Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 1st, 2014

[Christianne Laizner]

If a political party or a candidate uses their own internal volunteers or their own employees to conduct live calls, they are not required to file a registration notice with the CRTC.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

That's a rather large exception that has not yet come to the attention of Canadians. Thank you.

The last thing is just to follow up on Mr. Lamoureux's question. I think it's just clear, and I wonder if you agree with me, that if somebody does not register by definition and if a party is not involved officially and somebody sits in the basement and creates their own calling apparatus, as can be done right now, you won't be any the wiser. They won't be part of the registry system. Is that correct?

[Christianne Laizner]

The proposed legislation requires the CRTC to publish the registration notices within 30 days after the polling date. The registration notices that have been filed with us would be publicly available, and presumably if somebody received calls and doesn't see the registration notice, they would be able to contact us with a complaint.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Lukiwski, you have four minutes, please.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

My understanding is that under the amendments of part IV of the Telecommunications Act, there is a distinction between what's considered to be a violation and an offence. There are monetary penalties attached to both.

On a violation, which is the lighter of the two, my understanding is that the penalties could range anywhere from $1,500 to $15,000. If it's considered to be an offence, however, which I assume is something like the Pierre Poutine situation would be, monetary penalties are in the range of $10,000 to $250,000.

Could you give me some illustrations or examples of the difference between what would be considered to be an offence as opposed to a violation? Is there precision in the language in the Telecommunications Act that would clearly define the difference between the two, or is this a bit of a judgment call? If so, who makes that judgment call to determine if it is only an administrative violation or a more serious offence?

I'm a little confused about how one will actually determine the severity of the transgression.

[Christianne Laizner]

We could undertake to provide that information to the chairman within that same timeline if that's acceptable.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Could you give me just a quick example, top of mind, that might be considered to be a violation or has been proven to be a violation in the past, as opposed to what might be considered to be an offence?

[Christianne Laizner]

Well, making ADAD calls, robocalls, outside the timeframes that are specified in the unsolicited telecommunication rules would be a violation on which we would levy an administrative monetary penalty. In the case of individuals, the penalty can be up to a maximum of $1,500 per day per violation. In the case of corporations, $15,000 is the maximum per day per violation.

Another example would be failing to identify on whose behalf the call is being made. Another example would be failing to provide a phone number or displaying the number where the call has originated from. Those are all the kinds of violations for ADADs that we administer under the regime of the do-not-call and our unsolicited telecommunication rules, and those would attract the penalties that I've just mentioned.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

The reason I'm asking is that I'm trying to get clarification.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge the only transgression that has been noted by the CRTC and fined accordingly was our colleague in Parliament, Mr. Valeriote, in Guelph. His campaign, during the last election, had made a number of calls in which the caller did not identify herself, and did not identify the fact that the call was coming from the Liberal campaign. He was found to be in violation and was fined $5,000. Who made the decision that it was only a violation and not an offence?

To me—and I'm sorry, and obviously I'll be accused of being a little partisan here—it's quite apparent that the call was made deliberately to mislead the recipients of the call in an attempt to influence voter outcome. That's pretty serious stuff, in my opinion, so I would just like to know exactly who made the decision that this should be a reduced monetary penalty as opposed to a more serious offence?

[Christianne Laizner]

Under the Telecommunications Act, under the regime, it is the commission that makes decisions as to the amount of penalty. My colleague, the chief compliance and enforcement officer, would be conducting the investigation into the complaints as she has indicated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lukiwski, good shot, but we're going to try a third round at about two minutes each, so Mr. Lukiwski, if you'd like to go on, you have two minutes.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thanks very much. I'd like to follow up on that latest round of questioning.

Are the decisions that you make in relation to how much a fine might be, or the transgression itself, the severity of the fine, made public?

[Manon Bombardier]

Once a notice of violation has been issued, and it includes an AMP, whether it includes it or not, it becomes public. There's a period of time where the regulated party can make written representation to the commission if they want to bring to our attention facts that could change some facts around the case. There's a 30-day period for representation, and then the decision becomes public if it stands.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I'm more curious about the decision-making process and how the commission determined that in Mr. Valeriote's case it was a minor violation worthy of a $5,000 fine, as opposed to a more serious offence for voter suppression, which we obviously all agree that the Pierre Poutine incident was. As I asked earlier, is this a judgment call or is there precision in the language in the act that gives you guidance?

[Manon Bombardier]

There's a telecommunications decision that was issued by the CRTC in 2007 that lists the factors that are considered in the making of that decision. But there is discretion in the officer's judgment with regard to what constitutes a significant violation, for instance. But the factors are listed in the decision without removing the flexibility and the judgment of the officer, given the circumstances of the case.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

If I'm hearing correctly, the final determinant is a judgment call by whoever the official was who was conducting the investigation, guided by a lot of the factors as you've already articulated. But at the end of the day, someone has to make a call whether or not it is a minor or a serious transgression.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Do you have a quick answer to that?

[Christianne Laizner]

The factors that are taken into consideration by the commission in making decisions are listed in their policy 2007-48, and every case is considered under its own facts. The parties that have been brought before under notice of violation can make representations within 30 days, and those are considered by the commission. Then the commission makes the decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

Madame Latendresse, for two minutes, please.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am going to ask questions that my colleague asked during the first round.

Ms. Laizner, could you please confirm for us that the new registry for voter contact services will not contain the telephone numbers called, scripts of messages or recordings? Also, is there a time limit on how long the information in the registry must be kept?

[Christianne Laizner]

The registry will contain the information that's required in Bill C-23. That information would be the name of the calling service provider, the name of the group or person on whose behalf the services are made. It will not contain the phone numbers, but at the time that the registration notice is filed, there's an obligation on both the calling service provider and the person or group who entered into an agreement with the calling service provider to provide the CRTC with their name, their address, and their telephone number, and a copy of the identification that the CRTC has authorized them to use. You get the registration notice to the CRTC, and that information that I just explained to you. The script and recordings are required to be kept for a period of one year. The purpose of that is if there's an investigation, the CRTC may request those, but they don't form part of the registration notice.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

In the case of companies, it's one year. And from what we've seen, there's no limit on how long the CRTC is required to keep that information.

[Christianne Laizner]

As a government agency, we keep our records for the prescribed period of time, at least seven years.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Did you say seven years?

[Christianne Laizner]

Yes.