division of lists, basically winners or losers, especially those which could affect charitable organizations by locking them out entirely. As well, other important amendments came forward through a spirit of cooperation that led us here today.

Any time we see a bill come back to this chamber with several amendments, I think is an indicator of a balanced approach, one that builds cooperation in the House of Commons.

In the summary of the bill, the CRTC would have three functions. A third independent party would be responsible for the registry. There has been some good debate about the effects of registry, its cost and overruns. This would be funded by the operators. Therefore, there is something of significance if lack of accountability in the registry occurs.

Hopefully, we have learned lessons that will provide some guidance to ensure that there would not be an additional burden placed upon the industry and the charitable organizations because of the registry and the funding required to ensure that lists are scrubbed and updated. There also would be accountability at the end of the day.

Those consequences could be significant if there were a problem. We now have a changing culture where there will be opportunities for people to remove themselves from lists to which people formerly had access.

It is important to note that some of the lists to be removed from the system are quite helpful to the industry. There is a significant growth in the industry right now, in terms of jobs and employment in Canada and even abroad. I think we have all received solicitation calls from destinations outside of North America. We also have call help centres out there. However, there will be a change in the culture. If there is a burden of responsibility for paying this and there is an impact on the revenue coming in related to the implementation and the culture experienced by people, then there could be significant problems for charitable organizations and businesses. It is a responsibility of the House to ensure that we correct those problems. We are intervening into a curtained system.

Another important thing to note is there will be fines once a full registry is set up, established and operating, which will take approximately 19 months according to the CRTC. In testimony in front of our committee, Mr. French identified that it would take several months to get this thing going. Once that happens, penalties will be imposed. I want to read the section on penalties so people understand there will be expectations on those who are intolerant of the government legislation and of the laws of the land. In particular, section 72.01, the administrative monetary penalties, states:

Every contravention of a prohibition or requirement of the Commission under section 41 constitutes a violation and the person who commits the violation is liable

(a) in the case of an individual, to an administrative monetary penalty of $1,500; or

(b) in the case of a corporation, to an administrative monetary penalty of $15,000.

That is a balanced approach to take to ensure there will be some accountability at the end of the day.

We know that voluntary standards do not often work and that they are problematic because there is no punitive action at the end of the day. Different organizations or individuals will take advantage of that opportunity. Some are law-abiding and will follow the rule, but if there is not a penalty at the end of the day, it becomes increasingly problematic.

I want to bring forward the important factor of charitable organizations and the impact that the bill could have not only on their membership but also on the services they provide to Canadians. We heard testimony from Imagine Canada in a submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology on May 4, 2005:

Cumulatively, nonprofit and voluntary sector groups contribute $75.9 billion annually to the national economy—$34.7 billion if such institutional charities as hospitals, universities and colleges are excluded. This constitutes 8.5% of GDP; 4.0% excluding institutional charities.

It is very important to note that this is a significant shift in our Canadian economy, with 8.5% of the entire GDP being influenced by a new government public policy that is supported by Canadians but which is going to have an impact.

Ms. Dawn Regan, director of finance and fundraising for MADD Canada, quoted a specific item that I think is important to note, because we can see the dependence of particular organizations on calling and the impact it could have on Canadian culture.

We know that MADD is one organization that is supported universally across the country. It does great work in Windsor West, I know, as well as in other constituencies across the country, affecting not only its members but also protecting other Canadian citizens by being proactive with regard to drunk driving and its consequences.

MADD's Dawn Regan said, “Over 90% of our funds are raised through personal donations”. It has asked for an exemption, which it does not currently have. That will go before the CRTC when it starts to develop its list. It is significant that 90% of MADD's donations are susceptible to this change in the bill. This will take away its infrastructure.

I come from a background of working with not for profit organizations. When their systems are built up with that type of dynamic, it makes it very difficult for them to fill the vacuum with other types of revenues. It is important not only in terms of the way that organizations are structured but also for the volunteers and their ability to bring in the resources necessary for their programming.

For example, if that 90% funding drops, then they are going to have to backfill with some other type of funding mechanism, which is very difficult. Fundraising is competitive in this day and age because we have so many charitable organizations competing in difficult circumstances. Many of the corporate donors are tapped out in terms of the availability of capital for organizations and groups.

MADD will have to do their fundraising in a new culture. If that lost revenue is not backfilled, Canadians will lose out and there will be a safety issue on our streets. I think that eventually there will be a further cost if we do not continue to fight drunk driving in our communities.

It is important to note that some of these charities are not going to be classified under the Income Tax Act. As New Democrats we wanted to see a broader exemption to begin with. Then, after looking at the testimony and the input after three years, we wanted to be able to narrow the scope if Canadians chose to do so or continue the status quo.

Some of these organizations do very good work. Greenpeace, for example, is an organization that is not going to have the exemption. It is going to have to change and it will be important for Greenpeace to adapt.

There are also: the Toronto Police Amateur Athletic Association; the Toronto Professional Fire Fighters' Association; Special Olympics Manitoba; the International Association of Fire Fighters and all its locals; the Canadian Professional Police Association and all locals; the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and all locals; the Lions Club; the World Wildlife Federation and so on. The list goes on and on. All not for profit groups whose primary role is advocacy cannot get charitable tax status, but they do depend upon this type of calling format to reach their base and also to reach out to new donors and expand their operations.

It was interesting to note that in the debate today we heard about the lack of accountability that we still sometimes see in the industry. I have personal experience working in call centres. Some of them have come a long way in terms of working standards and improvements; they are so far ahead of what they were. When I was in high school, I worked after school in a call centre that was set up in a hotel room. I can still picture it and smell it today. Twenty-five kids were packed into a dingy small room with one window. Wooden tables, underlaid with iron, were set up with a bunch of telephones on top. Everybody smoked.

We were calling on behalf of an organization that was using a charitable front. We had scripts to read when we contacted individuals in the community. We were led to believe that all of the money collected would be going to the charitable organization but later discovered that the funds were not going to it at all.

My friend and I eventually quit the job in absolute disgust and reported this incident, but there was nothing in the law that prevented this from happening. At the time, it was allowed. Not much could be done with regard to overseeing the message we were conveying versus what the charitable organization actually received.

That needs to change. That type of thing puts other charitable organizations and legitimate businesses that would like to use call centres in a lesser light. That is why accountability is very important.

The bill will provide a screening process which would make people who are contacted by this type of service feel better. It will also provide an opportunity to have some of the calls made to residences withdrawn. Parliament will have the mandate to review what the CRTC is doing and what the government is doing to make sure that the CRTC has the right support and is following the right process.

I raised a concern regarding Canadians' privacy through an amendment which unfortunately was defeated. It related to the PATRIOT Act in the United States. In any type of outsourcing done in the United States, even if it is information about a Canadian, the CIA and the FBI can get all that personal information. For example, if an individual is a credit card holder and the call centre has the data, neither the company nor the individual are told about that. The individual has no rights in terms of what happens with the information.

I had concerns that we would be outsourcing to a third party American firm which would then locate in the United States. We had that situation when the government outsourced the census project to Lockheed Martin. Subsequently, we had to take action that cost millions of dollars in taxpayers' money to correct the situation so the data would remain in Canada and not go abroad where it would be susceptible to other third party governments.

Unfortunately, the committee did not support this recommendation. The Privacy Commissioner thanked me for allowing him to be a part of the committee process and told me my fears could be allayed and put to rest. He told me his office would watch for this and be part of this.

It is a healthy part of our current parliamentary democracy when we have a committee like the industry committee that does a lot of good work in a non-partisan way. I would suggest that this bill is part of what we have done.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Rivière-Du-Loup—Montmagny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise at report stage of Bill C-37, which has been debated for at least an hour already. In short, this legislation seeks to prohibit unwanted telephone calls. Under the existing marketing system, many calls are made to contact people, to ask them to buy certain products, to support a cause, or to get their opinion. All kinds of calls are made regarding all sorts of issues.

We came to realize that there is a need to monitor this sector, to find a way to control it, so that those who do not want to receive such calls can be exempted from getting them. That is the bill's primary objective.

In an effort to find a proper solution to this issue, we took a look at what is done in the United States and in other countries. The concern of the government and of the members of Parliament was that the CRTC did not have all the appropriate and necessary means to act effectively. A bill was needed to deal with this issue.

The committee heard people from many sectors. The telemarketing industry and telemarketers were represented by the Canadian Marketing Association. We also heard from people engaged in all forms of solicitation, including registered and unregistered charities. These people must solicit the public to have sufficient revenues to carry on their good works. For example, there are people who collect money for muscular dystrophy, for a human rights cause, or for any other good cause.

After listening to these people, we decided to propose an amendment to the bill, because it did not allow people representing these organizations to make telephone calls. Without this amendment, these people would have been prohibited from making calls. We might then have been in a very good position to see the impact that these organizations have on our society. It is often said that without volunteers, things would not work very well. Indeed, if we had not allowed charities to do this type of soliciting, we would have created an unacceptable situation.

This in part reflects the spirit in which we examined the bill. The underlying principle is a good one. We must ensure that people who do not want to be called will not be. On the other hand, we need to see whether there are not some groups that need to be excluded from this situation in order to ensure that an activity that is necessary and appropriate in this society is not systematically hobbled.

As a result, we excluded registered charities, as well as existing business relationships. In the latter connection, we heard from a large number of professional associations. Their representatives came to point out to us that if they were prevented from making these types of calls, or if the way they could be made was not made properly clear, ridiculous situations would result.

Taking the example of someone with a professional relationship with another person, a psychologist, pharmacist or physician for instance, the professional might end up unable to continue contact with his client or patient if that specific activity is not allowed in the amendment. This amendment is therefore also intended as an improvement to the bill, making it more realistic and more in keeping with the intended purpose.

We did, of course, also ask for exclusion of those who had not requested to be put on a do-not-call list, in order to avoid misunderstandings. People might claim they thought they were automatically excluded, although they had not asked to be. We wanted to be sure everything was clear and that there was sufficient protection in that area to avoid any additional pointless legal wrangling.

In a concern for democracy, we also wanted to ensure that, as far as political phone calls and opinion surveys are concerned, our democracy in action would not be hindered. For instance, that we would be able to call people to convince them to vote for us, or to contribute to a political party.

These things are essential for a healthy democratic process. Imagine the opposite scenario: political parties no longer able to call people, pollsters unable to sample public opinion. We would end up in a situation where our citizens' democratic rights were being restricted.

Some people could certainly find ways to circumvent legislation. They would try to achieve the same objective with a very justifiable basis of democratic quality of life. However, this bill would prohibit this.

Oonce again, it seems essential that we be able to move forward with this amendment. We want all of this to be realistic and to lead to a bill with good values.

There is one very important provision that was added along the same lines. It says that the committee will review the provisions of the act three years after its coming into force.

The idea for this amendment came to us mainly after we found out that the practice in the United States and the previous practice in Canada were not clearly defined. We could not be certain that, three years later, we would not have to add groups to the exemption lists to allow them to make telephone calls. Moreover, it is possible that, among the exemptions accepted, some would have to be changed.

The Bloc Québécois had said, among other things, that we could extend this list and add the registered charities. However, the committee did not accept this. It was not part of the committee consensus. However, in three years, we may realize that we should have been bolder and taken advantage of that opportunity to make such a proposal.

Thus, this bill will please the people in Quebec and in Canada in general. It will make it possible for many people who do not want to receive this type of telephone call to be put on a do not call list. For example, we often receive ad bags at our doors on weekends. They contain all kinds of advertisements, weekly magazines and so on. However, if we do not want to receive them, we inform the distributors and they stop sending them. It is a democratic choice that we make and that is very relevant.

So we want this legislation to give this choice to people, too, with regard to telephone calls. That is why the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-37.

In a recent Environics survey, 79% of Canadians surveyed said that they support a national do not call list and 66% of those surveyed said they would sign up for such a service. So this bill is justified and socially acceptable. However, we must not forget that a former member of the Canadian Alliance—unfortunately, I cannot recall the name of his riding—had introduced Bill C-301, which died on the Order Paper. So there was already a will to move in this direction.

Furthermore, under that bill, telemarketers who ignored the list were committing an offence and liable to significant fines in the amounts set out in section 73 of the legislation.

In 2003, the Bush administration, through the Federal Trade Commission, implemented what is known as the do not call list in the United States. This same term is used in Canada. During the first year after the new law came into force, 62 million Americans registered and 428,000 complaints were filed against non-compliant companies.

A recent survey by the Customer Care Alliance illustrates consumer reaction to the American do not call list. Some 60% of consumers said they had registered and 87% of those registered reported fewer calls, an estimated decrease of 24 calls per month. So the American model has achieved real results. The model we are implementing is not identical to the American model, but it seeks to achieve similar results.

Another American survey conducted in winter 2004 indicated that 92% of those registered reported fewer calls, including 25% who did not receive any calls at all. The very principle of the bill was wholly respected. These people did not want to get any more calls and they did not.

As a result, in keeping with the general shift in this direction, in May 2004, the CRTC introduced new, more restrictive rules for the telemarketing industry in order to protect consumers. These rules apply to all aspects of this industry. However, the CRTC recognized that one area came under the responsibility of legislators. This area did not fall under the CRTC's mandate, and it wanted such a list to be created.

Again, following this recommendation by the CRTC, the government introduced the bill, and members worked in committee to make it the best possible bill.

This legislation affects big players, such as the Canadian Marketing Association, which is the largest marketing industry association in Canada. Its member companies contribute to the Canadian economy by essentially providing 480,000 jobs and by making more than $51 billion in annual sales. This association is also a powerful lobby for the marketing sector. It has said that it supports Bill C-37, while at the same time having certain concerns regarding the powers given to the CRTC within the parameters of the regulations. This will have to be monitored closely to ensure that the bill remains as realistic, in its content, as its purpose.

The Canadian Marketing Association currently maintains a registry. It would like to be mandated to manage the system that will be put in place to administer the current list. That would not necessarily be the Bloc's choice. We believe that the organization selected should be one with greater independence. We must not find ourselves in a situation similar to that of the oil industry. In this instance, a private organization is providing information in good faith. But for the public, it is not speaking on behalf of the government, but the private sector. It may not be as credible. We would not want to make the same mistake. So, we must ensure that the organization in charge of putting this registry in place operates at arm's length and that its mandate is clear.

We would have liked this bill to deal with the issue of fraudulent telemarketing, but that was not possible in this case. This is a very widespread problem in Canada. Perhaps this issue would be more appropriately dealt with under the Criminal Code. Perhaps the government or a member of this House should move forward on this issue. When we talk about fraudulent telemarketing, we are not referring to those who make telephone calls in accordance with the act and the rules: we are talking about those who try to fleece people by offering them products at a lesser price than the regular off-the-shelf price. They cash the cheque, the product is not delivered and they simply vanish. Some real efforts are required regarding this problem.

For example, illegal call centres, the so-called boiler rooms, generate illicit revenues in excess of $60 million. It is said that a defrauder illegally earns between $1,000 and $5,000 US per week. So, it would be in order to present a government or a private member's bill to amend the Criminal Code and correct this situation.

I am now going to deal with the more controversial part of this amendment that all parties were prepared to support to allow a telecommunication “made for the sole purpose of soliciting a subscription for a newspaper of general circulation.” A consensus was achieved among all parties. We received letters congratulating us for agreeing to make such an amendment. Unfortunately, the Chair deemed it out of order. I am not questioning the relevancy of the ruling made by the Chair as it relates to the rules of admissibility. However, it seems to me that if the House wanted to properly finish the job and pass a bill that truly reflects the committee's wish, we should be able to make that amendment.

I hope that the ruling issued earlier on the request for consent will be reconsidered. This would allow us to see if there is a way to have the amendment adopted. If that is not possible today, then this consent should be obtained at the beginning of third reading, while ensuring that the everything is in order. It would be somewhat of an aberration if a simple rule of procedure were to prevent us from making a bill more comprehensive. As regards the substance of this issue, it is important that we move forward with a bill that reflects as accurately as possible the wishes and the will of those whom we represent in this House.

The amendment is intended to exclude only calls “made for the sole purpose of soliciting a subscription for a newspaper of general circulation.” Clear presentations were made on that.

As well, there were demonstrations of the economic impact of not accepting that amendment. I would like to see a way found to declare it in order with another call for unanimous consent. I will not do that now, but I would like hon. members to reflect on this question and find the right time to do so.

If we had that amendment along with all the other amendments to the bill proposed by all parties, after a serious debate and listening to a multitude of witnesses, we would have a top-notch bill. What is more, the mandatory three-year review clause will enable us to revisit the legislation at that time. Any adjustments needed can be made at that time.

I doubt, however, that the newspaper industry can wait that long. If we do wait three years before reworking the legislation because of this amendment, there is going to be a major problem, one we will be responsible for. At least the hon. members who refused to make that amendment part of the bill will be. That would, in my opinion, be an unacceptable position.

Often, in this House, we debate bills about which we do not have similar views or expectations. We have partisan views which, on the substance, may differ in many regards. For once that we have a bill on which we have all done non-partisan work and put in the energy necessary to achieve the desired result, it would be very sad that, in the end, an important element would be missing because of a rule of procedure. I think that we should work to ensure that the amendment can be incorporated into the bill.

Let us try to figure what will happen three or five years from now, when the legislation is reviewed. I would really like for us to be able to achieve results similar to that achieved in the U.S., where a very significant number of people have requested to be put on do not call lists. That was done, and they were pleased with being excluded. Tests should also be conducted with respect to all the proposed amendments, to determine whether the desired results have been achieved with the special permissions given to organizations such as charities.

It might be a good idea to conduct a parallel study with a small control group. If we took a fictitious agency, or a charity that cannot make this type of call, we could look at how much money it would have collected in three years, voluntarily, and compare that with the rest of the market that had this permission.

I am also thinking of all the current international natural disasters. It would be utterly ridiculous if the situation were not corrected. The Canadian government said it would match the contributions of Canadians for the crisis in Pakistan. If we do not get the amendment we want, charitable organizations of this kind could no longer do their telemarketing work, which is important and justified for such a highly commendable cause that deserves our support.

In three years, when the bill has completed its first phase and becomes common practice, when the contract has been awarded and management of the registry delegated, we could re-evaluate and correct the situation if necessary.

Nonetheless, in principle and given what we have seen in other countries—in the United States, in particular—I think we have a quasi ideal bill before us if we can incorporate the consultations held. There is only one amendment missing; the one that all the parties agreed to contribute. For now, we seem to lacking the consent. Someone from the Liberals refused to give their consent earlier. I hope we can complete the work on this bill in the next few hours.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is a very hard-working member of the industry committee and I commend him on his work. All members of that committee worked quite diligently to amend this bill for the better.

He is very correct in that the bill was really inspired by concern about the calls that we and our constituents receive, which we perhaps find to be increasingly annoying or come at times of the day or evening when we would not like to receive them. It is a desire for Canadians to have a registry on which they could put their name to not receive those types of calls. As my colleague pointed out, there were reasons to provide exemptions to charities or other organizations and businesses with which there is an existing relationship.

In response to his specific concern about the newspapers, we did agree to a motion and the government put it forward, to its credit. My understanding is the Speaker felt that the amendment could have been moved at committee. I would take the liberty of saying to the Chair that this is in fact true, but one of the issues was that the people who wanted the amendment put forward for one reason or another were not able to put it forward at committee. Therefore, the government has moved Motion No. 7, which reads:

That Bill C-37, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 26 on page 3 with the following:

“(c) for an electoral district;

(f) made for the sole purpose of collecting information for a survey of members of the public; or

(g) made for the sole purpose of soliciting a subscription for a newspaper of general circulation”.

In response to my colleague's question, if we could seek unanimous consent to allow this motion to be debated, I think there would be unanimous consent to debate it and then to pass it. I would certainly support the motion. I think all members of the House would support it. If that is the proper course, I would seek unanimous consent to debate and pass this amendment and thus improve the bill even more.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act. The debate centres around the government's latest set of amendments in an effort to establish a national do not call registry and whether or not the registry will be workable and fair.

I want to discuss several of the amendments that are before us today but first I would like to reiterate the position of the Conservative Party on the bill and on the establishment of a do not call registry in general.

As I have said before, the Conservative Party does support the establishment of a national do not call registry within parameters that are clearly defined by Parliament and with reasonable exemptions provided for charities, political parties, polling firms and companies that wish to contact their current customers. That was our position at second reading on the bill and that has been our consistent position throughout the debate on the bill.

When we first debated the bill in December 2004 there were no exemptions at that time laid out by the government. In fact, many would say that the bill, as it was first introduced, would have created quite a mess. Even witnesses from the CRTC stated that they wanted some exemptions clearly defined by Parliament. It was also evident that the bill would be facing stiff opposition from a number of sectors for being too rigid.

The government did realize that it would face opposition to the bill from various sectors and various parties. Early on there was talk of a dual registration type system where the government considered allowing individuals to either receive calls from charities or register to receive absolutely no calls from anyone else. We, in our party, did not see that as an efficient way to handle the registry and the list. The creation of two lists, in our view, would have been an inefficient way to do that.

As the bill progressed through the House and into the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology, there were some problems with regard to the length and breadth of hearings. Many groups complained that hearings were cut short or that they were not heard at all. The only witness from the private sector who was called as a witness was a representative from the Canadian Marketing Association, which our party certainly regretted. We felt that any interested parties who wanted to come before the committee should certainly have been allowed to do so.

As members can tell, there is a lot to discuss in the debate when it comes to the creation of a do not call registry.

I would now like to address charities. For those witnesses who did appear at committee it became very clear that a number of exemptions would have to be in order to allow charities to continue to use telemarketing to ensure their survival. The first amendment that was passed in committee allows registered charities within the meaning of the Income Tax Act to be exempt from the national do not call list.

Dr. Gordon Hope, member and program coordinator for the Canadian Council of the Blind appeared at committee on May 4, 2005 and stated:

Because of the nature of the impairment of our members, communication with them and by them for public awareness, membership recruitment, and fundraising is best done through the auditory medium of the telephone, as verbal communication, better than any other form, meets the standard of accessible exchange of information, something that many would argue is a human right. It is conceivable that Bill C-37 could cause the Canadian Council of the Blind to cease to exist as we know it if alternatives to make up for the effects of this bill cannot be found.

We also heard from Ms. Dawn Regan, the director of finance and fundraising for Mothers Against Drunk Driving. She said:

Not only would Bill C-37 have a devastating financial impact on MADD Canada, it would cripple our ability to effectively serve Canadians. We have public awareness campaigns, educational programs, victims services, youth outreach, and legal education, as well as fundraising efforts. The vast majority of these activities occur by using the telephone as our primary communication tool.

As we can tell from the testimony, it is very important to continue to allow charities to use telemarketers.

Another issue that has received a lot of attention is that of existing business relationships. The do not call registry in the United States allows telemarketers to call a consumer with whom it has a voluntary established business relationship for up to 18 months after the consumer's last purchase.

Both small and large businesses argued in submissions to the committee that they needed to communicate with their existing customers. Thus, an exception was made to do so.

The committee also felt that calls made for the sole purpose of collecting information for a survey of members of the public should be allowed. This amendment, along with amendments to allow political parties or candidates for electoral district associations, allows for freedom of speech and for get out the vote campaigns.

The example here is to allow a candidate from any party, or even an independent for that matter, to actually phone people, offer what they offer in terms of service to the country and, after they have identified some supporters, be able to phone those persons to get them out to vote on election day. It is a very important part of our political process.

Part of my speech addresses a motion which unfortunately, I think has a bit of a technical problem. I hope we can get unanimous consent after my speech to introduce the motion because I think it is an important one. Motion No. 7 allows for an exemption for calls made for the sole purpose of soliciting a subscription for a newspaper of general circulation. I support this amendment. It is about literacy and freedom of speech. Newspapers contribute to the democratic dialogue in Canada. In fact, section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including the freedom of the press.

We would consider the bulk of the remaining amendments before us to be administrative. Because of the number of changes made in committee, changes had to be made to correct the bill. In addition, there are a number of corrections that must be made to the French version of Bill C-37.

Motion No. 10 is perhaps the most complicated amendment we are dealing with today. There are now a number of practical exemptions to the national do not call registry. However, Conservative members of the Standing Committee on Industry want to make sure that those organizations that have received an exemption do not prove to be a burden on Canadian consumers. The Conservative Party member of the standing committee made motions to require exempt organizations to do two things.

First, charities, political parties, businesses, et cetera, at the beginning of the phone call must identify the purpose of the call and the organization on whose behalf the call is being made. Canadians would know immediately who is calling and why.

Second, even though they are exempt from the national registry, charities, political parties and businesses must keep their own do not call registry. If people do not want their bank to call to remind them that their mortgage is up for renewal, even though they have an existing business relationship with that bank, they can be asked to be placed on the do not call list. This responds to some of the concerns of many consumers. Even though there would be an exemption, and they agree that some exemptions are reasonable, for certain exemptions they could still be asked to be put on a do not call registry for that specific company, charity or whatever.

However, one of the amendments we are considering today grants an exemption to the exemption, if I could put it that way. Motion No. 10 allows polling companies to make calls without identifying their clients or the purpose of their call and does not require them to keep their own do not call list. The question here is, why? Why would we allow telemarketers who conduct surveys to do so anonymously? There are two reasons in this case.

First, it is believed that if people know the polling firm is calling on behalf of a particular political party, their answers may be influenced by that and therefore skew the results. Second, the government believes that polling firms should not be restricted as to whom they call, otherwise the sample or the results could be skewed.

I would like to address the whole administration of the system.

We have reviewed the amendments to Bill C-37, both the amendments passed in committee and the amendments on the order paper which are before us today. The package of amendments taken as a whole is a good start in the creation of a national do not call registry. I am pleased that the registry would be reviewed by Parliament after three years. This is one of the changes which was asked for at committee and was granted. It will be very important to evaluate how the exemptions are working, if anyone is violating the law and the effect it will have on the Canadian economy.

Like it or not, the telemarketing industry has been Canada's number one job creation industry for nearly 20 years. Statistics Canada reported in May 2005 that employment in this industry grew by 447% between 1987 and 2004. The average growth for all service industries during the same period was a comparative 37%, which is obviously a big difference.

For the Conservative Party the next big challenge is the administration of the do not call registry.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, is empowered to deal with telemarketing in Canada. However, it has complained for a long time that its powers were restricted and thus it could not regulate and monitor telemarketing effectively. In May 2004 the CRTC stated in a National Post article that it was not equipped to administer a national do not call list. However, the CRTC is now charged with making this registry work.

A government press release on December 13, 2004 stated:

Once the legislation is in place, it is expected that the CRTC will undertake consultations to find an administrator, to determine how the list will operate and how much it will cost, and to consider whether any types of calls should be exempt from the Do Not Call List. The implementation of the list by the CRTC will follow these deliberations in due course.

Mr. Richard French, vice-chairperson of the CRTC, appeared in front of the standing committee to discuss, among other issues, the future administration of the registry. He said:

—at the moment there is no clear indication of what the government's intentions might be with respect to recovering the costs of just under $2 million, which we estimate would be one-time start-up costs. Furthermore, our best efforts to plan a rapid calendar for implementation indicate to us that it will take some 19 months, at the fastest, between the time Parliament passes the law and the time we could begin to operate a national do not call list.

It is my understanding that a third party will be contracted by the CRTC to maintain and operate the list. I hesitate to remind the House that anytime we set up a registry in this country, we have to keep in mind another registry implemented by the Liberal Party of Canada which turned into an absolute fiscal disaster. I am talking about the firearms registry which in 1994 the then justice minister said would cost $2 million, but I think he meant to say $2 billion because that is what it is approaching right now, sadly to the detriment of all taxpayers in this country.

When I spoke to this bill at second reading, I outlined some of our concerns with respect to the administration of this database. Parliament must continue to seek out details as to how the registry will be run. For instance, how will the list be maintained? How will the list be accessed? Who will maintain the list? What will be required of telemarketers? How often must they check the list? Will there be a maintenance fee for telemarketers? These are all questions that must be asked and must be answered in my view to Parliament itself.

I have spoken with the CRTC and have outlined my concerns and I appreciate its attendance to them. Some of the amendments that were made in committee will allow Parliament and Canadians to keep abreast of the administrative workings of the registry.

In conclusion, the Conservative Party does support the establishment of a do not call registry within parameters clearly defined by Parliament and with reasonable exemptions provided for charities, political parties and companies that wish to contact their current customers.

I am looking forward to the public hearings and the public tender of the contract to administer the database from the CRTC. It is my hope we can create a workable list that will strike a balance between the interests of Canadian consumers first and the contribution telemarketing makes to our economy, as well as the interests of groups such as charities and political parties to continue to contact those people they need to in order to survive, especially with those who have an existing business relationship or voluntary business relationship.

I look forward to the creation and the operation of this list. I hope that all my colleagues in Parliament will support not only the amended bill that was done with a lot of work at committee, but the motions before us today.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to begin the process of the report stage debate on Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act.

The bill would augment the powers of the CRTC to establish a more effective regime to protect the consumers against unsolicited telemarketing while protecting their privacy.

The bill provides the legislative framework for the creation of a national do not call list.

The bill enables the CRTC to do three things: first, impose fines for non-compliance; second, establish a third party administrator to operate a database; and third, give the ability to set fees to recover costs associated with maintaining the list.

Bill C-37 has been reviewed in detail by the Standing Committee of Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology. In its report to Parliament, the committee recommended amendments to the bill, including an exemption from the national do not call list for survey and polling firms for the sole purpose of collecting information from the general public

The committee's recommendations also required a caller to identify the purpose of the call and the person and organization on whose behalf the telecommunications are being made.

The committee recognized the importance of the survey and polling firms in collecting opinions of all Canadians to support research and to allow companies and organizations to make sound decisions.

However there are unintended consequences of these amendments for survey and polling firms that could possibly create unrepresentative samples of the Canadian public created by unreliable survey results. If survey and polling firms do not have the ability to contact all Canadians, this could create a misleading survey. The survey results would be, at best, a subset of Canadians, the opinions of individuals who are not on the do not call list, instead of capturing the views that represent all Canadians.

In addition, if a survey and polling firm has to identify on whose behalf the call is being made, the possibility of biasing the survey exists.

I am proposing the following amendment that further clarifies an amendment adopted by the committee by adding a new subsection 41.7(5) that would read:

notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, subsections 3 and 4 do not apply in respect of a person making a telecommunication referred to in paragraph 41.7 subsection 1(f).

As originally intended by the committee, survey and polling firms would be exempt from the do not call list and would continue to be allowed to collect information from all Canadians.

Also, there are a few housekeeping matters that need to be addressed. Section 41.1 of the bill, as introduced at first reading, stated “sections 41.2 to 41.5 create a legislative framework for a national do not call list”.

In its report to Parliament, the committee recommended amendments to the bill by adding new sections, sections 41.6 and 41.7. During the reprinting of the bill, section 41.1 was not updated to reflect the new sections added at committee.

Lastly, we are proposing administrative amendments to improve the French terminology for the national do not call list. I am proposing to amend section 41.1 to accomplish that. This amendment simply acknowledges the new sections of the bill adopted by the committee.

I urge the hon. members to support the amendments to the bill so that we move forward to give individual Canadians an easy way to curtail intrusive telemarketing while protecting their privacy.

[David Emerson, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-37, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 1 with the following:

“41.1 Sections 41.2 to 41.7 create a legislative”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-37, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 17 and 18 on page 2 with the following:

“rapport sur l’utilisation de la liste d’exclusion nationale pour cet exercice.”

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-37, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 36 and 37 on page 2 with the following:

“aux termes de l’article 41.2 pour les besoins d’une liste d’exclusion nationale ne”

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-37, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 4 on page 3 with the following:

“ci est faite — a une relation d’affaires en cours,”

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-37, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 6 on page 3 with the following:

“sion quant à la”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-37, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 13 on page 3 with the following:

“lois provinciales pour les besoins d’une élection”

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-37, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 4 to 6 on page 4 with the following:

“« relation d’affaires en cours » Relation d’affaires qui a été créée par une communication bilatérale entre la personne”

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-37, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 38 and 39 on page 4 with the following:

“doit maintenir sa propre liste d’exclusion et veiller à ce qu’aucune”

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-37, in Clause 1, be amended by adding after line 45 on page 4 the following:

“(5) Subsections (3) and (4) do not apply in respect of a person making a telecommunication referred to in paragraph (1)(f).”

[The Speaker]

There are 10 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-37.

Motion No. 7 will not be selected by the Chair as it could have been presented in committee.

All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at report stage.

Motions No. 1 to 6 and 8 to 10 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the Table.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 to 10 to the House.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I understand from the member's question that he was obviously not at the last opposition House leaders' meeting where the entire agenda up to December 15 was laid out, including the seven opposition days to which he has referred.

In terms of background, I might also suggest to the hon. member that back in 1973 when there was a minority Parliament, the House opened on January 4 and all seven opposition days were held between March 5 and March 26. Back in 1979, when the House opened on October 9, opposition days started November 6. Opposition days clearly are the purview of the government to schedule. We have scheduled all of them for the opposition parties.

The House will continue this afternoon with the second reading of Bill C-54, the first nations oil and gas bill, followed by second reading of Bill S-38, respecting trade in spirits, and report stage and third reading of Bill C-28, the food and drugs bill.

Tomorrow we will begin with Bill C-28 and if it is completed, we will proceed with second reading of Bill S-37, respecting the Hague Convention and Bill S-36, respecting diamonds.

Next week is the Thanksgiving break week and I wish all hon. members a very happy Thanksgiving.

When the House returns on October 17, we will consider second reading of Bill C-63, respecting the registration of political parties, followed by report stage and third reading of Bill C-49, the human trafficking bill, second reading of Bill C-65, the street racing bill, Bill C-64, the vehicle registration legislation, and report stage of Bill C-37, the do not call bill.

As the week continues, we will add to the list reference to committee before second reading of Bill C-50, respecting the cruelty to animals, Bill C-44, the transportation legislation, Bill C-47, respecting Air Canada, the reference before second reading of Bill C-46, the correctional services bill, and by the end of the week we hope to begin debate on the energy and surplus bills that are being introduced this week. There is also ongoing discussions about a take note debate that week.

As members can see, there is a heavy agenda and important legislation. As I said and as I laid out to the opposition House leaders at our previous meeting, in the post-Remembrance Day segment of this sitting, we will consider the business of supply and we hope to be in a position to deal with the final stages of many of these very important bills before the end of the year.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, our principal legislative objectives continue to be Bill C-43, the third reading vote of which will take place after question period, and Bill C-48. The government believes these bills reflect public interest and the enactment of both of these bills is required before the House adjourns for the summer. As the hon. member mentioned, if the House does not pass Bill C-48, we will be here in July and August. Consequently, we will continue to give these bills priority until they are disposed of.

We will then consider report stage of Bill C-38, the civil marriage bill; Bill C-25; Bill C-28; Bill C-52, the Fisheries Act; Bill C-47; Bill C-53; Bill C-55, the bankruptcy bill; and Bill C-37, the do not call legislation.

Committees of the House

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology on Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the opposition motion. I wish to designate Tuesday, June 14 as an allotted day, which means that the main estimates shall be dealt with that day.

Tomorrow we will begin report stage of Bill C-43, which is the first budget bill. This bill will be our priority until it is disposed of. When Bill C-48, the second budget bill, is reported from committee, it, too, shall be given our top priority.

There are discussions among the parties concerning the early disposal of Bill C-2, the child protection legislation; Bill C-53, the bill respecting proceeds of crime; and possibly Bill C-56, the Labrador-Inuit legislation.

The other pieces of legislation that we can anticipate debating in the next week are: Bill C-26, the border services bill; Bill S-18, the census legislation; Bill C-25, RADARSAT; Bill C-52, the Fisheries Act amendment; Bill C-28, the Food and Drugs Act amendments; Bill C-37, the do not call legislation; Bill C-44, the transport legislation; and Bill C-47, the Air Canada bill.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, before I get to the weekly business statement, I said at that time that I would begin to schedule opposition days before the end of May and that is exactly what I have done. There are a number more to schedule.

Today and tomorrow, of course, are allotted days. I also wish to designate next Tuesday and next Thursday as allotted days.

When the budget bills, Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 are reported from committee, they will certainly become our highest priority.

In the meantime, we will proceed with third reading of Bill C-22, the social development bill; report stage and third reading of Bill C-26, the border services legislation; second reading of Bill S-18, respecting the census; and Bill C-52, the Fisheries Act amendment.

We will then turn to report stage and third reading of bills that have been or are soon to be reported from committee. These include Bill C-25 respecting RADARSAT; Bill C-37, the do not call bill; Bill C-28, the food and drug legislation; and Bill C-38, the civil marriage bill. If there is time during the next three weeks, we will also start to debate the legislation that has been introduced during the last few weeks.

Telecommunications Act

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the debate of Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act.

I noticed from reading the bill that it does not have a short title. If it did have one the bill would be known as the control telemarketers act.

If we were to ask the average Canadian to make a list of life's greatest irritations, telemarketers would surely be near the top of that list. In fact, so hated are telemarketers that when America's Federal Trade Commission set up a national do not call registry in the United States, on its opening day the registration button on the website received 1,000 per second. Clearly there is broad public support for a do not call registry.

At the same time, one of the least popular government agencies in this country is the CRTC, seen by a growing number of Canadians as blind to the increasingly rapid changes in the telecommunications industry, archaic in its approach to regulation and unresponsive to the needs of Canadian citizens. This is the agency that the government would like to put in charge of our do not call list.

To many Canadians this would be like putting the folks who ran Enron in charge of our health care system. All Canadians want health care but they do not have a lot of confidence in Enron style management.

To make matters worse, the CRTC's own officials have said that the agency is not equipped to administer such a list and does not have the power to enforce it properly. Moreover, even if the CRTC were the appropriate agency to create a do not call list and had the muscle to ensure that its rules were respected, it is having trouble dealing with its current responsibilities.

The CRTC is currently under considerable fire for its revocation of CHOI-FM's licence in Quebec, its handling of Al Jazeera and Fox News and its total bungling of satellite television policy. Ask most Canadians what they think of the CRTC's ability to conduct meaningful consultations and the results are less than encouraging. Some will tell us that the CRTC's decisions are virtually meaningless and have no real effect. Only the CRTC would give an ethnic channel at category 2 TV licence and require it to provide Canadian content while imposing the obligation to convince a cable or satellite company to carry it.

We have seen ethnic TV being bounced back and forth between the CRTC and various committees of this House with no meaningful resolution to the debate. Few would say that the CRTC has not conducted consultations but the link between those consultations and concrete policies that benefit Canadians is often tenuous at best.

Therefore I draw no comfort from the Minister of Industry's December 13 press release in which he announced his intent to table this legislation.

In the release he stated:

If the bill becomes law, the CRTC will then consult Canadians on the implementation of a national Do Not Call List. The Commission plans to start such a consultative process shortly after the bill is adopted by Parliament. Such consultations could include the question of whether any organizations should be exempt from a Do Not Call List.

However anyone who carefully reads Bill C-37 will be surprised to find that it actually contains no requirements whatsoever for the CRTC to consult with anyone. The operative clause would add a new section 41.2 of the Telecommunications Act, and essentially it reads:

The Commission may, for the purposes of [setting up a do not call list],

(a) administer databases or information, administrative or operational systems; and

(b) determine any matter, and make any order, with respect to the databases or the information, administrative or operational systems.

The more one reads Bill C-37, the more one becomes aware of its purpose: to allow the Liberal government to take credit for dealing with telemarketers without actually having done anything.

In fact, Bill C-37 is a smokescreen. It suggests that an agency with a poor track record of public consultation may consult with the public. It could require an overworked agency to take on new responsibilities without any additional resources. It ignores the CRTC's own claims that the agency is not equipped to administer such a list and does not have the power to enforce it properly.

The English version of Bill C-37 is just two and a half pages long and uses the word “may” 20 times. The CRTC may set up a list, it may delegate powers, it may impose penalties. It does not have to do anything, and moreover, it has told the government that it does not have the resources to administer this do not call registry.

If the government is really serious about setting up a do not call registry, Parliament must clearly define the parameters and provide reasonable exemptions provided for charities, political parties, polling firms and companies that wish to contact their current customers. We must also ensure that we provide the proper resources to the agency tasked with implementing and enforcing this idea.

In this regard it is helpful to look south to the United States at its legislative experience in this area. In 1994 the U.S. Congress passed the telemarketing consumer fraud and abuse act, 15 U.S.C., s.s. 1601-1608.

Section 3 of the act reads:

The [Federal Trade] Commission shall prescribe rules prohibiting deceptive telemarketing acts or practices and other abusive telemarketing acts or practices.

Section 10 reads:

Upon the expiration of 5 years following the date of the first promulgation of rules under section 3, the Commission shall review the implementation of this Act and its effect on deceptive telemarketing acts or practices and report the results of the review to Congress.

The U.S. legislation imposes obligations on the Federal Trade Commission and, more important, requires it to report back to congress, to the legislature.

The FTC reported back, and on January 28, 2003, representative Billy Tauzin of Louisana's third congressional district, introduced house resolution 395, an act to authorize the Federal Trade Commission to collect fees for the implementation and enforcement of a do not call registry.

Section 4 of the act requires the FTC to transmit detailed annual reports to various congressional committees. The report must include: an analysis of the effectiveness of the do not call registry as a national registry; the number of consumers who have placed their telephone numbers into the registry; the number of persons paying fees for access to the registry and the amount of such fees; an analysis of the progress of coordinating the operation and enforcement of the do not call registry; and, a review of the enforcement proceedings.

The very next day, January 29, 2003, the house of representatives committee on energy and commerce asked a very basic question: How much will all of this cost? It was a very basic question and one that the Liberal government has failed to ask with regard to the legislation.

On February 4, 2003, the congressional budget office estimated that fines would amount to roughly $18 million annually and that the net cost to the U.S. government would be approximately $13 million a year. President Bush signed HR 395 on March 11, 2003.

It is important to understand that the U.S. do not call registry does not affect charities, political organizations, telephone surveys and a number of very important industries. I do not think the government has given nearly enough thought to this legislation or has clearly understood or clearly consulted, and, most important for taxpayers, I think it is quite clear that the government does not understand the importance of having a proper cost benefit analysis of the legislation.

The U.S. do not call registry will offer genuine relief to Americans. The Federal Trade Commission has teeth to enforce it. The commission has punished companies such as California Pacific Mortgage and AT&T, and top offenders such as Faxes.com are facing up to $5.4 million in fines.

Large telemarketing companies, such as Mainstream Marketing Services, are challenging the constitutionality of the U.S. do not call registry stating that it violates the first amendment guarantees of free speech. Nonetheless, the U.S. Direct Marketing Association estimates that about 90% of the telemarketing activity has been stopped to the more than 50 million numbers on its registry.

I am very much in favour of a do not call registry. However what the Liberals are proposing would potentially prevent us from surveying our very own constituents. We only need to look at the same sex marriage debate to realize how important it is for members of Parliament to be in touch with their constituents and to reflect their values in the House.

I want the government to give us a truly effective do not call registry that can be fully enforced. I want a broad consultation process so that we can be sure that we get it right, and that we get it right the first time. The Federal Trade Commission created its do not call registry after a comprehensive three year review, numerous workshops, meetings and over 64,000 public submissions.

I am tired of being told by the CRTC that it is beyond our reach. If the government wants to create a do not call registry, I want significant parliamentary oversight over the process and the ability to ensure that the appropriate resources exist to effectively implement the registry.

Just like so many things with the Liberal government, it comes up with an idea, it offers a solution but it does not offer the real means in order to get it done. The Liberals boast about our armed forces. They stand in line with our armed forces and take photo ops with them but for them to do the business and the job that they need to do in order for the Liberals to be able to have those photo ops, they persistently fail to provide those resources.

From the health care system to bragging about its importance to Canadians and not giving it the funding, to bragging about our armed forces and taking the photo ops but not providing the funding, in area after area the Liberal government talks one way, walks another and fails to provide the resources in order to get the job done right.

Bill C-37 is a shadow of what is needed. I am voting to send it back to the drafters so that the government can bring it back in a way that respects the will of Parliament. The need for consultation, the requirement for enforcement resources and the teeth to ensure that a do not call registry would provide us with the same comfort that our American neighbours are getting are crucial for the legislation to have meaning and to stop telemarketers from invading our homes and causing us the kind of annoyances and headaches that all of us wish would just go away.

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Newton--North Delta to participate in the debate on Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act.

This bill would enable the CRTC to establish and enforce a do not call registry. Specifically Bill C-37 would amend the section of the Telecommunications Act that deals with telemarketers by adding the power to establish databases and to make any order with respect to these databases. This power may be delegated to any person, including a body created by the CRTC. The person or body exercising the delegated powers may charge fees which are deemed by the bill to not be public money. The bill also sets out financial penalties of up to $1,500 per offending call by an individual and up to $15,000 for a corporation.

This bill was first introduced in the last Parliament, but it died on the order paper.

All of us have received unwanted calls from people attempting to sell a good or a service. The telemarketer could be pitching the local newspaper, a credit card company, a cleaning service, a charity, or even a politician wanting one's vote. Sometimes we may welcome the call. It could provide useful information on a product or service we are interested in, but other times it is nothing but an annoyance.

Many members may have experienced receiving calls at very odd hours. Sometimes we receive calls when we do not want them. I have received calls at four o'clock in the morning, and when I have answered the phone I have heard a fax tone. The next time I have turned on the fax machine I have found that it was a telemarketer trying to promote some sort of service.

In my constituency office I often receive faxes promoting products or services, but members' offices are not even remotely connected with those products or services. Sometimes it is annoying and a waste of time. On the other hand sometimes it is useful information that people want.

My first job when I came to Canada was with a telemarketing company. I worked for a couple of weeks for that telemarketing company. I found out that the company was calling seniors in the U.S. to sell lottery tickets. It was a scam. The company was skimming them of money. Seniors can become addicted to buying things like lottery tickets. They probably lose more money than they would gain. I thought it was a very unethical practice and I immediately left that job because I could not do that.

A survey conducted by Decima Research, undoubtedly by telephone, found a large majority of Canadians, 75%, wants the federal government to institute a do not call list to protect them against unsolicited telephone calls from marketers. I agree with the survey. People do not want unwanted calls. I agree with the principle of the bill, but as members can imagine, like many other bills this is a poorly drafted bill with no substance, just an intent. It is very poorly managed, contains lots of hot air and things are not practical.

That survey also found that Canadians do not want to pay anything to be included on such a list. Sixty per cent of respondents said they would not want to pay for this service.

To much fanfare in 2003 the United States responded to the annoyance of unwanted telemarketing calls by establishing a national do not call list. Our government is now attempting to follow the American example, of course.

There already are do not call lists in Canada. The Canadian Marketing Association has been registering consumers on its do not call list since 1988. In addition the CRTC already requires that each telemarketing company maintain its own do not call list. Consumers can ask to be placed on that list. The only hitch is they first have to be called by the company. These lists must be maintained for three years.

The first thing we notice when reading Bill C-37 is that there is very little to the bill. Most of the details have been left to the regulations. As a result, we do not know if there will be any exclusions to the list, how much it will cost, who will operate the list and so on. These are very important details that deserve our consideration.

How can we do our job as parliamentarians if proposed legislation comes to us with so little detail? The government is asking us to give it a tabula rasa. Unfortunately, this is not without precedent.

Legislation inevitably comes to this House without the accompanying regulations. Much of the law that affects Canadians is not found in the Statutes of Canada , but in the thousands of regulations made pursuant to powers granted by the acts of Parliament.

Each year the federal government introduces about 1,200 new regulations. Since 1975 the government has made over 28,000 regulations. That is more than 122,000 pages of regulations.

The government introduces bills that lack substance, which are vague in intent, often incomplete and written just in general terms. The regulations follow the acts that we pass and those regulations sometimes contradict the intent of the legislation. Sometimes the regulations are completely off track. We in Parliament have no control once the legislation passes, but the accompanying regulations come from any angle contradicting anything or whatever it may be.

This leaves the door wide open to put through regulations that define our laws without the proper checks and balances in place. By doing so the Liberal government has effectively gutted the parliamentary process of accountability and transparency in the formulation of laws. Parliament is no longer at the centre of the law making process.

Twenty per cent of the laws that we see in the country are passed in this House. The remaining 80% come through the back door by way of regulations, which are neither debated nor subject to public scrutiny. For practical purposes the Liberal government rules, not governs, Canada.

As members of Parliament we passionately debate proposed legislation in the House of Commons. After debate we vote either yea or nay depending on the merit of the proposed law. Regulations receive virtually no debate in the House. We do not see them attached to the legislation that comes to the House or in the other place. There is no public study or input. There is even no media scrutiny. This is an affront to democracy.

The Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations does only a limited scrutiny as per the limited criteria. Members of Parliament and senators on the committee, legal counsel and staff work very hard scouring through thousands of pages of dry, technical, legal subject matter. In this thankless job they are unable to review the legislation in many general terms because their mandate is restricted and limited.

As parliamentarians most of us want to put an end to the nuisance of telemarketing calls, but the bill is poorly drafted and does not deal with the substantial issues spilling over from it.

There are many problems in this country which probably should get higher priority. People can have alternatives. The government's priorities are wrong. Its modus operandi is wrong. Therefore, I cannot support this proposed legislation. I need more information in all honesty. For one thing I need to know how much this scheme is going to cost and there are many other pressing issues.

In conclusion, I agree with the principle, but to make it work, we need more information. I will not be in a position to support this legislation until it is amended.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act.

Consumers will no doubt welcome a bill designed to give them an easy, effective way to curtail intrusive telemarketing. Many may turn to the do not call list as a means to preserve their privacy.

But what about the impact of this bill on the telemarketing industry? What about its impact on the call centres that provide jobs for Canadians? If this bill is such good news for consumers, does it spell bad news for the industry?

Canada has become one of the key locations for call centres. Canada's established reputation in the call centre industry is due to its highly skilled, multilingual personnel. Other advantages include excellent telecommunications infrastructure, competitive labour costs and overall lower business costs.

Many companies have located their call centres in Canada to take advantage of these opportunities. According to a 2004 customer contact centre study, there are more than 6,000 call centres in Canada employing 360,000 call centre workers. Between 2002 and 2003, an estimated 128 customer contact centre deals or expansions were made in Canada, creating 40,000 new jobs.

Are these jobs at risk if the CRTC implements a national do not call list? To find an answer to that question, I think it is important that the House understand the changing nature of the call centre industry. I would like to review the difference between outbound and inbound telemarketing.

Some call centres make so-called cold calls to potential customers, customers with whom no previous relationship exists. As I am sure my colleagues who have ever received a call from such a telemarketer will appreciate, these salespeople go through many no responses before they get a yes. That is the nature of cold call marketing. They must make many calls where the answer is negative before they find someone on the other end of the line to answer that they are interested in the product or service being offered.

The chances of getting a yes improve significantly if these outbound sales people are working on a list that does not include the people who explicitly state that they do not want to be called. This is an effective way to reduce the number of unsuccessful calls and thereby increase the efficiency and productivity of the people in the outbound sector of the telemarketing industry.

In fact, the Canadian Marketing Association itself sees the creation of a national do not call list as a preferable form of regulation to the alternatives.

For example, under the current regulation, individual telemarketing companies must maintain their own do not call lists. This current system makes no one happy. Telemarketers are not happy because maintaining such a list is an administrative expense. Consumers are not happy because even if they register on one company's list, they are still going to be pestered by scores of other telemarketing companies.

The creation of a national do not call list will present a more cost effective and efficient way of regulating the industry. Consumers will opt into it. Telemarketers will pay to subscribe to it, thus supporting its maintenance.

There are also significant changes taking place in the call centre industry, which make the do not call list approach well timed. A transition to inbound calling is underway. Call centres for this new kind of telemarketing are called customer relationship management contract centres. These call centres make up the vast majority of the industry today. This fast growing sector consists of customer order and catalogue sales, assistance for online sales and service centres for handling inbound calls.

The bill before us would have no impact on inbound calls.

Perhaps it is useful to consider what has happened to the industry in the United States, where a national do not call registry has been in effect for more than a year.

In the United States, the percentage of outbound calls from call centres as a total of their business has been decreasing for several years, since 1998, in fact, five years before the passage of do not call legislation. The percentage of inbound calls has been increasing.

A similar trend has occurred in Canada, with 90% of Canadian contact centres having an inbound focus while only 10% are focused on outbound calls. The nature of the call centres in Canada has already changed.

I believe we will see this trend continue once the CRTC puts in place a national do not call list. The call centres will be more focused on giving the people at the other end of the telephone line better service for something they already have rather than making cold calls to try to persuade them to buy something new. I believe this is a much more stable business case on which to create jobs.

We want a regulatory environment where consumers have more control over who contacts them. We want a regulatory environment where a telemarketer that implements a well developed business plan will be able to succeed. That is the balance that is struck in the bill.

I encourage the House to support this legislation.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood--Port Kells to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act.

The bill would enable the CRTC, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, to establish and enforce a national do not call registry similar to ones already existing in the United States and Great Britain. Bill C-37 would also give the CRTC the power to levy substantial penalties against telemarketers and to contract with a private sector third party to operate the service.

I want to support the concept, but the bill does not get it right. The bill, consisting of a measly five pages, is extremely light on details. It tells us nothing about possible exceptions to the list, how the list would be maintained, how telemarketers would check the list, how often they must check the list, who would have access to the list or any reporting on how the list would be run. All these crucial details are left out of the regulations.

The telemarketing industry employs more than 270,000 Canadians and $16 billion worth of goods and services are sold over the telephone in Canada annually.

The industry is important to the livelihood of many of my constituents. Last year, U.S. financial giant JPMorgan Chase & Co. became the latest company to set up a call centre in Surrey when it opened a customer service centre employing over 800 in Surrey City Centre. Call centres have added substantially to Lower Mainland employment levels in the last few years.

In addition to JPMorgan, RMH Teleservices Inc. now employs 1,800 workers in North Surrey, with plans to add staff this year. In August 2003 eBay announced plans for an expansion of its Burnaby call centre from 200 to 1,000 jobs within two years.

There are currently an estimated 14,000 call centre jobs in total in greater Vancouver. The centres hire numerous entry level workers. In addition to the mostly front-line clerical staff who earn from $9 to $13 per hour, they also hire supervisory, management, sales and information systems staff.

It is unclear what impact a national do not call registry would have on the Canadian telemarketing industry. The impact will depend in part on any exemptions that may be given.

In the U.S., industry officials expect more than one-third of workers will lose their jobs within the next two years under that country's do not call rules.

Already Canadian regulations require individual telemarketers to keep a do not call list and respect requests for three years. However, most people have not been aware of this fact and they just hang up when they hear a telemarketer on the line. If they remain on the line, the telemarketer will ask whether the consumer wants to be excluded from all lists maintained by the telemarketing agency, not just from a list used for a particular client. This was started last fall.

The Canadian Marketing Association, which 800 corporate members include Canada's major financial institutions, insurance companies, and charitable organizations and which has been a vocal supporter of a national do not call list, has operated its own mandatory do not call service for its membership since 1988. The list also restricts the number of marketing offers received by mail and fax and now includes more than 450,000 phone numbers. The list has little legal bite, even less publicity, and is currently only adhered to by 80% of telemarketers who are association members.

The American do not call list came into force on October 1, 2003. Millions of Americans have signed up since then and the registry now includes more than 62 million registered telephone numbers. Any telemarketing company that calls one of these numbers can be fined as much as $11,000 per call.

However, the American legislation exempts some of the biggest users of telemarketing, for example, long distance phone companies, airlines, banks and credit unions, insurance companies, charities, pollsters, political organizations. Also, the do not call list can be ignored if the company already has an existing business relationship with its client. With all those exemptions, I am not quite sure whom Americans will be avoiding by signing up for the registry.

The CMA, along with the Canadian Bankers Association, argues that the current regulatory regime put in place by the CRTC is costly, ineffective and too broad. They want the regime scrapped and replaced with a U.S.-style do not call service. Besides requiring do not call lists, the CRTC also now requires callers to first identify themselves and the entity they represent and to offer a toll-free information line to be staffed during business hours, all before the sales pitch begins.

The CMA and the Canadian Bankers Association feel these regulations should not apply to a company's existing customers. CMA president John Gustavson suggests that these regulations would be bad for industry and would help make customer frustration fester.

Bill C-37 would do little more than allow the CRTC to establish databases, make orders regarding databases, delegate those powers and enforce those powers with financial penalties. The legal text on the penalties is far more extensive than the text on the databases that may be created.

The details on the operation of the do not call list are left entirely to the discretion of the CRTC. I consider this an affront to Parliament. As members of this chamber, we should be debating more than the mere idea of a bill. We should be considering the details of the proposed legislation as well.

We may agree with the idea of a do not call registry, but before we can support this bill we also need to know, for example, how or if the law would apply to charities and pollsters, how or if the law would apply to candidates who attempt to contact voters during an election campaign, whether the law would apply only to live sales pitches or to recorded messages and faxes, and what charges are to be paid by telemarketers to access the database.

The whole question of money is of particular concern. The government claims the registry would be self-financing, but it provides no further details. We must be mindful that the do not call registry does not become another gun registry in terms of both cost and management. My constituents are fed up with telemarketers calling them but do not want another $2 billion fiasco either.

As a consumer, I do not like receiving these calls from telemarketers. A do not call registry offers consumers a tool with which they can protect their homes against intrusions which are particularly invasive. Simply put, it gives consumers an option.

As parliamentarians, we must safeguard personal privacy and reduce the danger of telemarketing abuse. However, this must be done with clear legislation that spells out exactly how a do not call service would work, including any exemptions and how much it would cost taxpayers.

Bill C-37 is short on details. Almost everything is being left to the regulations. It would be irresponsible for me as a member of Parliament to allow this bill to pass in its current form. I will therefore be opposing this bill unless it is significantly amended to provide the full details of the proposed list.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-37. It was very important that the minister introduce this bill. I was quite surprised, during this debate, to hear the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt.

Saskatchewan is one of the provinces that has been leading the way in assisting consumers to put themselves on a list. SaskTel has a specific service to aid consumers who want to stop these unwanted calls.

Let us be clear. The telemarketing industry is an important industry in Canada. It has a very legitimate place in the marketing grid. Marketing is important. Marketers have to get their product to the right people at the right time and in the right place, but they want to ensure that they do not annoy customers. All of us as members of Parliament have heard from constituents who are spending precious time with their families, trying to instill good values and have some quiet time, yet are being inundated by callers. They need a do not call registry.

The other day I was helping out somebody who had been away for a couple of days. I opened the individual's voice mail and found that seven out of ten calls were from unwanted telephoners. They are the kind that I want the minister to include in the legislation, the kind that are dumped in, as somebody mentioned earlier, to the voice mail system.

Telemarketing is important to our country. It provides important jobs. It is important to the business community. That is why the business community particularly supports the bill. The Canadian Marketing Association and I have been working on this. My private member's bill, Bill C-520, was introduced in the last Parliament and enjoyed support from consumer groups and businesses. They want to clean up the industry.

Right now they are maintaining, as individual companies, a whole series of registries to avoid calling people who do not want to be called by these individuals. It will be cheaper, more effective and more efficient, particularly for Canadians, to have one do not call registry, one that would list their names, addresses and phone numbers in case there are two people living in the same location sharing a phone number. It has to be specific to the individual and to the address in case phone numbers are reissued to other individuals.

The member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel also has a private member's bill in Parliament on this issue. I would encourage the members of the House to vote for Bill C-37 and for the private member's bill to ensure that both bills are considered and that the details of how we deal with the registry, how we instruct the CRTC to consult on this, and I hope they will do it forthwith, will ensure we get a call registry up and running as quickly, as efficiently and as cheaply as possible. One registry for all Canadians will make sense.

The member for Saskatoon—Humboldt talked about exemptions. My bill exempted charities, and I believe they should be given that exemption. It should also make an exemption for businesses that are calling current customers. Let us face it, that makes sense.

I was telemarketed by the Globe and Mail , which I am a subscriber to on Fridays and Saturdays in my constituency. It called me with a great offer for the Sunday New York Times , a legitimate, perfectly positioned telemarketing call. It was on the money. I was happy to hear from it and to get that service. To have continued to call me when I did not want its services, would have been a bad business practice. The businesses in the first case should be exempt, but in the second case they had better be sure to take off customers who do not want to hear from them.

There has been a lot of discussion about the need for this bill. I encourage all members to participate in it. Again, we need to recognize that there is some concern in the industry from those who are operating call centres in all our constituencies. If we can single out the calls that are on the money and that are directed at the right people, it is more efficient and more effective, rather than all the noise coming at people right now.

It is the same thing with direct marketing and the flyers that come in our mail. We will see the ones we want to see if we clean up the industry. I had a private member's bill that good pieces of consumer protection legislation, which were adopted by the minister of industry of the day, in this case a do not call registry in the last run through of the Competition Act, to ensure that we cleaned up and had the highest standards for Canadians and that we ensured the industries that were marketing, marketed effectively. They are important.

We have an example, as the Bloc Québécois member mentioned. He talked about how important it was to look to our neighbours to the south. They have had this registry for a number of years. They still have a vibrant telemarketing industry. They still provide an opportunity for people to market through the use of the telephone. More important, there is an opportunity for consumers to take their names off these lists and to be protected so they can have quiet time and not be harassed by nuisance calls.

When the CRTC does this consultation, I want to be sure that it includes, contrary to what its most recent ruling was, the kind of calls that dump a message into our voice mails when we are not there. This type of call is causing great concern, particularly among a number of constituents who do not understand how they necessarily work, especially when a person receives a call from a moving company. It is a bit disconcerting when a person has not heard the phone ring and all of a sudden the company is trying to move that individual out of his or her place of residence. We have had concerns from constituents who are not quite sure what this is.

For anyone who is exposed to the possibility of dealing with the experiences of loved ones in some early stages of dementia, it can be extremely disconcerting. We need to protect consumers.

Some of the calls that are more harassing in nature are also a real concern to me. Again, guidelines by the industry are important. However, not everyone in the industry follows the guidelines.

Under this system, everyone will have to follow the guidelines or there will be punishments. In the minister's bill there is an infraction per call per day. In my bill there were very strict penalties: $25,000 on a summary conviction, a maximum or an imprisonment of six months or on an indictment, a fine of not more than $1 million or imprisonment to a term not exceeding five years.

It is important to ensure that we clean up the industry. We must have everyone follow the same rules. We have to ensure that people are not harassed into giving money or buying products for which they are not interested. However, we know they become quite intimidated by the callers. As I said, yesterday seven out of ten calls were an annoying waste of my time and that of the individuals.

There is also the ability for people to fax when we are least expect it. That costs money. It costs money for the cartridges and paper for the fax machine. Those companies too must follow these guidelines. I send back the faxes, just as all the members of this House have, and ask to have my name removed from the list. However, I still manage to get them.

Before the legislation goes through this House and the Senate, I want CRTC to begin consultations. Canadians are ready for the bill. We have a need for the legislation. We need protection of consumers. We need to ensure that telemarketing and other forms of marketing are as effective as they can be.

Why not set the highest standard possible? Why not have one system for the whole country? Why not make it easy for people to follow through on this?

I have received a fair bit of correspondence on this. SaskTel has a system where a person can get a tracing of the numbers that have called. That will be an important piece of this, to ensure that when we take our names off a list, we will have those convictions. If we are to have those high standards, we need the ability to track from where the phone calls come.

Ironically, I called a telemarketer who had called the number I checked yesterday. Unfortunately, I had to call another set of numbers to remove those calls. That is more time and money. They were long distance calls for me.

Finally, ironically, like most people in this House, I am never home. I rarely receive telemarketing calls. Lately, however, I have been inundated. I would ask those telemarketers to take my name and phone number off their list. I am happy to buy their products, but only if I they do not call me.

This has been interesting. As a consumer, I am interested to hear what my constituents are subjected to on a regular basis. I get a lot of hang ups because I am not there.

Also, as a member opposite mentioned, we are put into a locked in system that ties up the phone line. This has implications for people who have emergency situations. It has implications for those of us who have people trying to reach us. We need to clean up this industry with one easy registration system for constituents across the country.

I commend the Minister of Industry for getting this legislation to the House. It is important consumer protection. I hope the bill will proceed to committee as quickly as possible and that it will look to other examples of private members' bills that address the issue as well.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to address an issue that is of interest to many Canadians.

It would be safe to say that few people enjoy receiving a call from a telemarketer during supper hour. In fact public frustration with the persistence of ill-timed incoming phone calls has entered the realm of popular culture. I am not sure if members remember the Seinfeld episode where Jerry Seinfeld turned the tables on the telemarketer by saying he was too busy and asked the caller for his phone number so that Jerry might call him back during the caller's supper hour. This amusing sitcom moment illustrates the intrusion felt by many of my constituents when the phone rings as they are about to sit down for dinner or do something with their children. Someone is either trying to sell them something, probe them for information, or leave them listening to a recording.

Clearly the Conservative Party and I as the representative for the riding of Saskatoon--Humboldt do not support such invasions of privacy.

Let me say that the principle of this bill, the underlying goal, is very good. However the do not call legislation under discussion has some serious problems. Legislation that is flawed but good in principle must be amended. It is typical of the government to produce such legislation.

As has been pointed out too often in the past, Liberal governments try to deal with important issues by designing half-baked solutions. Ask any farmer in my riding about the prospect of losing their land without guaranteed compensation under the Species at Risk Act and members will get an idea of what I am referring to by poorly crafted laws.

Let me pause for a moment in order to say one thing about the Species at Risk Act to illustrate the problem of poorly thought out legislation. If only the federal government had had the presence of mind to work with farmers and ranchers, the protection of wildlife habitat could have taken a quantum leap forward across this country. We in the Conservative Party recognize that our farmers and ranchers are stewards of the land. They are quite willing to preserve the habitat, to cooperate with groups such as Ducks Unlimited Canada, yet the Liberals in their anti-rural and often unthinking way with their legislation showed evidence of not following through on the details. In bills like the Species at Risk Act the devil was in the details, as it is with this legislation.

Bill C-37 is poorly drafted legislation because the bill is very scant on important details. Bill C-37 would allow the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, to create a national do not call list. The CRTC would be empowered through Bill C-37 to hit telemarketers with substantial penalties. Bill C-37 does not spell out how this national do not call list would be maintained. There are no details in this bill concerning what information would be required from consumers to build the list into an effective database. There are no details in Bill C-37 setting up how telemarketers would check the do not call list in order to comply with the law. There are no details in Bill C-37 setting out how often telemarketers would have to check the list to be operating within the law. These are all important details, and details can change legislation.

In summary, under Bill C-37 telemarketers could be fined $1,500 per offending call, for individuals. The penalty for corporations that do not respect the do not call list is $15,000 per offending call. However there are no details in Bill C-37 setting out how telemarketers would check the national do not call list in order to comply with the laws.

In addition Bill C-37 does not explain who would have access to the do not call list. Imagine that, a national database of telephone numbers, callers' names, and who knows what other information provided by callers, and there are no legal parameters spelling out who has access to this information. We must be sure in this legislation that we do not, in seeking to protect privacy, end up invading privacy even more severely.

To top this all off, Bill C-37 does not have any reporting requirements on how the list is being run. Let us consider the implications of this. It would be a massive database with no reporting requirements. It is rather odd that there is nothing in Bill C-37 about these reporting requirements.

I thought the Prime Minister was going to have more government transparency and accountability as hallmarks of his government. Apparently, the timely reviews of government programs are not a priority of the Liberals. We need to know the details. We need to have proof up front about how the bill would work.

Too often we have seen that there are promises made and they never seem to be delivered. As another example of other government activities, I point to what my colleague from Edmonton—Leduc is still waiting for, a full review of Technology Partnerships Canada. It is a review that has been promised to be undertaken by three industry ministers.

Canadians watching this debate will be pleased to know that the Liberals have strived to recover a stunning 5% of the $2 billion in Liberal taxpayers' money spent on TPC since 1996. The government is following up this excess with the national do not call list, with no reporting requirements. Promises must be spelled out so that promises are kept.

We think of another registry, the national gun registry, a $2 million program that ballooned to $2 billion. Now the Liberals want to create another mega database of information, allowing the CRTC to create and regulate a do not call list as it sees fit.

Will the do not call list turn into another gun registry in terms of costs and management? I certainly hope not, but with this government, it is more than possible. Is the creation of a do not call list, its administration and enforcement including the penalty phase, within the CRTC mandate?

Finally, I want to talk about the bill's effect on charities. There are no exceptions in the bill for charities or companies that wish to have a relationship going on between themselves and their current existing clients, whether it is a charity or other groups that use the telephone to contact their members or clients.

In addition to a wide range of charities, this group could include telephone survey, polling companies and political organizations such as parties. Many charities and not for profit organizations rely on telemarketing campaigns. Without proper thought, exemptions for charities, Bill C-37 is going to severely restrict the good that a lot of groups do for our fellow Canadians, and people abroad like tsunami victims.

Personally, I do not know what the Liberals have against charities and volunteer groups. They drew up Bill C-21, the Canada not for profit corporations act, a bill which places a heavy burden, a continual bureaucratic burden, on not for profit corporations to keep up with all the reporting requirements stipulated by Industry Canada.

The legislation has been described as very detailed and technical, even by officials at Industry Canada. Bill C-21 is thick with regulations. Volunteer groups and service clubs will have to change their bylaws and their constitutions in order to comply with this new act. The legislation with its long list of requirements would make it harder to attract good volunteers and good directors for not for profit organizations.

Now the Liberals have brought forward Bill C-37 without any exemptions or exceptions for charities. What we have here is another Liberal example of symbol over substance. The PMO is quite happy to have a photo op showing the Prime Minister drinking purified water by the DART members, quipping meanwhile that he needs a little scotch while the troops are in, of all things, a dry camp.

While the Prime Minister is touring tsunami ravaged areas, the Liberals back here in Ottawa are pushing forward legislation that would hurt charities and not for profit groups to raise funds for others. I hope this is pure thoughtlessness.

A do not call list of some fashion would provide relief to people across our country who do not want their family time, their meals or TV programs interrupted by someone on the other end of the telephone selling some unsolicited service. I support the principle involved, but I believe the details need to be adjusted.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act.

This is a bill that responds to the needs of Canadian consumers. They are fed up with unwanted and unsolicited telemarketing calls. I am sure that every member in the House could give anecdotal evidence of the frustrations felt by our families, friends and neighbours. Many of us could speak from personal experience. Everyone can tell a story about being interrupted by telemarketers in the middle of dinner or in the midst of putting the kids to bed or some other quiet time.

There are times when we are willing to listen to people who want to sell us something, or want us to donate to a worthy cause. There are other times when these pitches are intrusive and a nuisance.

But we no longer need to rely upon anecdotal evidence to tell us what Canadians think about telemarketing. In 2003, Environics conducted a survey on consumer attitudes toward telemarketing, and 81% of respondents reported receiving unsolicited calls. On average, respondents received 3.43 unsolicited calls per week.

Of those consumers who receive at least one call per week, 44% are more likely to report receiving calls from charities; 24% report receiving calls from firms they have done business with in the past; and 27% report receiving calls from firms with which they have not done business.

Hon. members will not be surprised to learn that many Canadians do not like receiving unsolicited telemarketing calls. The poll tells us that 38% tolerate them; 35% are annoyed by them; and fully 24% say that they hate them. In fact, some 14% of the people Environics polled reported that they had tried to make a complaint regarding an unsolicited call.

Among this subgroup 39% indicated that the complaint was resolved. A significant majority, 59%, said that their complaints were not resolved. This is an indication of a system that simply does not work. When nearly three out of five complainants state that their complaints were not resolved, we know that there is something wrong with the framework laws that govern telemarketing.

It is time to present some accountability and consumer response to the telemarketing rules. That is precisely what the bill does. It provides Canadians with an effective, easy way to curtail intrusive telemarketing and establishes the authority to set fines against those telemarketers who ignore the rules.

At the heart of the bill is the government's decision to create a national do not call list. The Environics research indicates that 79% of those surveyed would support a national do not call list, and 66% likely would sign up for the service.

The bill gives the CRTC the authority to set up an arm's length administrator for that list, and the authority to fine those telemarketing companies that persist in calling people who have registered on the list. The bill also provides the CRTC with the authority to establish fees to recover the costs of maintaining this system.

Once this bill has been passed, the CRTC will undertake public consultations to work out the implementation details. It will seek public comment on what types of organizations should be required to use the do not call list, and on who should pay for the operation of the list.

To get an idea how this system would operate, we need only look south of the border to see how a comparable system in the United States works. Media coverage has made the Canadian public well aware of the success of a national do not call registry to regulate telemarketing there.

In the U.S., telemarketing businesses are required to register with a regulator. A minimum of once every three months they must download an updated list of registered telephone numbers. These registered telephone numbers will come from consumers who have requested to not be called. The telemarketing businesses are required to delete any registered do not call telephone numbers from their call databases.

In Canada there would be penalties for telemarketers who violated the do not call list. The penalties would be $1,500 per offence for a person and $15,000 per offence for a corporation. The CRTC's decisions to impose penalties would be subject to review by the CRTC itself and may be referred to the Federal Court of Appeal.

Consumer groups, including the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, already favour the creation of a national do not call list. We know that 79% of those surveyed by Environics also said they would be in favour of a national do not call list. I am sure that if hon. members canvassed their constituents they would find them solidly in favour of a national do not call list.

I know that many of my colleagues on the other side of the House have also favoured this approach to regulating telemarketing. I especially want to acknowledge the work done on this issue by the hon. member for Vancouver Island North.

Occasionally the House has the opportunity to do something good, something great, for many Canadians. Sometimes these issues have enormous magnitude, such as improving the quality of our health care system, or ensuring that Canadians from low income families have an opportunity for higher education. However, I venture to say that there are few bills that would receive such widespread support as the one we are debating today.

It would create the right regulatory environment for sensible, smart telemarketing. It would safeguard the privacy of Canadians and their right to choose with whom they wish to communicate. For thousands of Canadians who may opt to register on a national do not call list, it would mean quiet evenings with their families free from commercial interruption.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on the referral stage debate of Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act. The goal of the bill is to create the right regulatory environment for sensible, smart telemarketing. We want to safeguard the privacy of Canadians and their right to choose with whom they wish to communicate.

Bill C-37 deals with unsolicited telemarketing and proposes to create a national do not call list. Such a list, administered by the CRTC, is preferable to other more regulatory approaches. Through the bill, the government is taking steps to give Canadians an effective and easy way to curtail intrusive telemarketing and protect their privacy.

Canada is not alone in facing the challenge of balancing the wishes of consumers with the needs of the telemarketing industry. I would remind the House that telemarketing activities span a very broad spectrum, from legitimate commercial enterprises with existing customers to fraudulent calls that prey on seniors and the unsuspecting.

Legitimate telemarketers and the marketing industry require an environment where they can conduct their business in a way that is acceptable to most Canadians. They have asked for a regulatory environment where their integrity is not undermined by the activities of the less scrupulous telemarketers.

The bill before us creates a model that would promote a positive atmosphere for legitimate businesses to undertake commercial communications within a well regulated structure. The amendments would strengthen the role of the CRTC under the Telecommunications Act with respect to the regulation of telecommunications facilities for unsolicited telecommunications to prevent undue inconvenience or nuisance.

Public opinion polls tell us that unsolicited telecommunications have become an inconvenience and a nuisance for many Canadians. In fact, during a survey conducted in 2003, 97% of respondents reported a negative reaction to unsolicited calls, with 38% saying they tolerate the calls, 35% reporting being annoyed by them, and 24% saying they hated receiving them. The majority of respondents, nearly four out of five, supported the creation of a national do not call list. Some two-thirds indicated they would likely sign up for a do not call list service.

I would like to remind the House that the CRTC imposed limitations on telemarketing in 1994. These limitations included a requirement that telemarketers maintain individual do not call lists. This provision, however, required consumers to enlist with each telemarketer separately, and there may be hundreds of telemarketers. The consumer has no way of knowing when his or her number may find its way onto another telemarketing list. It is not surprising, therefore, that many consumers consider this practice unsatisfactory.

Earlier this year, however, the regulator rendered Telecom Decision CRTC 2004-35, “Review of telemarketing rules”. In this decision, the CRTC concluded that a national do not call list had considerable merit and recommended a do not call list as approach that is preferable to other regulatory approaches. In its decision, the regulator also noted that changes to legislation would be necessary to enable it to operate a do not call list effectively.

What is required?

The bill before us would enable the CRTC to do three things: first, impose fines for non-compliance; second, establish a third party administrator to operate a database; and third, give the ability to set fees to recover costs associated with maintaining the list.

When the bill has been passed, we expect that the CRTC will undertake consultations to find an administrator of the do not call list. It will also determine how the list will operate and how much it will cost.

The CRTC will also consider whether any types of calls should be exempt from the do not call list.

In particular, I would like to make a recommendation that was raised by one of my constituents of Don Valley East. At all hours of the day and night he is harassed by unwanted fax transmissions. Similar to unwanted telephone solicitations, unwanted faxes can be equally intrusive and a waste of paper in home offices.

When the CRTC announced interim rules on telemarketing as a result of telecom decision CRTC 2004-35, the industry stakeholders maintained that these rules imposed too high a regulatory burden. The industry itself prefers a national do not call list. The CRTC has stayed its interim rules and awaits the passage of this bill before implementing a new regulatory regime.

In fact the industry may become more efficient and productive as a result of the creation of a do not call list. This would eliminate calls to individuals who do not want to be contacted and thereby reduce the number of unsuccessful calls. By passing the bill we would enable the CRTC to move forward on this issue.

Telemarketing has become more and more pervasive. There is no sign that it is going away. The inability to control a telemarketer's access to phones in our homes and businesses has become a source of frustration for a large percentage of Canadians. With this bill we provide the CRTC with the necessary tools it requires to enforce a national do not call list. In that way we give Canadians an easy and effective way to curtail intrusive calls. We will take steps to protect their privacy.

I urge hon. members in the House to support the bill.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure speak today to Bill C-37, the creation of a suggested do not call list, something that we as New Democrats actually had in the election platform, as well as other initiatives for consumers, including the reduction and control over credit card interest rates and lowering the GST, as part of a package relating to consumer initiatives that we were putting forth.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, to speak to Bill C-37. Let me read the summary to this bill that amends the Telecommunications Act:

This enactment amends the Telecommunications Act to permit the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to administer databases for the purpose of its power under section 41, namely the power to prohibit or regulate the use by any person of the telecommunications facilities of a Canadian carrier for the provision of unsolicited telecommunications to the extent that the Commission considers it necessary to prevent undue inconvenience or nuisance, giving due regard to freedom of expression.

The enactment also establishes an administrative monetary penalty for the contravention of prohibitions or requirements of the Commission under that section.

This bill follows polls conducted across Canada and Quebec. Indeed, an Environics poll mentioned that 79% of Canadians said that they supported a national do not call list.

For those who perhaps did not understand, the purpose of this bill is to allow Quebeckers and Canadians who so wish to exclude themselves from any telemarketing promotion. Whether through faxes, e-mail or telephone, we are inundated by telemarketing companies that want to sell us the best product in the world. This often has its disadvantages, causes a lot of communications, clogs our e-mail accounts or overwhelms us with paper.

The public wants to have a way of avoiding such solicitation and Bill C-37 would give it to them. The Bloc Québécois will of course be in favour of the principle, and we agree that Quebeckers ought not to have to put up with such calls and ought to have the possibility of adding their names to a do not call list to be administered by the CRTC, if they so desire.

Automatically, if we were on such a list, all companies would no longer be entitled to solicit us, on pain of some relatively severe penalties and fines. The penalty would be $1,500 in the case of an individual and $15,000 for a corporation. Obviously, the employer is responsible for the mandate he has entrusted to a designated person, or in other words the company is responsible for the actions of its employees, hence the heavy fines for failure to fulfill this obligation.

We do, however, question one specific reality. The CRTC has already admitted that it was not in a position to administer this program, and would need a sizeable budget to do so. We feel it should be required of the companies to provide part of their telemarketing profits to maintain this do not call list.

Moreover, the Canadian Marketing Association has already admitted that it would be easier for them if they knew in advance if people did not want to be called. This would reduce costs of staff, faxes and e-mail. Because of these savings, the industry would be prepared to meet the costs of such a system.

On the other hand, there is still one major question that remains if a registry is administered by the government. We just need to think back to the huge amounts of money swallowed up by the firearms registry. I realize that the industry will want to know the costs up front, so as not to get into the incredible overspending that occurred there, with a predicted $2 million cost that has now escalated to over $2 billion.

It is important for us as members of parliament to be able to determine the framework for this registry. Companies would have to make a reasonable contribution. More important than that, members of the public would have prompt responses to their decision to be put on this do not call list.

We also want various amendments to be made to the bill. It must set out exclusions, in other words, establish clear parameters in the legislation, not currently included with regard to the groups that would be excluded.

It must be understand that, if such a list is created, people could be on the do not call list for everything. Charity begins at home. The political parties have asked that individuals not be able to exclude themselves from getting communications we may send them.

Often, people get information from their MP. Since the members of the Bloc Québécois have a close relationship with the public, we regularly send out information explaining the work being done by the charming men and women in the Bloc Québécois who are dedicated to Quebec.

Obviously, we would hope that political parties will always be able to communicate with the public.

There are non-profit charitable organizations too. All too often, the only way for these organizations to obtain funding is by having a direct link with the public. They often send us requests for donations by mail or in some other way. Permission must be given so that charitable organizations can continue to correspond with Quebeckers, who are extremely generous, as we have demonstrated in the past and as we will continue to demonstrate whenever the need arises.

There are also companies that already have an established business connection with their clients. We would not want banks and phone companies—be it only the yellow pages—to be unable to communicate with businesspeople in order to sell advertising space. This concerns, above all, cases where there is a relationship with an existing client. We want a framework to allow businesses to be able to communicate with people with whom they have done business in the past without being penalized for their actions and for the way they do business with their clients.

If these principles were clearly set out in the legislation, if the protection were ensured at a reasonable cost—that is what I want and what the Bloc Québécois will do in its proposed amendments. We will make sure that there is a registry. We will also ensure that this registry allows all Quebeckers and Canadians—those who want to, of course—to opt out of marketing advertising, and that the businesses that have to pay are charged reasonable prices, that the registry has the government's support and that its management is not entrusted to private enterprise. This was requested by the Canadian Marketing Association, among others; otherwise, it would like asking the wolf to watch the sheep.

Hon. members will have gathered that what we want is an entity operating at arm's length from industry, supported by industry at reasonable costs known ahead of time, so that we do not end up with another gun registry and that groups already doing business with the public can continue doing business. We are thinking of charities, political parties, banks, telephone companies and other businesses already using means of telecommunication to contact their clients. They have to be able to continue. If this is provided in the bill, the Bloc Québécois will gladly support this bill, which will be very useful and will prevent Quebeckers from being harassed to get things they do not want.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

As the member from Kelowna says, it made sense. It was a good model. The government should have used it.

The other issue is really the administration and maintenance of a registry in Canada in general, because as so many MPs and Canadians across this country know, the government has been rather lacking in the whole establishment and maintenance of registries, the firearms registry being of course the most obvious example of what not to do in setting up a registry.

There are certain questions that I believe we as legislators should ask at this point. How will this list be maintained? How will the list be accessed? Who will maintain the list? If it is not the CRTC, which organization will do it? What will be required of telemarketers? How often must they check the list? Will there be a maintenance fee for telemarketers? Who will pay for the list? Who will pay for updating, monitoring and enforcing the list?

These are all questions that are not answered in the legislation and they must be before Parliament passes it.

Why is there no requirement for an annual report to Parliament on the cost of the administration of the list? The fact is that we in Parliament must have more details on how the CRTC plans to set up, administer and regulate this do not call registry.

In addition to the private member's bill I mentioned, there are two excellent examples of do not call registries, one in the United Kingdom and one in the United States. I want to touch briefly on the American list because I believe it offers Canada some guidance.

The American act is called the telephone consumer protection act. It is extremely detailed. It restricts the use of phones and fax machines to deliver unsolicited advertisements and it limits the hours during which telemarketers can call, something that was referenced by the previous speaker; we get the same complaints when telemarketers call on Sunday mornings or late at night. These are reasonable restrictions that we can put on telemarketers.

However, my point is that this is all laid out in the American legislation. The Americans did the proper thing. They laid it out in detail instead of just introducing a bill with no details and hoping that the committee could fix it.

On June 26, 2003, the Federal Communications Commission revised its rules implementing the telephone consumer protection act. The FCC established, in coordination with the Federal Trade Commission, a national do not call registry. The registry is nationwide in scope and includes virtually all telemarketers, with the exception of political organizations, charities and telephone surveys, three of the exemptions that I mentioned.

A telemarketer or a seller may call a consumer with whom it has an established business relationship for up to 18 months after the consumer's last purchase, delivery or payment even if the consumer's number is on the national do not call registry. Consumers registered on the national registry will be able to provide prior express permission in writing to companies from which they wish to continue to receive telemarketing calls.

The initial legislation tabled in Congress looked a lot like Bill C-37. The major difference was the oversight embedded in the bill by Congress. The FCC and FTC had to report to the House of Representatives within 45 days of the bill becoming law with an analysis of the telemarketing rules, any inconsistencies between the rules and the effect of such inconsistencies on consumers and persons paying for access to the registry, and proposals to remedy any such inconsistencies.

In addition, the American legislation required an annual report and includes some details required of the report, such as the number of people using the list, the fees collected for access to the registry and an analysis of the progress and the operation and enforcement of the registry.

This is a piece of legislation that the Conservative Party believes we can model our legislation on. We can certainly model our legislation on the private member's bill of the member for Burlington from the last session. It would be interesting to find out why the government in fact did not model Bill C-37 on either of those previous pieces of legislation.

In conclusion, I want to state very clearly that the Conservative Party will support the establishment of a national registry as long as it is detailed in the legislation, as long as the parameters are set by Parliament, as long as we know exactly who is going to administer the list and the details are set out, and as long as there are some reasonable exemptions provided for charities, for political organizations and for companies that wish to contact their current customers.

I think those are all reasonable requests that our party is making. We certainly hope that we can fix this bill at committee and that this type of legislation or this concept of a registry will become law in Canada in a very short time.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will try to put forth all my points within the 10 minute time period.

It is my pleasure today to rise to speak to Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act. At the outset let me state very clearly the Conservative Party position on a do not call registry. The Conservative Party supports the establishment of a do not call registry within the parameters that are clearly defined by Parliament and with reasonable exemptions provided for charities, political parties, polling firms and companies that wish to contact their current customers. Unfortunately, these exemptions are not laid out in this particular bill. Furthermore, the power to determine these details has been delegated through regulatory powers rather than elected representatives.

A second point to make is that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission released a decision in May 2004 which stated that it was not feasible for the CRTC to create and run a national do not call registry properly. The decision went on to say that even if it did have the appropriate tools to run a national registry, the CRTC would recommend a separate administrator, not the CRTC itself. Thus, it is somewhat confusing with regard to this particular piece of legislation because Bill C-37 empowers the CRTC, and I am quoting from proposed section 41.2 of the bill, to “administer databases or information” for the purposes of creating a national do not call list.

My concerns are that the parameters are not set by Parliament in this legislation--in fact, this legislation is very short on details--and that no exemptions whatsoever are provided. We in the Conservative Party will support the establishment of a registry as long as there are parameters established by Parliament. I understand that this bill will be going to committee before second reading, basically on division, so we will try to fix the bill at committee.

I do want to identify some of the exemptions that we believe should receive notice in the bill. Perhaps others will come forward at committee stage.

First of all, we have the charities. Most charities in Canada will tell us that the most effective way for them to solicit donations is to do so through telemarketing. The fact is, I think, that most Canadians would not object to this practice.

Second is the issue of political parties. As currently written, the bill would make it illegal for political parties and political candidates to communicate with the public by phone. As we all know, we contact voters, certainly on election day in getting out the vote. Under this bill, if it is left in its current form, we believe that would not be allowed in Canada.

The third issue deals with polling companies that seek to gain Canadians' input on various issues.

The fourth exemption that we would like to see is for companies communicating with their current clients. For instance, a bank, a financial institution or a phone company that actually has us as a current client should be able to contact us. That is a reasonable exemption. Most of these exemptions are in the American legislation, which the previous speaker referenced. It is interesting to hear the government saying that the American legislation was its model, because in fact it is much more detailed than the legislation before us in the House today.

I want to use some examples to make this practical for people. For example, the group Mothers Against Drunk Driving is certainly an excellent organization. I think all members would agree. Not only would this group have to cancel any calls to current members, because it would not be able to contact their current members, but under this legislation it would be illegal for Mothers Against Drunk Driving to call anyone to ask for a simple donation. We as legislators should be able to empower Mothers Against Drunk Driving to communicate with its own clients and to solicit donations by phone.

In addition to this, the bill as it is currently written would make it illegal not only for political parties or candidates to launch get out the vote campaigns, but also for not for profit organizations such as Egale, the Canadian Auto Workers, Campaign Life or any organization regardless of where one stands on the political spectrum. They would not be able to contact members or non-members by phone, which seems rather undemocratic to me.

Members who were in the House in the last session of Parliament also had an opportunity to debate a private member's bill from a government member, the member for Burlington, who actually did provide exemptions on some of these issues. I do not understand why the government did not use her bill as a model to provide these exemptions. I suppose we will find out at committee stage.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to begin the referral stage debate on Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act. This bill would augment the powers of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, to establish a more effective regime to protect consumers against unsolicited telemarketing in Canada.

The essential issue before us is the creation of a national do not call list for telemarketers. I am sure a number of us have received such calls, probably over the last weekend.

I want to assure hon. members that we are proposing a proven model for regulating telemarketing through this bill. It is similar to the model already in place in the United States of America. In the event that some colleagues want to say that this infringes too much on business being able to work, it in fact exists in another jurisdiction.

It is a model that seeks to balance the wishes of Canadian consumers for privacy and protection from unwanted calls, sometimes in the middle of the night, while at the same time recognizing the need for legitimate telemarketing companies to conduct their business in a regulatory framework that enables them to compete.

Let me assure the House that consumers would support this bill and 79% of respondents in a recent Environics survey indicated that they would support the creation of a national do not call list. The industry would support a national list as well as a more efficient and cost effective way to manage the lists of those who will not be receptive to their pitches.

Let me explain to the House the current legislative and regulatory framework governing unsolicited telemarketing. Section 41 of the Telecommunications Act gives the CRTC broad authority to prohibit or regulate the use by any person or telecommunication facility for unsolicited telemarketing. The section gives the commission authority to prevent undue inconvenience or nuisance given due regard to freedom of expression.

In 1994 the CRTC implemented rules that defined a call as unsolicited when explicit consent had not been obtained from the called party prior to the call. Solicitation was defined as “selling or promoting a product or service or soliciting money or moneys whether directly or on behalf of another party”. However, the CRTC restrictions do not apply to unsolicited calls that do not solicit. This includes for example, call for emergency purposes; account collections; and market and survey research.

Finally, under the 1994 rules, telemarketers are required to maintain individual do not call lists. In other words, ABC telemarketers may be notified that we do not wish for them to call, but DEF telemarketers do not know about it and they keep on calling the next weekend after the previous ones were informed not call.

These rules are now in place but in the past 10 years since they were implemented by the CRTC, they have been found to be ineffective and generally for three reasons. First, the rules have resulted in some confusion among consumers. For one thing, few consumers know that they have the right to register on a do not call list or how to go about it. Some 14% of Environics respondents reported that they had tried to make a complaint regarding an unsolicited call, but even for those consumers who wish to take advantage of these lists, the task is simply daunting.

Consumers who do not wish to receive calls need to manage their registration on the do not call lists of hundreds of companies and telemarketing agencies, the problem that I just described a while ago. These registrations are in place for three years after which the consumer must register again.

As if that is not confusing enough, some of these calls are made by way of a fax. We have had this experience. My son was describing the situation in his own home whereby a company attempts to market something or other, and of course he does not know what it is, by way of sending him a fax. That fax usually arrives in the middle of the night, but my son does not have a fax machine, so the phone rings.

However, as for the fax message that would come out on which it says how to deregister, if I can call it that, so he does not get called again, of course he does not get that because he does not have a fax machine on which to get it. The message keeps coming in and coming in. The family has a seven month old baby. The family is awakened often in the middle of the night. It is absolutely horrible to have to deal with this kind of thing.

My son has tried with the telephone company and with all kinds of people to get hold of these culprits who are doing this, but of course he cannot find out who they are. There are essentially only two ways of doing it. One is to buy a fax machine so that he could receive the first fax and then phone them back to tell them not to do it again. Alternatively, he could subscribe to the telephone company messaging service by which he could get hold of the telephone number. This is assuming that he could ever get back to that phone number because of course some of these phones can only dial out. He would not be able to dial back in even if he did that.

This is just an example of how sometimes consumers are prisoners of these kinds of things that are inflicted upon them.

That is why we need to improve the do not call database in the way that the government has recommended to us. That is why the Canadian Marketing Association is advocating a national do not call list. That does not mean that all telemarketing is wrong or fraudulent or anything like that, but there are some people who practice that trade whose ethics have some elasticity of a kind that I have just described.

The current regime, as I have said, is not very effective because it is difficult to enforce. When customers receive further calls from firms for which they registered on the individual do not call list it is hard for them to prove that they were registered on the specific company's list. I have had that problem. In most cases in my own house, the calls are always faxed messages. There is a phone number at the bottom of the fax. One can phone back, but like most people, after we phone to register with them that they should not do it again, if that is what we want to do, we usually throw out the piece of paper. Then when they start it again a month later, it is rather hard to prove that it was the same company.

In any case, if people have received some of this solicitation they know that the letterhead seems to change quite often anyway. I am not sure that a person would ever recognize whether it is the same people making contact or a different group of individuals altogether.

The telecom carriers such as Bell or Telus have the responsibility for enforcing the do not call registrations, but again, these companies are trying to compete for the business of telemarketers. It puts them in a rather difficult situation.

In any case, I am not sure that for the actions I described a moment ago, at least the ones I and other members of my family have personally lived, that we could ever do anything with the phone company about them, because there is no log of a call that has already been made, at least not that I know of.

The telecom carriers are reluctant to pursue action against the company. From the perspective of the consumer, it is difficult to determine with which telecom carrier to lodge a complaint. In short, then, as for enforcement, perhaps non-existent is a strong word, but it is very complicated at best.

The time has come for a more effective approach to regulating unsolicited telemarketing, an approach that will benefit both consumers and the telemarketing industry and one that will be easier to enforce. That is why I am supporting this bill.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, for the Minister of Industry]

moved:

That Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology.

Criminal Code

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

(Bill C-37. On the Order: Government Orders:)

December 13, 2004--The Minister of Industry--Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology of Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon under the business of supply.

The order of business for tomorrow and Monday will be second reading of Bill C-33, the income tax amendments; report stage of Bill C-10, the Criminal Code (mental disorder) bill; reference to committee before second reading of Bill C-37, the do-not-call bill; second reading of Bill C-31 respecting the international trade department; and second reading of Bill C-32 respecting the foreign affairs department.

Tuesday shall be an allotted day. Subject to further discussions, on Wednesday we would like to commence consideration of a bill respecting the first ministers' agreement on health care funding, after which we will resume the business already listed.

Telecommunications Act

[David Emerson, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Telecommunications Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)