Debates of Oct. 20th, 2005

Telecommunications Act

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have two questions for the hon. member who just spoke, regarding fines and penalties.

I want to know if he is satisfied with the provisions of the bill on this. It would be better, for our edification, if he could elaborate on this and tell us whether telemarketers who do not respect the provisions of the legislation should have their privileges and permits revoked.

The fines are a good enforcement measure. However, if it is worth it, if there are enough profits, if the situation is favourable enough to make the fines affordable, then telemarketers could easily disobey these provisions. Fines are not the right tool to encourage compliance. That is why I want the hon. member to explain whether this will go further or whether it is limited to fines.

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

Madam Speaker, in terms of whether fines will do what is needed, I guess that would certainly be one of our concerns. As we said before, one of the issues of the original gun registry was to register guns, which has proven to be a huge failure.

The challenge as we look at this, although a do not call registry is good in principle, is the implementation and once again the devil is in the details. How are we going dissuade people? Quite frankly, fines may not be enough. The next point is whether there are going to be teeth. Are they going to be able to collect the fines? That is a question that I guess we will have to see. We will want to hear more from the committee in terms of recommendations to get it implemented.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I asked a question earlier, but I did not get a satisfactory answer. I will ask the same question again.

Passing legislation is one thing; applying it is another. Being called to vote on a bill to control, limit and structure such a marketing activity is fine by me. The problem comes afterward. How can the government apply this legislation in a way that is effective in the eyes of the consumer?

I have the following question for the hon. member. Whose responsibility is it to apply the legislation properly? Who should the dissatisfied consumer turn to in order to lodge a complaint?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his questions of how we enforce it, make it effective, and who does the customer call with complaints?

This has been the challenge with some of the legislation that has come forward from the government. The challenge has been not necessarily the intent, because sometimes I think the intent has been good. The challenge has been in the details, how do we operate, enforce, get people on the list, and ensure the right ones are on the list.

Once again, my concern is that, given its previous history, the government has not demonstrated that it has the ability to execute that properly. That will be the challenge as we move forward with this legislation.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I know the member takes debates in the House very seriously. I appreciate that and his intervention.

We debated for three hours to refer the bill to committee before second reading. However, the bill in its initial form was very vague and did not have enough details. I compliment all members from all parties who sat on the committee and who debated it very strongly. They added in a number of parameters for the legislation.

I want to let the member know that committee and members from all parties did the work at committee and did improve the bill substantively, which is why the Conservative Party now supports it.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, very briefly, I appreciate the member's intervention and I agree with him. The committee did exactly what we would expect. We in fact have a much better bill and it should receive the full support of the House.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Minister for Internal Trade]

Madam Speaker, my colleague opposite has acknowledged that the reference to committees before second reading of legislation, of which the government has made a practice, is working.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, there were some caveats in the member's speech with regard to operational and administrative matters. Certainly those are very legitimate concerns with regard to any government program or service and we certainly will not dispute that.

However, for governments and the Government of Canada, it really depends on how it is defined. The government itself does not operate each and everything. Obviously there are boards, agencies, crown corporations and so on, all of which have been delegated or seconded to do this work.

I would be interested to know if the member thought that perhaps the CRTC had her confidence in terms of being able to operate and administer the do not call list.

I am not sure why but the member mentioned that we do not want this to become something like the HRDC billion dollar boondoggle and the gun registry. I just want to remind the member that the billion dollars, that is always being referred to, was the total cost of the program which was for skills development, for youth, labour programs and so on. After all was said and done in that regard, the total amount that was unrecoverable by the government with regard to those who took money from programs was $65,000.

With regard to the gun registry, I certainly understand her party's position on this. I remind the member that the front line police officers and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police continue to vigorously support the registry, which they consult 5,000 times each and every day, about 1.8 million references to the gun registry, to ensure the protection of not only the officers but Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, when the bill was introduced it was an empty shell. All that it is--

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Order, please. I would urge all members to make sure the protocol in the House is recognized. Cellphones and BlackBerries buzzing and ringing disturbs the quality of what should be our communication.

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

Madam Speaker, when the bill was introduced, it was an empty shell. All the details were left to the regulations. Now, thanks to the hard work of the opposition members, we have some details.

Importantly, we now have exemptions for charities, political parties, pollsters and businesses with which a person has a prior relationship. These are similar exemptions to those of the American do not call list, which has been extremely successful.

Canadians should be asking themselves why the Liberal government could not have given us a detailed bill creating do not call lists. Why did we have to wait for another committee to get the details that should have been in the bill in the first place? One must conclude that the government is getting lazy and not doing its job.

Like all Canadians, I hate receiving telemarketing calls which always seem to come at the most--

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Order, please. The telephones, the cellphones, the BlackBerries, the tape recorders, all of those things are not permitted in the chamber.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You were very harsh today about the telephone ringing but it is her birthday today and our son was calling to wish her a happy birthday without knowing she was speaking in the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

We all want to take the opportunity to wish her a happy birthday but it cannot be through the cellphone.

[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.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thought it was interesting that the member wanted to wish his spouse a happy birthday by sending messages through his speech. This is probably the first time I have heard of that one. Maybe I will just pass on another message to the member, then, which is that if he still owes $50 to another member of Parliament since last February he may want to settle that as well.

In his speech, the member had a criticism of the bill with regard to the fact that if someone calls us and we do not have caller ID, it would be difficult to get the number on the list because we could not see the number of the company calling. I did not understand the point the member was making, because I thought that the do not call list would have our number on the list as one that companies would not call. Our number is one that is taken off the list of numbers to call.

Could the member please explain so that I can understand better the nature of his concern? Why is it a problem when someone cannot see the number of the company that is calling?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to take a question on this subject, but that was a cheap shot from the member about the $50 business. I do not know when he was hired as a debt collector. It is not $50. He did not get his facts together. It is $5 U.S. It was a friendly transaction between another member and me. I do not think the Liberal members are in the business of collecting money. If they have to collect money, they should collect money from Dingwall and from the sponsorship scandal. That is where the member should focus his energy: on collecting taxpayers' money from the sponsorship scandal and the corruption and other things that are happening in the government, not members' money.

Now to answer the substance of the question, I note that many Canadians cannot afford two telephone lines. They can have a residential telephone line--

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

You owe the member $50, since last February. Repay her.

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

The member is heckling, but I will continue answering on the substance of the question.

Many people in Canada have only one telephone line at home. They also use that telephone line for receiving or sending faxes. Telemarketers, particularly in the U.S., have found a roundabout way to avoid the do not call list by sending faxes to residences assuming that many people will have a fax on the same line as the telephone. This is an abuse of the system, going by the legitimate concern or the legitimate law that is passed by Parliament.

When a phone is ringing in the middle of the night and we do not know if it is the fax or the telephone, of course it interrupts us. When we hear the fax tone, we receive a fax for a cruise or for some telemarketing product or service without it showing the fax number of the sender. People do not program their fax machine to depict the fax number of the sender. Many people do not have caller ID. Therefore, those people are caught in this situation. They deserve protection as well.

That is why I brought up this concern. I have practical experience of this. I think many of the members also have this concern.