38th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 138
CONTENTS
Thursday, October 20, 2005

Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Madam Speaker, I want to add my comments to the debate on the do not call list or registry. I can say there is no question that most Canadians are favourably disposed to some type of limitation to unsolicited calls.

I received a call from a constituent complaining about receiving a call that was unsolicited, how she was treated on the phone and some of the issues that she had with that particular call. She felt that, at a very minimum, these callers should identify themselves and indicate on whose behalf they are calling. That is part of the amendment that my party and the NDP were able to achieve through committee.

If Canadians were asked whether they like to be interrupted during their supper with a call, to go through what sometimes takes a considerable period of time, many would find it to be somewhat of a nuisance and an inconvenience and would choose not to participate in that type of phone call. However, at the same time, there are some legitimate reasons for people wanting to call, such as charities and others, that not only provide a service to the community but provide a useful service to particular organizations. The main way they raise funds is through that means. Therefore there is a balanced approach that needs to be taken.

I would like to go through some of the background in relation to the composition of this bill that is of major concern to me. When we look at the bill as it has been put together, it was very much a skeletal bill in the first instance. We are dealing with a registry and as soon as the word “registry” is mentioned, it conjures up all types of red flags simply because we have the gun registry that has cost millions of dollars, some would say billions of dollars, through administration. Perhaps part of that is due to a lack of direction or understanding of what the scope and involvement of the registry should be, what it needs to do, what its objectives are, what it hopes to attain and those kinds of things. Perhaps it was not well thought out.

I found that when this particular bill was first introduced by the government, it did not have any rules and regulations nor did it say what the objects of policy were. It had two scant paragraphs and basically abdicated that responsibility to the CRTC. To me, that is irresponsible, bordering on perhaps wilful neglect and even recklessness, not to have the House debate and set in place how this do not call registry ought to work and what the parameters of it might be. It is something that the House should take upon itself to understand. It should be the House that conducts inquiries and hearings to obtain input from the public, the players and the stakeholders and then decide how policy is to be made.

Instead, the initial bill, before its many amendments, simply provided that the commission would administer the databases or information, the administrative or operational systems, and it would determine any matter and make any order with respect to the databases or the administrative or operational systems. In fact, what it has basically said is that it will give this whole chore over to the CRTC and let it decide how it is going to be operated and what it may do.

Remarkably, the CRTC itself, through its own people, have said that it would just as soon not have that responsibility. The vice-president has indicated that the CRTC would like to receive direction on or some guidance from Parliament by way of legislation, an act or regulations. They feel that this was being imposed upon them. Even the press release that accompanied the bill said that the commission would hold hearings throughout the country to see what the public might want and how this system might operate compared to other systems to see how it should work administratively.

It is remarkable that the government would totally abdicate its responsibility to a commission that is not elected, that is appointed, that is not answerable to the public, has no scope of reference and has no particular known mandate. Anything could happen with that particular direction taken by that committee or group and Parliament would have to pay for it. It is like writing a blank cheque and telling people to do what they want to do and, when they decide what to do and how they want to do it, then Parliament would pay the bill. Why would the government take that kind of irresponsible approach to such a fundamental issue?

The reason the government has taken that approach is because it knows it is a publically sensitive issue that the majority of the public wants. The polling that has been done shows that 90% or better of the people want to have some sort of a do not call registry. Environics and others have shown that the majority of people would publically register and they want the government to pay attention to it. With an election looming and the government wanting to stay in power, which is primarily governed by polls, it took a knee-jerk, half-baked reaction and said that it would set up a registry, even though it did not know how it would work. It said that it wanted people to know for public relations purposes that there will be a registry, that people will be able to call and somehow it will work. It is not sure how it will work but someone else will decide and it will write the cheque.

That is irresponsible in light of the scandals we have seen, the sponsorship abuse of funds and funds being spent for little or no value. In light of the gun registry and the overspending that has taken place there, how could a responsible government simply abdicate in this particular way? It has no idea what it is going to cost to administer it.

It says that the CRTC will be able to set the rates on what telemarketers or those who make the calls will have to pay for the direct administration. We do not know what that will be or what it will cost but even if that portion of it is passed on to the telemarketers, one way or another it will end up in the hands of the paying consumer because the costs will have to be paid.

What about the indirect costs? When I look at how the system is set up it is obvious that administrative personnel will be needed. It talks about the ability of the CRTC to delegate through its commission the authority it has to another person, so it is even beyond just the commission. It would need to designate persons who would look after violations of whatever the regulations might be, and we do not know today what they are. These persons, called the notice of violation people, would administer the act.

We know that if there is a person called the notice of violation person, he or she would need to have an administrative staff and an office that is equipped. It says that the person may enter into a place where he or she believes on reasonable grounds anything is going on that is relevant to the enforcement of the act but they need to get consent. If they do not get consent they would have to apply ex parte by application to a justice.

Now we would need to have a judge, a lawyer and, not just a notice of violation person, but other people to administer this. They say that if these people need to enter into a place that may require some force, we would then have to involve peace officers. The person who is the object of this would have an opportunity to make representation to a commission about the whole process. Now we would need a commission to administer that and it would decide whether an offence was committed on a balance of probabilities.

If the person who applies before the commission does not like what he or she hears, they would have the right to a review and then a right to an appeal. Now we would need a review panel and an appeal panel and, of course, these panels, these commissions, are filled by people who are appointed by orders in council, all at a salary of somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000 or more, and it continues.

We all know there is administrative law that comes into play so that if there is some issue with respect to the commission, the review panel or the appeal panel, they can go to the Federal Court as well.

It is a costly process but this costly process is tied into legislation that initially did not have a frame of reference, a scope or an objective and did not say how the objective would be achieved. It had no policy consideration at all. To me, that is an abdication of responsibility. We find it more and more that the government is reacting by abdicating to the courts, tribunals and commissions when it should be deciding things here in this place.

We find that the rationale of why this is happening is because the end result, which is staying in power and clinging to power, is what matters more than substantive legislation that is good for the country.

If the poll says that it is a good venture, the government will take a step and go in that direction, without knowing where it is actually going, to meet the immediate short term needs and benefits for long term pain without thinking it through. Away the government goes and introduces an act without telling anyone how it will work or where it is going just so it can say that it has addressed the issue. That is how the government has been governing. It is a lack of direction and a lack of steering. It is saying that someone else will decide our destiny and we will pay the bill. That is what is wrong with the way the government has approached this particular aspect of it.

Fortunately, the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party were able to make a number of amendments in committee in such a fashion that at least some semblance of order was put back into the legislation. At least we have an amendment that says that this matter must be brought back to the House within three years for review to see how well it is working or not working. We have also exempted certain groups, such as charities, political parties, candidates, riding associations, surveys and newspapers. Those exemptions were not in the initial bill. The government simply said that it would see what the board does.

I think that is wrong and it is the wrong direction. Fortunately, we were able to beef up the bill sufficiently so that we can at least support it at this stage.

Ms. Louise Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member who just spoke a question about the do not call list . It is not enough to create a do not call list. How will the public be made aware of its existence?

Could he tell us if the bill includes a special measure on awareness and information campaigns, so that the general public can be made aware of their right to register?

Mr. Ed Komarnicki: Madam Speaker, there is no question that the bill in its initial form is ill-conceived and very poorly drafted and has left the issue of public relations, so to speak, or the involvement of the public, up to subsequent events.

I would only hope that when we find out exactly how it is going to work—and we do not know that because there is nothing in the legislation to tell us that—once we have set the perimeters of how it might work and what the technical requirements might be, perhaps there would be a sufficient public awareness or media input to involve the public in what would be required.

There are some logistical things involved. What happens when people move or sell their homes or change their phone numbers? How often will these phone numbers be checked? Do they have to phone and will there be a particular number? There is a host of technical issues that are not addressed and not even discussed at this stage.

Essentially we are saying that there will be a better system than we have now, which is that we have from no ability to some ability to check those unsolicited calls, but we will have to figure out a way to do it. I am assuming that we will be able to do this.

My concern has been that we have advocated this to a commission or a tribunal rather than dealing with it ourselves in advance, but it at least is headed in a new direction in allowing what I guess we would say are the most likely calls that people would not want to receive to be checked. Yet we would allow those who have a legitimate reason for calling to be able to fit within the system. For example, I can think of soccer moms and other people who want to raise funds or do something. But this is very much a work in progress and that is where I have my main concerns.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the member well knows that more often than not legislation does not include the fine details. These are included in the regulations, which have to be developed and reviewed. Even in the case of the reproductive technologies bill, for instance, I think there were 24 clauses for which regulations had to be developed to come up with the fine tuning.

The member started off by coming up with the line that somehow the bill is ill-conceived. I suspect that if he were to consult with his constituents he would find that receiving unsolicited phone calls has been not just a nuisance but has been very annoying and disruptive in their lives. Certainly I have heard about it from a lot of my constituents.

I guess the real issue is that there somehow seems to be a reluctance on the member's part to support a bill only from the standpoint that every little detail of an operation is not in the bill, which normally is not the case.

Has the member received communications from his constituents? What would be his assessment as to the views of Canadians he has consulted with regard to the necessity of this bill?

Mr. Ed Komarnicki: Madam Speaker, there is no question there is a necessity for this bill. The public is concerned and wants us to do something about it. However, what I am saying is wrong is that this government has been totally negligent, irresponsible and reckless in the way it has approached this. We cannot have a piece of legislation with no rules, no regulations and where we do not know where we are going, passed on to an unelected body and say that it is somehow is acceptable.

I have asked this member to look at the two paragraphs of this particular bill that do not give any direction whatsoever to the CRTC as to how it is to operate. The CRTC itself asked us in committee to give it some direction and some idea of where we are going with this.

It is the kind of problem that we find this government knee-jerks itself out of. When it was in trouble as a minority government and its confidence was being tested, it came up with Bill C-48, a bill that the NDP forced upon it, with no—