Industry Committee on Oct. 26th, 2009

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you very much.

On a number of occasions at committee we've heard people calling for the removal of sections referring to the “do not call” list. Mr. Palmer is trying to clarify that while the sections under Bill C-27 will go forward, they will not be gazetted but will be available to be gazetted.

I appreciate your assurances of public consultation, but if you are willing to go through public consultations and seek the viewpoints of others who have only had this for 13 months and spent the last two years implementing it, why wouldn't you hold out until it's required and we can have some assurances that you will do public consultations and ensure that things happening to the “do not call list” are occurring, which would be effective for both the consumers as well as for businesses?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you for that, Madam Coady.

Monsieur Leduc, go ahead.

[André Leduc]

The point of these sections is to be somewhat of a backdrop or safety net to the current “do not call” list, which is hosted by a private company. These cannot simply come into force overnight. As Philip mentioned, they will require some consultation, but we feel it wise to include them here to be a safety net to the “do not call list” that is hosted by a private company, and for technology convergence.

We can't completely foresee the future, but if at some point in the not so distant future convergence renders the “do not call” list non-functional, this would be a safety mechanism we could use to protect the Canadian public from abuse, or a loophole or gap between the Telecommunications Act and this act, where there are definite linkages and similarities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Leduc.

Madam Coady, do you have a clarification?

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

If you're concerned about the “do not call” legislation or that particular act and you're looking for a safety mechanism, why wouldn't you deal with it under that particular act? Just because of converging technologies you think you could put it in here? It's unusual to be dealing with another piece of legislation that you may be concerned with in the future, within this particular legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Go ahead, Mr. Palmer.

[Philip Palmer]

I think it's difficult to cast in words easily, but one of the issues is simply that the Telecommunications Act is perhaps not the best place to have this kind of regime, in any event. When you look at the “do not call” list today, it is a somewhat awkward fit with the Telecommunications Act. That is not to say the CRTC hasn't done a magnificent job making it work and applying it. It is early days.

The Telecommunications Act in this regard very much deals with some of the same subject matter as ECPA. For that reason it was necessary to consider the links and possible conflicts between the two. Those are not as apparent today as they will be in a few years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Palmer.

Monsieur Bouchard.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If I understand correctly, this is a measure in anticipation of the future. Is that right?

You have a team at the department who discussed it and decided to create a measure in anticipation of eventualities.

I want to know whether you quantified time frames on your end. This measure could come up in one or two years. I do not know. Have you assessed that?

When could the provision to do away with the National Do Not Call List come into effect? Six months, one year, two years, three years? I would like to know whether that has been assessed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Palmer.

[Philip Palmer]

Not really.

We are well aware of the fact that technological convergence is happening more quickly and that it is impossible to really differentiate technologically between the telephone and email communication. From a technological standpoint, they are identical. So there is already a bit of an issue in terms of implementing the legislation.

We cannot say right now when it will become a major problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Bouchard.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Could you or your colleagues give us an estimate at least?

Here is a thought, and you tell me if you agree. The National Do Not Call List is working very well. It is easy for Canadians to register. Seven million people in Quebec and Canada have already registered. It is fairly easy to access the service. So we can say almost unanimously that it is a good measure.

Am I wrong in saying that the list is a good measure? It was put forward a year ago. It is a good thing, and a lot of people support the list as it now stands. Am I wrong in my thinking?

[André Leduc]

No, you are not wrong.

Yes, right now, the list is doing what it is supposed to and works very well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Mr. Bouchard?

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

You may or may not be surprised to learn what Desjardins—which owns a number of businesses—did to comply with the National Do Not Call List. According to its estimates, the company invested or spent approximately $5 million. That is also for the information of the committee members.

I am almost certain that any businesses that are aware of this intention in Bill C-27 would, in my opinion, be very surprised, since most of them adapted to the measures that the government put forward a year ago. It cost them money.

Desjardins expressed its concern to us. There is concern as to whether the implementation or amendment of the provisions in Bill C-27 will come with costs. Desjardins believes that the National Do Not Call List works well. What is being asked is that Bill C-27 not include the possibility of doing away with the National Do Not Call List.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard, for sharing your opinion.

Mr. Vincent?

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Earlier, Mr. Leduc was saying that the list works very well. When the head of the CRTC appeared before us, I asked him whether the list was working well. He said that everything was going swell. Even when I asked about holes, he said that that was not the case.

My main question is this: Why use Bill C-27 to try to do away with the National Do Not Call List?

[André Leduc]

I think we have been very clear so far. The intention is not to do away with it straightaway. We run the risk of being caught unprepared if the list ever becomes inadequate for technological reasons. There will be nothing to protect Canadians from that.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Do you think that the CRTC could amend the legislation if it wanted to, as it falls within its purview?

[André Leduc]

I think the CRTC could make a change to the Telecommunications Act. As mentioned earlier, there are a lot of similarities between the two pieces of legislation. The only difference being that one is an opt-in and the other, the do not call list, is an opt-out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Do you have further questions?

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

I have a comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay, go ahead.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

I do not have a motion to propose, but this is to committee members.

Why do we not instruct department officials to create something for us to exclude the National Do Not Call List? In other words, the purpose would be to not have this fairly recent measure included in Bill C-27. You have to admit that a year ago is pretty recent. Bill C-27 should not affect or do away with the National Do Not Call List.