Mr. Speaker, the following is the response from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. With regard to Telus violations of the do not call list and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s, CRTC, alternative case resolutions processes, and in response to (a), Telus acted swiftly after being contacted by the CRTC and immediately volunteered to cease making the types of calls that were under investigation to its prepaid mobile customers. There was neither an admission of fault by Telus regarding its use of automated calling devices nor a formal finding of liability by the commission.
The chief telecommunications enforcement officer of the CRTC has been delegated the responsibility to perform negotiated settlements on behalf of the CRTC, and may consult with the vice-chair telecommunications where warranted.
In response to (b), Telus agreed to pay $200,000 to the regulatory governance initiative at Carleton.
In response to (c), as set out in subsection 72.01(b) of the Telecommunications Act, “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, in the case of a corporation, to an AMP of up to $15,000.”
Telus acted swiftly after being contacted by the CRTC and immediately volunteered to cease making the types of calls that were under investigation to its prepaid mobile customers. There was neither an admission of fault by Telus regarding its use of automated calling devices nor a formal finding of liability by the commission.
In response to (d), at any time during the course of an investigation, a telemarketer is welcome to discuss with the CRTC potential corrective actions that the telemarketer can take to bring itself into compliance with the rules. The outcome of these discussions could be a signed agreement with specific undertakings to implement immediate ongoing corrective measures and may include the payment of an AMP. The CRTC may enter into an agreement that would include a payment in lieu of a notice of violation setting out AMPs. This payment may be made to the crown or may take the form of a donation, as is the case across governments. A negotiated settlement avoids the cost and the time of an investigation while achieving the primary goal of compliance with the rules.
It is important to distinguish between the types of settlements in which the commission has the discretion to engage. In some instances, especially the most egregious cases, a notice of violation, which equates to an admittance of guilt, is required. In others, where circumstances warrant, a settlement with a payment is sufficient.
In response to (e), as is the case in all negotiations,Telus was provided with the terms for settlement and negotiations ensued. The regulatory governance initiative at Carleton was selected and mutually agreed upon as part of the discussions. The money is intended to support graduate studies in the areas of policy and regulations as they relate to the mandate of the CRTC and the responsiveness of regulatory programs to consumer and business needs.
In response to (f), while one of the almost 500 staff members teaches a course at Carleton, this was not known at the time of the negotiations. This individual has no connection to the regulatory governance initiative and was not in any manner involved in the investigation or the discussions with Telus. Further, the commission has entered into two more negotiated settlements, with Bell and Rogers, where payments were made to Concordia University, the British Columbia Institute of Technology and Université de Montréal. All funds are directed to initiatives that relate to telecommunications or Internet studies that support regulatory policy development. In addition, these initiatives will assist in improvements in the CRTC’s ability to be responsive to the needs of businesses and consumers.
