Debates of Oct. 19th, 2005

Telecommunications Act

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his presentation and also my colleague from Edmonton—Leduc for his. I first have an observation to make before I ask my colleague from the Bloc a direct question.

My observation is that the committee clearly did good work to bring forward these exemptions and amendments. I think the original piece of legislation that was proposed in December 2004 was, as my colleague from Edmonton—Leduc put it so eloquently, a mess. I think this is one of the benefits of having committee work. Committees can take a perhaps flawed piece of legislation and make a bad piece of legislation better. I would certainly applaud all members of the committee, because I do agree with the spirit of the legislation.

I do have one concern. That is the area on which I would like to query my hon. colleague from the Bloc. My concern is the potential for cost overruns.

From what had been originally projected as a $2 million registry, we have seen the national firearms registry balloon and spiral completely out of control, to where its costs are now probably close to a thousand times more than originally projected. I have somewhat of a concern, even though I think this registry will be a good thing for all Canadians. My concern is that the registry itself may get into a situation where its costs start spiralling out of control.

Does my colleague from the Bloc share those concerns or does he have some suggestions that might be able to prevent an independent registry from escalating costs, thus making this more an embarrassment than a benefit to Canadians?

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

Madam Speaker, I fully understand my colleague's concerns. Every time we hear the word “registry” now, it reminds us automatically of the firearms registry, which proved to be a very trying experience. There were huge cost overruns. The government lost control of the system that it put in place.

However, if we look at the principle, the Firearms Control Act is a an excellent piece of legislation. Because of the way it was drafted from beginning to end, it became a bureaucratic monument, and the consequences of that in terms of information technology requirements and follow-up went way beyond what had been envisaged.

Our responsibility with regard to this new piece of legislation is to ensure that the cost of the registry that will be put in place is minimal, reasonable and acceptable. That requires a close and rigorous follow-up.

I think the sunset clause, under which this act as a whole will have to be reviewed in three years, serves as a watchdog with regard to the registry. Should there be unacceptable cost overruns, we could, after a year, raise this issue in the House in question period or in committee, or do it by using other parliamentary tools at our disposal or through the media that could have some concerns about that.

Basically, after three years we will be in a position to evaluate the situation since we will know how much the registry costs. In fact, there should also be a similar clause in the other bill so we can stay in control. With the inclusion of that provision, the committee agreed that such an amendment would be appropriate to allow us to keep an eye on the bill.

Clearly this is a case of “once bitten, twice shy”. We had a terribly bad experience with the gun registry. I sincerely hope that the system we put in place is more foolproof and that we do not see the things we saw with the other registry. That kind of thing happens more often in the areas under government's general responsibility. The lobbyists legislation, the Technology Partnerships program and the sponsorship program are good illustrations of that.

We see a lack of administrative and political discipline behind all of this government's actions in all kind of areas. Like my colleague, I think that we must make sure that the bill is sufficiently foolproof. We see that people often find ways to bend legislation and rules. However, we are responsible for making sure that that bill is sufficiently watertight to avoid that.

I hope that the solution we came up with in the bill will be generally accepted and will give good results. In concluding, I will say that three years from now we will have the opportunity to replace it with more efficient legislation, if necessary, hoping that not too much money has been wasted in the meantime.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, allow me to congratulate my colleague on the excellent work that he has done in committee, particularly on this telemarketing bill.

In my riding of Abitibi—Témiscamingue, mainly in Rouyn-Noranda, there is a telemarketing firm called Proximédia. It hires many casual employees. I was asked to pose a question concerning a business such as Proximédia, which is just a few years old. What rules will this bill impose on a regional business to allow it to grow? Is there a risk that the regulations provided for in this bill will be so strict that a small business, which still has 130 employees, will be forced to close because it will no longer be able to compete with businesses elsewhere?

I wonder if my colleague can answer this question. What rules will be imposed? Does this bill propose to implement specific regulations that will allow businesses such as Proximédia, in my riding, to continue to grow?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and his concern for his region's economic vitality. I commend him for caring about these issues.

The purpose of the analysis we did in committee was to find the balance between this type of economic activity and the right of consumers not to receive unsolicited calls. We examined this issue long enough to realize that ultimately, telemarketers are very receptive to this legislation. In truth, they no longer call people who do not want to be called and say so. Representatives only call people who are willing to be called. So this increases the effectiveness of their calls. That way, they can provide better services to their clients because the company has achieved its objectives and its operating costs are lower, compared to when it made random calls. Often, by calling people who did not want to be called, they wasted countless minutes and grew frustrated. So the entire telemarketing industry was paying the price.

The rules are the same across Canada. So, companies in the regions, such as the one to which my colleague referred, must do regional marketing and make their mandate well known. Soon, thanks to technological advancements, long-distance fees will no longer apply to calls almost anywhere within North America. So the potential market is huge.

Call centres are often located in the regions, outside the major centres. This is a good thing, so long as they have access to workers with the necessary skills, such as bilingualism, and they are able to properly train their employees.

Thanks to the provisions in the bill, we believe that these companies will be able to greatly improve their profitability by making fewer unwanted calls. Ultimately, judging by the experience of jurisdictions such as the United States and other countries, these companies will become more efficient. That is my hope. Once the legislation comes into force, I would like the company mentioned by my colleague to tell us about its impact over the next three years, so that we can take this into consideration when it is time to review this legislation.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, National Defence; the hon. member for Windsor West, Gasoline Prices; the hon. member for Laval, Health.

[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.

[Werner Schmidt, Conservative, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for his contributions to the committee. It was a committee that was actually fun to be on. The industry committee has always been fun, but this particular bill made it more so.

I do have a question for the hon. member. If I recall correctly, and I think my colleague from Edmonton--Leduc also alluded to this, certain witnesses who wanted to appear before committee were not accepted or somehow did not get to appear before it. One case involved small business people, one of whom came from Vancouver Island. Another who wanted to appear came from a larger organization, which I think was the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. These people wanted to appear before the committee but somehow did not.

I wonder if the hon. member could perhaps speculate as to why these people did not come to the committee.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the work he did on committee.

Quite frankly, when the bill was first presented there were significant problems with it. There was a chaotic environment for a brief period of time, which led to what I think was a lost opportunity to be more inclusive in terms of the process. We would do well to note that it could be corrected by having a three year review instead of the five year review originally proposed by the government. It was one of the reasons it got unanimous support, because we did lose out on the opportunity to have full broad consultation.

It is appropriate that the member mentioned small businesses. Small businesses use telephone solicitation and contacts, and not only for existing business relationships, which are very crucial for maintaining their lists, but there are interesting peculiarities among different businesses. They might contact somebody who is on their list within a couple of months, for example, or a couple of years or even longer, depending on the products and services they provide to their customers. Having that information would have been more helpful.

Once again, it gives me some degree of comfort that we do have a backstop of reviewing this sooner as opposed to later. It is an important issue to keep in mind. Those groups and organizations that we could not get to this time due to the circumstances I mentioned should be kept in mind so that they will be included next time.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup for the presentation he made earlier. He did an excellent job. I also want to acknowledge the excellent work of the hon. member for Windsor West on his speech.

Bill C-37 is an important bill since it makes changes to telecommunications. The key issue so far is that the commission could regulate and apply penalties for unsolicited telecommunications.

The hon. member mentioned earlier that, although it has some concerns, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill. We would, however, like to see some clearly defined mechanisms for setting up the registry. There is also the issue of managing the registry.

I have the following question for the hon. member. We have talked about an amendment and the rejection of the amendment, since we did not get unanimous consent of the House. To the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, this amendment is vital. Does the hon. member feel that this amendment will improve the bill or, if we do not manage to pass the amendment, will the bill quite simply be incomplete?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his contribution to the committee and I welcome him as a regular member now that we are starting our new session.

The amendment with regard to industry is significant because it has cultural implications that are important and are recognized. I do recognize that this amendment came late. We all agree on that. I think the issue came about because of an oversight. However, if we do have unanimous consent of the House, it is an important opportunity for us to correct it, move forward and improve the bill. I think we still have to move the bill forward. As we do, I hope there will be a procedural opportunity to make the amendment if there is unanimous consent.

Seeing that the government brought forth this element, I am a little perplexed that it will not provide consent. It is a rather interesting situation. I hope we can fix this, because Canadians have suggested overwhelmingly that they want to have a do not call list. They want it to be progressive. I think we have made the first solid steps forward. We have an opportunity to make a minor adjustment to this right now. Let us get to that.

If any of the things we have done in the bill turn out to be a mistake, let us get at them with a review in three short years. It will take several months to get this going and then get that review going. Then we can talk about the effects of the list and what people want filtered out more or encompassed. We can see if it meets the needs of Canadians, of Canadian businesses as well as ordinary people in their homes.

[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]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his list of do not calls that should be calls. As well, I would note that the charitable organization fundraising aspect is a considerable concern.

The Association of Fundraising Professionals estimate that telemarketing accounts for nearly 70% of charitable organizations' fundraising. I think an important point needs to be made at this point in time. We are intervening in a current culture where charitable organizations have access to a revenue stream that enables them to provide services and employment. It is important to note that they are doing this in a not for profit fashion.

What they get from the generous donations of Canadians goes back to hiring individuals in selective communities to work on issues that communities have defined as important to them and then provide those services to the community so that we offset, for example, crime and issues related to public safety and the assistance we provide for persons with disabilities or seniors.

All of those things come from the derivatives of a system of marketing and an avenue from which they can get those sources. If this system changes that significantly or has a problem in terms of adjusting the revenue stream, the opportunities to backfill those types of contributions will not be there. It is also worth noting that we are not even talking about the fact that they could grow. If they cannot do that I think the federal government should start looking at some of the ways charitable donations and organizations are supported across the country.

Coming from my background, having worked for a not for profit organization that was able to successfully apply for and still runs a program for youth, we had many frustrations around the fact that we were constantly re-applying for funds every six months without core funding, despite having several successful programs, and not afraid of accountability, but at the same time not being rewarded in the sense of stable funding that could then provide a greater involvement.

I think the government has a responsibility to look at the effects upon the charitable organizations should the legislation have a negative impact on their revenues.

[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.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to my colleague from the government side. He must know what I want to ask him.

We were told that the gun registry would cost only $2 million, but then the cost went up to $20 million, and now it is $200 million shy of $2 billion. It is at $1.8 billion.

In my riding, there is a telemarking company called Proximédia. This company is not against the goals and objectives proposed in the bill. However, through me, it would like to know from the government what guarantees we have that the costs will not escalate, given the fact that the first year of application will be handled by the CRTC. Then it will be at the expense of the companies.

After the excesses in the gun registry and other excesses that are too many to mention, what guarantees can I give Proximédia, a company in my riding, that there will not be such an excess during the two, three, four, five or six years it might take to implement this program?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no comparing the gun registry experience with what I expect to be the case with the do not call registry. We are talking about a system where a consumer on behalf of a household simply registers the phone number online with no personal data required. Only a minimum of information would have to be provided to verify that indeed it was that household. My understanding is that anything beyond the phone number will thereafter be erased. It is very simple to register online or to call a 1-800 or toll-free line.

Right now, the telemarketing community, as a group, as an association or as individual members, maintains lists. I do not recall that any of them indicated that their costs now were exorbitant. If we make a reasonable assumption based on the experience of the telemarketers who maintain individual lists and imagine what the situation might be for national lists, if reasonable measures are made and good sense prevails, which I believe it will, we should not see an explosion of costs.

I respect the member for representing his community and Proximedia but I would ask him to reassure the telemarketing company that there should not be any surprises, that it will find its business that much more efficient because this will have eliminated people who do not want to receive calls or people who most likely would not wish to buy the products that are being offered.

It is a good question, but I would ask the member to reassure his constituents that there should be no problem.

[Werner Schmidt, Conservative, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to commend the hon. member opposite who is the chair of the industry committee. He demonstrated again a wonderful attitude that there should be no problem. I agree that there should be no problem, but we were assured of that when it came to the gun registry, that there should be no problem. If everything works the way the hon. member described it, there will be no problem. But he did not ever say that there will be no problem; he simply said that there should be no problem.

The hon. member opposite asked what guarantees we have and the hon. member said that there should be no problem. He went through the process as to what would be required. I quite agree that the way the hon. member described it there should be no problem because this is perfectly legitimate. I could not help but make that comment.

I also want to ask a question which has to do with what is an existing business relationship. We spent a great deal of time at committee trying to define what that is. There was a very serious shortcoming in the bill as it was presented in defining that. The committee finally said that an existing relationship is where someone made contact or entered into a contract 18 months previously.

I would like to ask the hon. member whether we could actually put into that kind of timeframe every sort of business relationship. Are there some perhaps that should go beyond 18 months and are there some that might be shorter?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to restate what I said to the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue about the gun registry, but it is a good point. There is a three year review that we all agreed to and should my forecast on that be wrong, hopefully I will be here for members to hang me out to dry on that one, but we should be okay.

As far as an existing business relationship, the CRTC, as it goes through what is expected to be a 19 month process from the passage of the bill to the establishment of the first day of operation of a do not call administration, will include in that timeframe consultations with the industry. It is hard to give a precise definition of an existing business relationship. In fact we do not want to tie the hands of the CRTC or of Parliament because of something we had not thought of, and it often happens that we did not think of something. We want to provide good guidance. The notion that one and a half years for some kind of a purchase, a contract, a lease, some kind of significant relationship, and six months for ordering a catalogue or making an inquiry is fair for now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House regarding Motion No. 7, which reads as follows:

October 6, 2005—The Minister of Industry—That Bill C-37, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 26 on page 3 with the following:

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

That motion should be included in the current debate and be deemed in order, as the government itself had proposed. I am asking for the unanimous consent of the House to have the motion be deemed in order and debated in the present debate.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am seeking clarification from the Chair on this matter.

The government introduced the motion. It is a government motion. It was ruled out of order by the Speaker. His reasoning was it could have been introduced at committee. This issue was not raised at committee because the committee did not have time to hear it. I would just ask for a ruling from the Chair, Mr. Speaker, that we could have unanimous consent to adopt this motion, debate it here and vote on it . I would just like clarification from the Chair on that issue.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member is right in that we could move anything here by unanimous consent, but we do not have unanimous consent in the House to move it. Without unanimous consent, we cannot move it at this time. We do not have leave of the House to do that. It would be out of order to do it at this time.

[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.