ARCHIVÉ -  Transcription

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE

      THE CANADIAN RADIO‑TELEVISION AND

TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

 

 

 

 

TRANSCRIPTION DES AUDIENCES DEVANT

       LE CONSEIL DE LA RADIODIFFUSION

   ET DES TÉLÉCOMMUNICATIONS CANADIENNES

 

 

SUBJECT:

 

 

 

Proceeding to establish a national do not call list

framework and to review the telemarketing rules /

Instance visant à établir le cadre de la liste nationale

de numéros de téléphone exclus et à examiner

les règles de télémarketing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HELD AT:             TENUE À:

 

Conference Centre             Centre de conférences

Outaouais Room             Salle Outaouais

140 Promenade du Portage             140, Promenade du Portage

Gatineau, Quebec             Gatineau (Québec)

 

May 4, 2006          Le 4 mai 2006

 

 

 

 

 

Transcripts

 

In order to meet the requirements of the Official Languages

Act, transcripts of proceedings before the Commission will be

bilingual as to their covers, the listing of the CRTC members

and staff attending the public hearings, and the Table of

Contents.

 

However, the aforementioned publication is the recorded

verbatim transcript and, as such, is taped and transcribed in

either of the official languages, depending on the language

spoken by the participant at the public hearing.

 

 

 

 

Transcription

 

Afin de rencontrer les exigences de la Loi sur les langues

officielles, les procès‑verbaux pour le Conseil seront

bilingues en ce qui a trait à la page couverture, la liste des

membres et du personnel du CRTC participant à l'audience

publique ainsi que la table des matières.

 

Toutefois, la publication susmentionnée est un compte rendu

textuel des délibérations et, en tant que tel, est enregistrée

et transcrite dans l'une ou l'autre des deux langues

officielles, compte tenu de la langue utilisée par le

participant à l'audience publique.

Canadian Radio‑television and

Telecommunications Commission

 

  Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des

télécommunications canadiennes

 

 

Transcript / Transcription

 

 

        

Proceeding to establish a national do not call list

framework and to review the telemarketing rules /

Instance visant à établir le cadre de la liste nationale

       de numéros de téléphone exclus et à examiner

      les règles de télémarketing

 

 

 

 

BEFORE / DEVANT:

 

Richard French          Chairperson / Président

Elizabeth Duncan          Commissioner / Conseillère

Barbara Cram          Commissioner / Conseillère

Rita Cugini          Commissioner / Conseillère

Stuart Langford          Commissioner / Conseiller

 

 

 

 

ALSO PRESENT / AUSSI PRÉSENTS:

 

Madeleine Bisson     Secretary / Secrétaire

Stephen Millington          Legal Counsel /

Conseiller juridique

 

 

 

 

 

HELD AT:          TENUE À:

 

Conference Centre          Centre de conférences

Outaouais Room          Salle Outaouais

140 Promenade du Portage          140, Promenade du Portage

Gatineau, Quebec          Gatineau (Québec)

 

May 4, 2006          Le 4 mai 2006

 

TABLE DES MATIÈRES / TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

   PAGE / PARA

 

Presentation by The Companies    689 / 4597

    Questions by the Commission   773 / 5127

 

Closing Statement by Mark Obermeyer    820 / 5438

 

Closing Statement by Canadian Life and     826 / 5471

  Health Insurance Association

 

Closing Statement by Consumer's Association  827 / 5479

  of Canada

 

Closing Statement by Primerica    829 / 5493

 

Closing Statement by Association of Fundraising  830 / 5501

  Professionals

 

 

 

 

Gatineau, Quebec / Gatineau (Québec)

‑‑‑ Upon resuming on Thursday, May 4, 2006

    at 0900 / L'audience reprend le jeudi

    4 mai 2006 à 0900

4592     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Order, please.

4593     Madame la Secrétaire.

4594     LA SECRÉTAIRE:  Merci, monsieur le Président.

4595     Nous avons maintenant The Companies.

4596     Mr. Drew McArthur, please introduce your panel.

PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION

4597     MR. McARTHUR:  Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission.

4598     My name is Drew McArthur.  I am the Vice‑President of Corporate Affairs at TELUS Communications.

4599     On my right is Ted Woodhead, TELUS Regulatory Services.

4600     On my left of our co‑presenters today are:  Scott Collyer, Director Local Access, Bell Canada: David Palmer, Director, Regulatory Matters, Bell Canada; Jenny Crowe, Counsel, Regulatory Affairs at MTS Allstream; and Bill Abbott, Senior Counsel, Regulatory Law, Bell Canada.

4601     In addition to the companies represented here on the panel before you, our submissions to you today are made on behalf of Aliant, Northern Tel, Northwestel, SaskTel and Télébec.

4602     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. McArthur, just for your information, it is our understanding ‑‑ and I mention it also to remind the Secretary ‑‑ that you are not constrained by the 10‑minute rule.

4603     MR. McARTHUR:  Thank you very much.

4604     THE CHAIRPERSON:  I know you won't go on forever, but we don't want you to be warned and we don't want you to feel unduly constrained.

4605     MR. McARTHUR:  Thank you.

4606     The Companies are active telemarketers and, as such, we are pleased to have this opportunity to outline our views as telemarketers with respect to the task of establishing a national "do not call" framework in finalizing the telemarketing rules.

4607     I will begin our presentation with an overview of The Companies' key concern regarding customer awareness.

4608     Scott Collyer will then address the concerns relative to the cost of implementing the DNCL framework, and Jenny Crowe will conclude the presentation with a discussion of the principles that should guide the implementation of the DNCL.

4609     The panel will then be available to respond to the Commission's questions.

4610     This is one of those regulatory proceedings that stands out because of its significance to both consumers and business.  It is about reshaping the relationship consumers have with business and by allowing consumers to take better control of the telemarketing calls they receive.  It is also about managing the public's expectations regarding the opportunities and limitations of the DNCL framework.

4611     The Companies lead their oral presentation with a topic of public awareness because of the key role that awareness and communication will play in the ultimate success or failure of the DNCL framework.

4612     Why should The Companies, as telemarketers, care whether the national DNCL framework succeeds or fails?

4613     If the DNCL succeeds, it will be good for consumers and telemarketers, but if it fails, or if it is not communicated properly there is a risk of elevated consumer confusion and a potential negative reaction against the telemarketers, the Commission and the federal government.  Thus we have a collective interest to make sure the awareness campaign is managed effectively and that all parties are consistent with their messaging.

4614     To this end, The Companies have proposed in their submissions in this proceeding that the information regarding the DNCL framework and the telemarketing rules be made available on a national DNCL website that is accessible through links from the Industry Canada and the CRTC websites and through a 1‑800 number made available for consumers to request information to be sent to them.

4615     The Companies have further proposed that information describing how to register on the DNCL and how to file a complaint against a telemarketer be made available to each Canadian household and business operating in Canada.

4616     Finally, The Companies propose that free sources of publicity, such as television and radio news, be used to maximize public awareness.  The Companies have made specific recommendations as to the type of information that should be conveyed and some of the means of conveyance.

4617     These are set out in detail in our submission dated March 27, 2006, as well as in our CISC contributions.

4618     There is significant agreement among the parties to this proceeding that a multi‑faceted public awareness campaign is necessary and that the awareness campaign not be limited to DNCL in its operations but also include information regarding telemarketing rules.

4619     Where there is less agreement is who should be responsible for the public awareness campaign and its related costs.

4620     We are here today because we profoundly believe that the responsibility of communicating information as complex as the DNCL and telemarketing rules and procedures to such an extensive audience should not be the primary responsibility of the telecommunications service providers as originally envisioned by the Commission in Telecom Decision 2004‑35.

4621     In this respect The Companies believe that the creation of a national DNCL is a regulatory response to the activities of telemarketers and that the responsibility to educate the public should rest with the parties whose activities give rise to the DNCL regime, namely the telemarketers.

4622     The Companies further believe the federal government, having mandated the regime, also has a key role to play in educating the public.

4623     For more discussion on the role of the federal government in a mandated DNCL regime, I will pass the floor to Scott Collyer.

4624     MR. COLLYER:  Thank you.

4625     Good morning.

4626     Designing an appropriate cost recovery scheme for the DNCL process is another critical success factor.

4627     As Drew noted, most parties to the proceeding agree that the primary source of funding should be the parties whose activities drive these costs, namely the telemarketers, and we agree with that.  It is the telemarketing industry whose actions are to be regulated.

4628     It is therefore appropriate that this industry be the primary source of recovery of these costs.

4629     However, we also share the view expressed by a number of parties to the proceeding that the DNCL is a federal government initiative intended to benefit Canadian consumers.  It therefore is entirely reasonable to expect the government to play a key role in the implementation and funding of such a project.

4630     In Public Notice 2006‑4 the Commission implicitly suggests that the DNCL operator would be self‑sustaining financially with a business model that requires the operator to assume significant financial risks.  The list operator would be responsible for the costs of establishing and administering the DNCL, as well as the costs related to investigating breaches of the telemarketing rules.

4631     The Companies are deeply concerned that both this financial model and the expectation that the entire DNCL regime would be self‑sustaining financially are simply unrealistic from a business case perspective.

4632     First, let's consider the costs that will be incurred with the DNCL.

4633     As I mentioned before, there are specific costs to be incurred by the operator, but there are also other costs whose recovery needs need to be part of the overall system:  one, the Commission's own incremental costs to the administration; consortium costs, if applicable; and finally, third party costs, if applicable.

4634     I will discuss each of these in turn.

4635     The CRTC announced in the public notice that its own incremental costs of conducting this proceeding and implementing and enforcing the DNCL would be recovered only from the regulated telecom carriers.

4636     As companies who engage from time to time in telemarketing, The Companies fully expect to pay their fair share of costs associated with the DNCL process.  However, recovering the Commission's incremental costs associated with regulating telemarketing activities solely from regulated carriers is, in The Companies' view, highly inappropriate and is fundamentally bad public policy.

4637     The regulated telephone companies are not the parties giving rise to these costs, nor are they the beneficiaries of the telemarketing and DNCL rules.  Nor are they the sole suppliers of telecom services to the telemarketing industry.

4638     Indeed, the casual relationship would be just as strong as if the Commission had announced in the public notice that it would recover its costs associated with the DNCL through its broadcasting fees.

4639     It would be much more appropriate for the Commission's costs to also be funded from the broader telemarketing industry.  In fact, this approach would be consistent with Treasury Board's policy guidelines with respect to cost recovery.

4640     The Commission has expressed the view that a consortium would be the preferred vehicle through which the DNCL operator would be engaged.  If this approach is ultimately adopted, there would also be consortium costs to be recovered.  By the same logic, these costs would also be primarily recovered from the telemarketing industry.

4641     Certain third parties have asked as part of the DNCL implementation to take on functions in support of the DNCL regime.  One specific example is that some parties have proposed that telephone companies modify their systems to establish a data feed to the DNCL operator of all telephone numbers that are disconnected from service.  This information would be used to scrub the DNCL of numbers that are no longer in use.

4642     This specific case has been accepted by the Commission at this point, but if it is, parties who would be incurring one‑time and ongoing costs to support the DNCL should also be eligible to recover those costs through the DNCL cost recovery plan.

4643     In sum, we have the DNCL operators' costs, the Commission costs and, if applicable, those of the consortium and of a third party, all of which in principle should be recovered from the Canadian telemarketing industry.

4644     Is this a realistic model?

4645     The Gottlieb Report prepared for the Commission in 2005 estimates that the annual costs of the DNCL to range from 5.6 to $6.7 million.  This includes estimates for all but the third party costs.  There are also system start‑up costs which the Gottlieb Report puts at between 6.3 and $7.6 million.

4646     We are not intending to debate the reasonableness of these numbers in this forum for today's purposes.  We are only observing that this is a significant price tag.

4647     The Companies are deeply concerned that the vision of a financially self‑sustaining DNCL process might not be realistic and that the cost recovery exercises will lead to, first, shortfalls in cost recovery by the DNCL operator and/or widespread non‑compliance by telemarketers in light of the level of fees necessary to be fully cost recovery.

4648     This is a concern with respect to recovering the recurring costs, as well as the initial start‑up costs for the DNCL system.

4649     Moreover, we are not convinced that a DNCL operator will be found that will be willing to assume the substantial financial risks associated with this uncertainty and the degree to which funding will materialize, most particularly due to the unknown level of demand that will be used to establish its rates.

4650     Unlike most Commission proceedings, it is this case that there is no single entity or well‑defined group of entities that will be underwriting DNCL costs.  This is a function that the Commission foresees will be contracted out to a third party provider, probably a private sector entity that will quite reasonably expect to recover its own costs and earn a reasonable return on its investment.

4651     If the many parties to this proceeding, including The Companies, expect the costs turn out to be at a level that the telemarketing industry cannot support, it is our opinion that the success of the DNCL regime is at risk.

4652     As I noted earlier, The Companies are quite prepared to contribute their fair share to these costs as responsible members of the telemarketing industry.  However, with respect, the responsibility lies with the Commission and the federal government to ensure that the financial viability of this government initiative to better regulate telemarketing activity so that the benefits of the DNCL can be delivered to all Canadians.

4653     The Companies encourage the Commission to seek a greater degree of involvement in the federal government and the DNCL implementation process, both in terms of ensuring that the Commission has the resources to properly oversee the implementation of the DNCL and providing sufficient funding from general revenues to support that process.

4654     This step is urgently required, in our respectful view, to give the DNCL process a fighting chance for success.

4655     I will now pass to Jenny Crowe.

4656     MS CROWE:  Thank you.

4657     We have used our time this morning to highlight a few issues that we feel are pivotal to the success of a national "do not call" list.

4658     First, the need for an effective and consistent consumer awareness campaign that informs the public about the opportunities and the limitations of a national "do not call" list.

4659     Second, our view that the costs of operating a "do not call" list are appropriately recovered from those that drive the need for the list and those that benefit from the list: telemarketers and the general public.

4660     And finally, our concerns that the federal government should be playing an active role in this initiative, both in terms of funding and as a key stakeholder in the "do not call" list regime.

4661     There are a few simple principles that underlie our positions.

4662     First, the new rules should be symmetrically applied to all players involved in telemarketing, using only the minimal elements of regulation needed to ensure the effective and efficient operation of the "do not call" list.

4663     Second, although we have not focused on the issue of enforcement in this presentation, we submit that enforcement activities, including the handling of complaints, investigations and applications, must be dealt with in a timely manner.  While deadlines and time limits must of course guarantee the procedural rights of the affected parties, timely enforcement of the rules is essential to ensure that telemarketers adhere to the national "do not call" list and telemarketing rules and that the general public can place its confidence in the national "do not call" list.

4664     Finally, and most importantly, we submit that the Commission must be mindful of the costs in developing, implementing and enforcing a national "do not call" list.  These costs must be incurred prudently and monitored carefully.

4665     If the system becomes too complex, the costs risk exceeding what the telemarketing industry can reasonably tolerate and the entire "do not call" framework risks failure.

4666     A simple straightforward "do not call" list framework that is easy to use stands the best chance of keeping costs in check and of delivering the most effective service to the general public.

4667     Thank you for this opportunity to speak this morning.  We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

4668     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you very much, both for the presentation and for the very thorough written submission which is of great use to the Commission.

4669     Commissioner Duncan.

4670     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Good morning.

4671     I think that your comments are certainly excellent here this morning, and they carry through from your presentation.

4672     I think that we all agree with you that it is critical to manage the public's expectation and that it is important with respect to the cost of that awareness campaign and that it be done adequately so that the public doesn't over‑expect, if I can use that word, what is being delivered.

4673     I think the whole issue of cost is obviously critical.  I think at this point we are dealing with the hand that we have been dealt with, and I think probably the Chairman later on in his remarks may have some more comments with respect to the Commission and the dealings with Industry Canada to arrange for more funds and the likelihood of getting those funds and the timeliness of them, because issue at this point is getting this up and running.

4674     Obviously it has to be done correctly.  We all want it to succeed.  Everybody has a vested interest in seeing that it does.  You point that out very well here in your remarks this morning.

4675     So we can talk about that too over the point of time of our discussion.

4676     Also, I think the Chairman will address the federal government's involvement to this point and what he sees it would be ongoing.

4677     I will start with the questions that I have here.

4678     The first question relates to the comment that you make that the framework and regulations be implemented symmetrically ‑‑ we take that point ‑‑ and using only the minimal elements of regulations needed to achieve the social policy objectives relative to telemarketing.

4679     You mentioned that this morning in your opening remarks, so that is obviously key to you.

4680     I wonder if you would elaborate on what you would consider minimal elements of regulation, what you are contemplating when you make that statement.

4681     MR. WOODHEAD:  If I understand your question correctly in terms of enforcement, I guess our position is that there is an element of proportionality here.  It is almost a cautionary tale.

4682     The statutory scheme that is laid out provides for significant monetary penalties.  What we are saying is that that is what it is, but the Commission has a long history of having a remedial toolbox, if you will, that falls far short of monetary penalties.

4683     It is really just encouraging the Commission, in developing its guidelines, to be mindful of the fact that there are thresholds.  There are different levels of severity of transgressing or contravening the "do not call" list rules and the telemarketing rules.

4684     We spent a lot of time going through procedural rights where there are serious transgressions versus the procedural rights that might pertain to less serious transgressions.  I think that is all we are trying to say: is to encourage you, in your deliberations in developing these guidelines, to be aware of this proportionality point.

4685     MS CROWE:  If I could just expand ‑‑

4686     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Sure.

4687     MS CROWE:  ‑‑ more generally in developing the rules, our comment that the rules should be symmetrically applied to all players and there should be the minimal elements of regulation, it ties into the whole idea of keeping it as simple as possible and restraining the costs.

4688     If we start creating rules just for the sake of capturing any circumstance that possibly we could ever think of, you just end up with an overly complex system where the public doesn't know what to expect and costs have a risk of getting out of control.

4689     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  I take your point.  That is very helpful.

4690     So keep it simple.

4691     MS CROWE:  That's the message, yes.

4692     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Don't over regulate it; thank you.

4693     RCI in their submission have stated that the "do not call" list rule should only apply to consumers and should not prevent telemarketers from contacting businesses.

4694     As you acknowledge in your presentation, you are large telemarketers.

4695     I am just wondering what your view is on that.

4696     MR. COLLYER:  We would actually support RCI's position.

4697     I think for interest again of keeping it simple, if a business were to enrol to the DNCL and put their number on the list, there would be no sort of up‑front check or validation to determine whether or not the number was a wireless number or a wireline number from the consumer segment or the business segment.  We would just accept the number.

4698     Any consumer service provider ‑‑ I will say the Weed Man, looking to spray your lawn in the spring ‑‑

4699     I guess you can't do that in Ottawa, so maybe I could use a better example.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

4700     MR. COLLYER:  Work with me here.

4701     If the business number were on that list with the merge/purge, with the DNCL, it would be culled from that telemarketer's list.

4702     What we would propose is that, for business‑to‑business marketing, where I am working for Rico Photocopiers and I want to knock on the door of the Commission's procurement officer and set up a meeting with him, that would not be considered a telemarketing call for the purpose of regulation.

4703     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  So, really, it would only come into play ‑‑ and, as I am sure you have gotten the impression, we are reluctant to establish any more exemptions ‑‑ it would really come into play in the assessment of violations or the determination of violations.

4704     MR. COLLYER:  Exactly.  Or the definition of what is telemarketing.

4705     Perhaps we would go and look at the definition of telemarketing and just say that it is a call to a consumer, rather than a call to a business.

4706     And given the fact that we have a three‑year review period built into this, perhaps we decide that we under‑regulate now and see if this emerges as an issue, and then, in three years' time, we sit back and have a second sober thought and propose what might be appropriate then, or not.

4707     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  That is certainly reasonable and follows along, I think, as well, with your suggestion of minimal regulation.

4708     MR. COLLYER:  Less is more.

4709     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Yes.

4710     In discussing the length of time that the number should remain on the list, you proposed three years.  We have been asking the other parties about the cost that would be involved in re‑registering consumers after the three‑year mark or the five‑year mark.

4711     You mentioned it in your comments this morning, and it was actually a question I have.  It is, obviously, technically possible for the carriers to match up the numbers and eliminate the disconnected and the reassigned numbers.

4712     Given that that is possible, and the list should be fairly accurate, I would like to think, would you agree that perhaps we should do what the U.K. has done and leave the consumer numbers on the lists indefinitely?

4713     MR. COLLYER:  I don't think so.  I will be honest, I am sort of ‑‑ I don't know what I am.  I lie in among wolves here, because I am the marketing person sitting among my regulatory counterparts ‑‑

4714     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Stand up and be counted.

4715     MR. COLLYER:  ‑‑ so I am a bit out of sorts this morning.

4716     From a marketing perspective, certainly three years is a long time.

4717     For those of you in the Commission who know me, you may know that I have a consumer long distance background, particularly within the international long distance marketplace.

4718     The way rates are changing and price plans are changing and the benefits that we are able to provide to consumers are changing, what a customer may have said no to three years ago, they very much might be prepared to say yes to today.

4719     We actually have on our own "do not call" lists at Bell Canada a three‑year moratorium, and we have actually started calling customers once they have passed that three years, and, actually, we have a very surprising success rate.  Probably about 85 percent of customers consent for us to continue to call them, just because that much time has passed and the offer that we are providing to them is relevant.

4720     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  If I could interrupt you for a second ‑‑ this is very interesting.

4721     When you call, do you start out by saying, "Your registry on our internal list has expired," or do you just start out with an offer?

4722     MR. COLLYER:  No, absolutely.  We acknowledge the fact that some time ago you were placed on a "do not call" list here at Bell Canada, and we respect that.  It has a three‑year lifespan, and we would like to talk to you, because a lot of things have happened in the three years since we haven't talked to you.

4723     About 85 percent of customers actually consent to the call and remain on our telemarketing lists.

4724     The other 15 percent, for the most part ‑‑ I mean, no one is nasty.  No tele‑terrorists.  They politely decline and say, "Hi.  Can I re‑register for another three years," and we will do that on the spot.

4725     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Excellent.  Thank you.

4726     I have a few questions with respect to specific things in your written submission.  I just want some clarification.

4727     In paragraph 24, regarding registration in the national "do not call" database, you suggested an automated process via a toll‑free number or over the Internet.  I am wondering if you considered the need for an operator‑assisted option.

‑‑‑ Pause / Pause

4728     MR. COLLYER:  As has just been whispered in my ear, it is in play at CISC right now, and cost is a consideration.

4729     Obviously, with my little spiel about cost, that is something that we are obviously looking at trying to contain.

4730     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Would you agree that it is something that is likely going to have to be an unavoidable cost?

4731     Maybe you want to wait until you finish your discussions at CISC, but ‑‑

4732     MR. COLLYER:  It is on the table.

4733     We keep the registration quite simple.  We are proposing for it just to be the telephone number.  Really, you can see it being accomplished in a 45‑second IVR introduction, where the recorded message says, "Select English; select French" ‑‑ an introduction with an instruction as to what to do, enter in your telephone number, it is confirmed back to you, and that is the call.

4734     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  I know that it seems very simple, I just think that there are consumers out there who might be intimidated by it ‑‑

4735     MR. COLLYER:  Yes.

4736     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  ‑‑ and who like the comfort of talking to a person.

4737     Although, everybody is getting conditioned to deal with the other.

4738     In paragraph 27 you indicate that all information regarding the registrant should be destroyed when the telephone number is removed from the "do not call" database.

4739     I was wondering if you think we need a delay period equal to the number of days allowed for filing a complaint before we delete that information.

4740     I am assuming that the information would have the ‑‑

4741     You don't disagree with that?

4742     MR. COLLYER:  Yes, I think that is entirely reasonable.

4743     I think, really, our concern is that we just don't want to have big, giant data farms of telephone numbers that are no longer valid or relevant.

4744     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  On my next point you will probably give the same answer, then, because ‑‑ well, maybe not.

4745     In paragraph 28 you suggest that the registration system should incorporate the capability of listed persons and organizations to update their information and de‑list themselves at any time.

4746     Again I am thinking, just so we have the information necessary, an audit trail, in the event of a complaint, or an investigation, that we should allow some time.

4747     You don't disagree?

4748     MR. COLLYER:  No, that is perfectly reasonable.

4749     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Thank you.

4750     At paragraph 47 you indicate your support ‑‑ and you have emphasized that again here today ‑‑ in the interests of regulatory symmetry, for the continuation of the requirement on all telemarketers to identify the person or organization on whose behalf the call is being made at the beginning of the call.

4751     You indicate that you support that.  As your reference, you mention section 41.7 and the requirement that it places on exempted parties to identify both the purpose of the call and the name of the organization on whose behalf they are calling.

4752     But in your paragraph 46 you only refer to the requirement to identify the person, not the purpose.

4753     Was that just an oversight?  Are you in agreement that they should both be the same?

4754     MR. PALMER:  I think the distinction in paragraph 46 is that we are talking about the current Commission requirements, which say that you identify who is calling.  There is not a specific Commission requirement today to identify the purpose of the call, as distinct from the legislation that will be coming into effect.

4755     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  So then you would support, in making the call, that the person identify the purpose of the call at the beginning?

4756     MR. PALMER:  Absolutely.

4757     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Thank you.

4758     THE CHAIRPERSON:  For the record, the answer was in the affirmative.

4759     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  You indicate in your submission at paragraph 52 that the provision of contact numbers should be given only on request.  That all seems reasonable, that whole discussion, but I wondered if you felt that the number given should be toll‑free.  You didn't address that.

4760     MR. COLLYER:  It is our best practice at Bell Canada.  That is what we already do, and I think we could certainly align with that.

4761     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  The next point, with respect to the emergency lines ‑‑ and I may not have understood the technical implications of this, but at any rate, at paragraph 83 you made what I thought was a strong case for ensuring that the "do not call" list is capable of including entire NPA NXX codes in the "do not call" list, as required.

4762     You end by proposing that this capability would be available on an optional basis.  That sort of left me with the impression that maybe it wasn't all that important.

4763     I am wondering, if the cost and complexity to include this functionality is high, would you agree that it could be dispensed with?

4764     MR. COLLYER:  I think, really, what we were trying to get at here is that, as telcos, we reserve blocks of numbers or ranges of numbers or specific NPA NXX combinations as conversion numbers or backdoor numbers to get into emergency service providers.  We have these banks of telephone numbers.

4765     I think what we are looking at here is just a way, with the DNCL, to add them to the list and block them off en masse.  Whether we do that serially, one after another, or we develop a system that can block out an entire NPA NXX combination, I think that really comes down to CISC and actually deciding whether this is going to be bigger than a bread basket and smaller than a Volvo.

4766     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Smaller than...?

4767     MR. COLLYER:  A Volvo.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

4768     MR. COLLYER:  I don't want to use the gun registry here at all.

4769     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  No.  Thanks very much.

4770     You would like the flexibility built in.  That is your point, and you are obviously not expecting it to break the bank to do it.

4771     MR. COLLYER:  No.

4772     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  At paragraph 33 of your submission you recommend that the data in the national database should be available on the most disaggregated means possible in order to facilitate the operation of regionally and locally based businesses.

4773     I am wondering if you have any other ideas, any other suggestions, on ways in which smaller operators could be accommodated to ensure their viability.

4774     Here I am thinking of a usage‑based fee structure, possibly tiered, to apply lower access fees to companies below a specified gross income level.

4775     You may have some other ideas, or not agree with that one.

4776     MR. COLLYER:  I think that is quite reasonable.

4777     One of the other submissions that was brought forward yesterday by Mr. Obermeyer, which I thought was quite interesting, was the number of records that are being cleaned in terms of the size of the telemarketing list.

4778     I don't know how you would police that, if you are giving us access to the DNCL data itself and we are doing our own merge purging.

4779     I think that a scalable fee structure based on either the size of the company that is making the calls or the size of the culling that they are doing is entirely relevant.

4780     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Could I get you to go back, because I was very interested in his comments yesterday, too.  Could you explain that again?

4781     MR. COLLYER:  One of the points that he was bringing forward, which I found quite interesting ‑‑ I don't think it is workable, but I find it very interesting ‑‑ is that the telemarketers submit their lists to the DNCL operator, the operator does the expunging for the telemarketer, and then hands back the clean list.

4782     That way you actually see how many records the telemarketer is actually putting forward.

4783     If you wanted to go on a fee per record basis, that seems to be a very logical way to do it.

4784     I just don't think, in terms of trying to keep it simple, and complexity, and everything else, that that would be feasible.

4785     You heard Rogers yesterday saying that they are making in the order of 2.5 million telemarketing calls a month, which quite surprised me.

4786     You look at us as a series of telephone companies here, and we are probably making that and a little bit more, and we are just a small wedge of the industry.

4787     I don't personally think that that would be workable.

4788     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Thank you.  I am sure that CISC will be dealing with all of this stuff anyway, but thank you very much.

4789     Do you agree with the CMA's position that telemarketers should be able to contact a consumer by telephone if the marketer has received a consumer consent to do so, even if he or she is on the "do not call" list?

4790     We have been asking this question about the others, so I would ask you to also include what you consider to be consumer consent.

4791     MR. COLLYER:  I think that if we have express consent from a consumer, that should be allowed, and valuable.

4792     In terms of recorded forms of express consent, the Commission has a series of valid forms that they have mandated to us as carriers.  I think that any or all of those would be entirely appropriate.

4793     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  We did hear from some of the parties, I think, that they thought it might be unreasonable to always have written express consent.

4794     MR. COLLYER:  The challenge with written express consent ‑‑ and I certainly find this in my office ‑‑ is, where do you store all of this stuff.

4795     And how do you access all of this stuff on a reasonable basis.

4796     Just given the fact that we are very much trying to move to electronic and Internet and IVR, if there are ways of positively identifying the user and recording their consent and storing it electronically, I would much prefer to do that, rather than keeping track of pieces of paper.

4797     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Of course, the big thing is, as the Chairman mentioned yesterday, because the process is going to be complaint driven, if there is no issue, it will not even come up on the radar screen.

4798     MR. PALMER:  If I could add to Scott's comment, the Commission has approved, in the past, non‑written forms of express consent with respect to, for example, the disclosure of confidential customer information.

4799     So that suite of mechanisms, we think, would be appropriate in this context, as well.

4800     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  I'm sorry, the microphones are kind of ‑‑

4801     THE CHAIRPERSON:  He was saying that the Commission has, in the past, accepted unwritten forms of consent, such as in the additional usage for personal information.

4802     That is not the happiest example, by the way, but, in any event, the point has been taken.

4803     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Thank you.  I will discuss that further with you later, so that I can get the details.

4804     MR. McARTHUR:  I would add that if the consent you are considering for this purpose is related to the "do not call" list, I think that is quite different from the consent of disclosure of confidential customer information.

4805     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  No, I think the consent was specifically with respect to overriding the "do not call" list registration.

4806     MR. McARTHUR:  In that context, since it is related to the "do not call" list registry, it may not be aligned with the regime around confidential customer information but take into account the sensitivity which may be different in the "do not call" list regime, and therefore other terms of consent, such as are available under PIPEDA, might be the appropriate level of consent.

4807     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Available under...?

4808     MR. McARTHUR:  Under PIPEDA.

4809     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Yes, all right.  Thank you.

4810     MR. McARTHUR:  The federal privacy legislation.

4811     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Yes.

4812     I am having trouble hearing, I'm sorry.

4813     Thank you.

4814     I am going back to your submission again, because there was a little ambiguity and I would like to have it clarified.

4815     I will give you a chance to turn to the paragraphs now.

4816     At paragraph 72 you indicate that telemarketing agencies should not be required to maintain their own "do not call" list.  Instead, the rules should clearly identify that it is the organization on whose behalf the calls are being made or the fax is being sent that is responsible for adhering to the requirements related to both the national "do not call" list and individual "do not call" lists.

4817     Then, at paragraph 133, you state that:

"Undoubtedly, the telemarketing rules must apply to individual telemarketers who conduct telemarketing in Canada on behalf of an organization."

4818     Could you clarify your position with respect to whether it is the telemarketers, the company engaging the telemarketers, or both, who should be responsible for complying with the rules?

4819     MR. WOODHEAD:  Paragraph 133 is simply a recital of the legislation which establishes it.

4820     We have set out there, in section 72.02, vicarious liability.

4821     I think that it applies, actually, to both the organization on behalf of whom, and to the telemarketer.  The telemarketer has to comply, as well, with the rules.

4822     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  So both is your position.

4823     MR. WOODHEAD:  Yes, both.

4824     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Thank you.

4825     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Actually, if I have understood correctly, Mr. Woodhead, your position is that this is what the law says.

4826     MR. WOODHEAD:  This is what the law says, yes.

4827     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  And that is your position, as well?

4828     MR. WOODHEAD:  That's correct.

4829     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Obviously, you are not going to skirt the law, but...

4830     MR. WOODHEAD:  No.  That bus has left the station.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

4831     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  At the time of filing your initial submission you indicated that you didn't have sufficient data to conclude that consumers considered voicecasting calls to be a problem.  However, you did indicate that to reduce the possibility of voicecasting emerging as a significant consumer issue, they should not be allowed ‑‑ or that the "do not call" list rule should apply.

4832     I am just wondering if you have any more data since your filing that might support that, anything more.

4833     MR. COLLYER:  No.  No.  The position stands.

4834     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Yes, that is good.  We were just looking for more substance, that is all.

4835     If two companies that have an existing business relationship market jointly and one company has an existing business relationship with a customer, should that existing business relationship extend to the company that doesn't have an existing relationship with the customer?

4836     MR. WOODHEAD:  Could you repeat that again?

4837     THE CHAIRPERSON:  It is you and Air Canada, and the question is, if Air Canada has a business relationship with the customer but you do not, should you be permitted to assume ‑‑ because you have made a formal joint marketing proposal, should you be capable of assuming that business relationship with Air Canada?

4838     Is it transferable to you by means of a contract or of some sort of formal agreement which could be shown to us subsequently if there were a complaint?

4839     MS CROWE:  I think ‑‑

4840     MR. WOODHEAD:  I am not sure I have a clean answer to that.  I will just try and throw out a couple ‑‑ it is a good scenario and perhaps Drew might want to comment on this after I try and butcher it.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

4841     MR. WOODHEAD:  Air Canada is a good one because it runs an affinity program with all kinds of partners, as you point out, joint marketing efforts through its Aeroplan subsidiary and I believe there was a privacy case, which is why I will defer to Drew on this, before the Privacy Commissioner.

4842     In an example ‑‑ it is not cleancut because in an example like that, people that sign up for Aeroplan, you know, sort of ‑‑ it is assumed that they accept that there are these partnership arrangements.  So in some ‑‑

4843     I think you would have to take each case on its facts and try and assess, and again, it would come to the enforcement part where you are trying to make a decision about that.  In some cases it may be reasonable, in other cases it may not, and it would be up to you to make those determinations.

4844     I mean there are other examples as well, I think, where ‑‑ and this is embedded in PIPEDA the sort of group of companies notion.  It is in examples where ‑‑ you know, our companies have a variety of subsidiaries under one brand, be it Mobility, be it whatever.

4845     I mean Rogers, just for an example, use Rogers.  There is Rogers Cable, Rogers this, Rogers that, but it is all branded under one, and I think that those ‑‑ in circumstances where there are clear linkages and where you are under some sort of common brand or affinity program, that should probably ‑‑ it should at least instruct what the Commission would ultimately do at the adjudication phase.

4846     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  I think that is a reasonable recommendation.

4847     MR. WOODHEAD:  Yes.

4848     MR. McARTHUR:  If I could just add to that.

4849     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Sure.

4850     MR. McARTHUR:  I think it may be in the interest of simplicity for the Commission to resist determining all the potential permutations of what business relationships may be appropriate, and although it is not necessary helpful for business based on a complaint‑based system such as we have under the federal privacy regime, it does give business guidance when complaints arise and rulings are determined as to whether or not perhaps a business affinity relationship was reasonable under the circumstances.

4851     Those words "reasonable under the circumstances," of course, are in that legislation but I think the Commission would be well advised to keep it as simple as possible and perhaps make those determinations on complaint‑based situations, acknowledging, of course, that at the same time a complaint‑based‑driven system is often driven for means other than perhaps being offside with DNCL rules as opposed to a customer situation that Rogers commented on yesterday.

4852     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Thank you.

4853     THE CHAIRPERSON:  I just note, Mr. McArthur that we have been very specifically asked to address all of those kinds of detailed questions by a number of other people who have appeared before us.

4854     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Just carrying that further, if we take an example of two companies that have an existing business relationship and market jointly and one is a charity, exempt as a charity because it qualifies under the Income Tax Act, should that exemption apply to the other party under the DNCL rules?

4855     MR. McARTHUR:  I don't think we have an opinion on that.

4856     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  That is fine, thank you.

4857     At paragraph 26 of your submission, you indicate clearly there:

"...no longer remains any technical impediment to fulfilling the requirement that display the numbers."

(As read)

4858     What cost would a telemarketer face in upgrading the services that do not have technical impediments to displaying dollar information?

4859     MR. WOODHEAD:  I occasionally play a technical guy on TV.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

4860     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  So there will be a new movie ‑‑

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

4861     MR. WOODHEAD:  Yes, I am McGyver.  I have this pen and you should see what it can do.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

4862     MR. WOODHEAD:  The standard message set ‑‑ like you are asking whether a telemarketer would ‑‑ there would be a technical impediment to them delivering the number and caller identification to a consumer or customer?

4863     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Exactly, yes.  Yes.

4864     MR. WOODHEAD:  Someone else may want to correct me here but the standard message set that is delivered by all telephone companies includes the Annie and the alley, the number and caller identification information.

4865     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Yes.

4866     MR. WOODHEAD:  The Commission has mandated that as part of the technical interconnection standards and we all deliver it.

4867     There are certain examples, I believe, where that is compromised, and I don't want to ‑‑ I mean everybody is trunc‑side interconnected largely.

4868     There are some still line‑side interconnected where that information wouldn't be passed on and there are certain circumstances where the caller is behind ‑‑ this is going back ‑‑ a key system or a private branch exchange where there are many phones behind one central switchboard number.

4869     So yes, it is possible that that could be a problem but the vast majority of times, like 99 per cent of the time, you are going to pass the standard message set and it will show up on the consumer's phone line.

4870     I am sorry but that is basically ‑‑

4871     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  So the current reads ‑‑ I don't know is this is the exact wording but at any rate it says that:

"Both voice and fax telemarketing state that a call must display the originating telephone number of another number where the telemarketer can be reached except where number display is not available for technical reasons."

(As read)

4872     So it probably should remain worded that way because there is some possible exception or just ‑‑

4873     MR. WOODHEAD:  That is right.  There are ‑‑ it is not a large number of cases but there should be some out for "I just can't deliver that information" or they can't ‑‑ I am sorry, the telemarketer can't deliver that information.

4874     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  And, of course, that could also be dealt with ‑‑ if we have the same rule, we could always build that into the guidelines if we were assessing a complaint?

4875     MR. WOODHEAD:  Correct.

4876     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Thanks.

4877     MR. PALMER:  If I could just add to Mr. Woodhead's comment though.

4878     I think we looked at the U.S. example as well where the telemarketing rules in the U.S. do not allow that kind of exception.  We understand the logic being that there are widely available interconnection arrangements that telemarketers can use so that this information is delivered with every call.

4879     I think the suggestion in our comments was that the Commission should consider taking away that exception so that telemarketers can't hide behind one of these odd technical cases and thereby not be readily traced.

4880     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  That is very helpful, thank you.

4881     You recommended:

"The Commission not require telemarketers to have live answering staff in place during business hours for the purpose of seller‑specific internal do not call list registries and to handle complaints as the cost may be prohibitive."  (As read)

4882     Instead, you recommended:

"The Commission mandate the requirement that telemarketers have in place adequately scaled equipment and facilities to record requests to be delisted."

4883     I just wonder if you would explain what "adequately scaled equipment and facilities" would be need to record requests to be registered or delisted and to handle complaints and how such a system would work.

4884     MR. PALMER:  I think here we are talking about the scale of the telemarketing operation.  If you are, you know, Mom and Bob's Telemarketing Services and you have got 20 reps and 20 desks, you know, chances are your receptionist can actually take care of that or a voicemailbox can take care of that.

4885     But if you are a large, sophisticated telemarketer ‑‑ and Bell Canada is a really good example of this.  We actually use a number that actually terminates inbound and a live answer centre from 8:00 in the morning till 9:30 at night where we are telemarketing just because of the volumes of calls and callbacks that we get.

4886     Because of actually the call display requirement, sometimes we are calling, we don't get people at home, they see the number on their display and they actually want to find out who it was that was trying to track them down during the day.  So we do that.

4887     So our position here is that we just think based on the size of the telemarketer that they have the appropriate ability to answer and/or record those requests for DNCL because I think, you know, we have all run into instances where we have called back a telemarketing callback number and ended up in a voicemailbox which invariably was full.

4888     There is nothing more maddening than to try and return a call and leave a message and "this voicemail box is full."  So what we are trying to do is ask to have the direction that the telemarketer actually is able to actually answer those calls.

4889     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Just on that point, when you call ‑‑ when you are doing telemarketing and you call, what would show up on my phone, just your phone number or Bell or the company you are calling from or are you only calling for your own services?

4890     MR. COLLYER:  Well actually depending on what services you subscribe to at home, if you subscribe to number display only, then you would only get the 1‑800 number.  Otherwise, it would be 1‑800 and Bell Canada.

4891     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Okay, because I do get names but sometimes I think I get calls where I only get a number.

4892     MR. COLLYER:  Actually, depending ‑‑ I am assuming you ‑‑

4893     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  I am an Aliant customer.

4894     MR. COLLYER:  Oh, you are an Aliant customer.

4895     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Yes.

4896     MR. COLLYER:  Okay.  I can't speak to Aliant's technology but if it is similar to how we run at Bell ‑‑ to what Ted was saying ‑‑ on the record that is being sent or on the information that is being sent with the call, the number is there, and then we actually, while the call is being placed to your home or ringing at your home, go out to another database and match the number with the name and then bring the name into the call.

4897     So sometimes you are very fast to answer the phone.

4898     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Yes.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

4899     MR. COLLYER:  I am not sure ‑‑ we will leave you with that.

4900     You will actually pick up before the name display is actually provided to you and in some cases, you know, database congestion or what have you, we just aren't technically able to provide you with a name at that time or in some cases there isn't a name associated with the telephone number from which the call is being made.

4901     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Okay.  So a telemarketer could leave a message on my phone and I would have a number and no name; is that not likely?

4902     MR. COLLYER:  Unlikely potentially.

4903     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Yes, thank you.

4904     With respect to a company‑specific do not call request made during voice telemarketing calls, you agree with the Commission's finding in 2004‑35 that the do not call request should be processed at the time of the call, with one amendment, that:

"The telemarketer should be permitted to validate that the do not call request is made by an authorized member of the household or business in question."  (As read)

4905     I am just wondering how long you thought that should be allowed to validate that and if you couldn't ‑‑ well first, I guess I would like to know how you would anticipate what process it would be to validate it.

4906     MR. COLLYER:  Well, in the case of Bell Canada, when we are talking with a customer, we will actually create a service order on their profile, placing the telemarketing restriction on profile.  Anytime that we amend the customer's profile, we have to make sure that we are speaking with an authorized decision‑maker for the account.  So ‑‑

4907     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  So right on the call, you would do it?

4908     MR. COLLYER:  Yes, I am sorry, it is done live on the call.

4909     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Oh, it is.  So there is no delay then?

4910     MR. COLLYER:  No, no.

4911     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Thank you.

4912     MR. COLLYER:  I just verify who it is that you say you are and we have a friendly little chat and then we put you on an exclusion.

4913     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Thank you.

4914     The Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association proposed that complaints should be registered within 14 days and then we have sort of at the opposite extreme, I guess, the CMA‑proposed 60 days for registering complaints.

4915     Do you have a view on the number of days that should be?

4916     MR. McARTHUR:  We have no opinion in terms of the time frame.

4917     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  I noticed some people made the argument that it should be sooner than later because people's memories were ‑‑ would you agree with that?

4918     MR. COLLYER:  It is common sense.

4919     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Yes.

4920     MR. COLLYER:  Yes.  I don't think that I am going to receive a telemarketing call and then go on vacation and then, you know, remember to call back six weeks later ‑‑

4921     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  And complain.

4922     MR. COLLYER:  ‑‑ after I come back.  Yes.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

4923     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Okay.  All right.

4924     MR. COLLYER:  I have a better union.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

4925     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  If the do not call list operator is mandated to investigate violations to telemarketing rules outside of the do not call list rules ‑‑ so that would be the other telemarketing rules ‑‑ or for exempt parties ‑‑ the other telemarketing rules as well ‑‑ how should he be compensated?

4926     MR. McARTHUR:  I am sorry, can you repeat the question please?

4927     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Sure.

4928     If the do not call list operator is mandated to investigate violations of the telemarketing rules outside of the do not call list rules, so the other telemarketing rules, or maybe they would be the other rules as they apply to exempt parties as well, how should he be compensated?

4929     Because he is going to be compensated, at a minimum, for the do not call list registry through the fees or however that is determined.

4930     But how do you think he should be compensated for this factor?  The exempt parties, for example, may not even be paying a fee.

4931     MR. McARTHUR:  One moment.

4932     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Sure.

4933     MR. WOODHEAD:  Okay.  So if ‑‑ I think the short answer is that they would have to be compensated by the same means as the people that are, you know, causing the issue, through recurring fees.  However you spread it out across all telemarketers, whatever, it would have to come out of that recurring fee or cost recovery.

4934     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Because we weren't, for example ‑‑ and that is not to say we won't but ‑‑ contemplating that the exempt parties would pay a fee but maybe we would have a rate table that ‑‑

4935     MR. WOODHEAD:  Oh, okay.

4936     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Maybe we would have a separate rate table that would apply to an exempt party in those circumstances.

4937     MR. WOODHEAD:  The issues of cost recovery are ‑‑ that will be a struggle.  You are talking now ‑‑ I am sorry because I think I misunderstood in part.  Now, you are talking about where exempt parties violate the telemarketing rules ‑‑

4938     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  The other rules.

4939     MR. WOODHEAD:  ‑‑ at large ‑‑

4940     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Yes.

4941     MR. WOODHEAD:  ‑‑ other than the do not call list rules?

4942     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Yes.  Mm‑hmm.  Because we ‑‑

4943     MR. WOODHEAD:  I suppose you could say that the do not call list ‑‑ I mean I could throw out to you that the do not call list operator doesn't do that, that that just remains resident ‑‑

4944     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Well, that is an option.

4945     MR. WOODHEAD:  ‑‑ with the Commission, which would ‑‑ in the keep it simple thing gets you out of having to deal with the cost recovery for a particular kind of complaint and the Commission's base budget and its fee regime and so forth would accommodate that.

4946     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Thank you, that is fine.

4947     I will ask you this.  I don't know if it is likely that you would have an answer and don't feel like you have to answer it if you don't.

4948     But Contact New Brunswick, their big concern was how much it was going to cost a small operator.  I debated marking this question off but I thought you would have ‑‑ as a supplier of equipment and telephony services, what would you estimate the cost would be for a new business or a business that hadn't previously been required to adhere to the do not call list to set up?

4949     We heard some discussion yesterday about ‑‑ the Contact New Brunswick representative actually mentioned $25,000 was his experience.  He was also a telemarketer for the hardware and software.  Do you have an idea what ‑‑

4950     MR. McARTHUR:  I was a bit unclear as to the reference made by Contact New Brunswick because it seemed to me he was thinking if he was an operations individual in his organization, to make a call to someone, he would have to screen those calls using the system whether or not that call was a telemarketing call.  I was a bit confused by his information.

4951     Again, in the  interest of simplicity, I would think in that case it just be left to the reasonableness of the circumstances and up to the determination of the small business what worked for them, and they may want to work without paper driven lists, likely not feasible in the realm, so it may be just the set‑up of being able to down load an appropriate set of numbers in their particular market‑ place.  And I am thinking more of a small business who is just setting up doing some minor calling.

4952     So, again, no comment on the specific costs and that be left up to the business case of the individual putting together the proposal.

4953     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Thank you.  This goes back to the costs and how we are going to cover the bill, but in paragraph 51 of the Public Notice, the Commission noted and you've touched on this already, of course, noted that it proposes to use its normal budgetarian cost recovery process to fund the additional costs associated with the DNCL.  That's in paragraph 51 of the Public Notice.

4954     This would entail charging those telecom carriers that are subject to fees as we discussed earlier, as you mentioned.

4955     The Commission has reviewed all the comments received from interested parties regarding the funding of the costs and the comments received from the companies indicate that the costs of regulation whenever possible, should be borne by the parties whose activities give rise to the costs.

4956     Specifically, it was suggested that the CRTC find a mechanism to charge telemarketers for these additional costs.  The Commission continues to examine all funding options.  However, that being said, we have to move things forward.

4957     To recover our costs, what would you think if the CRTC were to consider allowing the filing of a tariff which would permit Telcos to recover the additional CRTC fees associated with the do not call list from telemarketers.

4958     MR. McARTHUR:  If I understand correctly, you are proposing then ‑‑ your question relates to the CRTC being able to charge a tariff or the Telcos to apply to the Commission for approval of a tariff that it could then charge to telemarketers?

4959     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Exactly.

4960     MR. McARTHUR:  For recovery of fee.  My initial response to that is that it's a difficult workable situation.

4961     Again, it is the ‑‑ given that it would be the requirement to use the DNCL to operate a telemarketing entity, it would be much preferable to have those who give rise to telemarketing through that mechanism and accessing the list, to be the ones who would pay for the information in order to carry out the DNCL guidelines.

4962     Putting the Telcos in the position that a tax collector and remitter is probably not a preferred position from our perspective.

4963     MR. PALMER:  If I could just add to Mr. McArthur's comment as well, two top of mind challenges occurred to me as well.

4964     First of the Telcos are not the only suppliers to telemarketers as we heard, for example, from the gentleman from Contact New Brunswick who uses NIPE service for his telef. needs, not sure how you touch those people.  And again, going back to the DNCL or access in the DNCL as your focal point for collecting the fees I think is probably a little bit cleaner.

4965     The second issue that again top of mind strike me is I don't think as Telcos we necessarily know when one of our customer buying services from us is going to be using that service for telemarketing.

4966     Telemarketing isn't a specific class of service or there is no unique services that we provide to telemarketers, so like just identifying the players could be a challenge.

4967     MR. WOODHEAD:  Sorry; the specifics of it are ‑‑ to follow on Dave's point ‑‑ you have resellers who don't file tariffs.

4968     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Right.

4969     MR. WOODHEAD:  So, that's a downstream use of a facility that we have no idea of what that person is doing with it.

4970     It also touches on as with CLECs that don't have tariffs of that sort.  They have inter‑connection tariff.   So. you would need to deal with that because as Dave points out, we have no way of knowing what I ‑‑ somebody orders up a DS‑0 or a T‑1 or something and we have no idea what they are doing with it.

4971     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Thank you.

4972     THE CHAIRMAN:  Just to follow on that first point.  You've made very compelling arguments in that parameter and we appreciate them.  The question was never whether there should be no cost to telemarketers to access the bank.

4973     The question applies to those costs which at the moment appear to be in a kind of legal limbo, that is to say the costs that the Commission occasions in the start‑up and continuing operation and the recovery of that portion of the total costs, but that doesn't mean that the ‑‑ it doesn't again say in anyway the points you've made.

4974     But in that regard, let's suppose that the commission found itself in an awkward position and we could discuss it more, but just while we are on it, once suggestion I think it was from Shaw, was that the contributions or the incremental contribution by carriers in the current budgeting relationship of fee pay, fee relationship we have, could be regarded as a credit against draw‑downs for the telemarketing operations of the companies and I just wonder whether you would have any interest at all in that or whether you think it's at all feasible or maybe there are some other compelling arguments against it.

4975     MR. WOODHEAD:  I don't think we've had an opportunity to sort of think that through.  But just so I understand because I would like to think it through, and I wasn't here to hear what Shaw said, so ‑‑

4976     THE CHAIRMAN:  They weren't here; it's in their written submission.

4977     MR. WOODHEAD:  It's basically a set‑up against our fees otherwise payable.  Is that ‑‑

4978     THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes.

4979     MR. WOODHEAD:  I think we need to think that through.

4980     THE CHAIRMAN:  It was in Shaw's written submission.  They didn't appear before us.

4981     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Would you like to take an undertaking to submit your comments on that, then?  It would be useful to have that, I think.

4982     MR. WOODHEAD:  I can take an undertaking, I guess.  We'll have to think it through.

4983     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  No, no.  I appreciate that, that's good.

4984     In your submission at paragraph 31, you make some detailed recommendations with regards to conditions that must be satisfied before a party is granted access to the do not call list, which I thought were excellent.

4985     I am just wondering in the instance of third party providers such as call centres, ad agencies, call brokers, if they should be allowed to access the system on behalf of another party in order to scrub the list, if that access should be granted and how it should be controlled?

4986     I would expect your recommendation is that they would have to at least sign a similar undertaking as to what you are suggesting other parties would, but ‑‑

4987     MR. COLLYER:  We would agree with that.  I mean ‑‑ Bell Canada, I mean and then I think most of the companies here, we actually do most of our own, you know, list preparation and scrabbling it and marge projecting and everything else and we send the list out to our in‑house providers or to our out‑source providers.

4988     You know, other operations, other operators may actually decide to out‑source all of that and I mean, we've heard from Rogers yesterday, saying that they were using a third party vendor, so I think that makes complete sense.

4989     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Just to clarify, I just want to make sure I understood.  You only telemarket your own services at this point?  You don't telemarket for any other companies?

4990     MR. COLLYER:  No, no.

4991     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  And this is my last question ‑‑ two of them actually.  The Union des consommateurs suggested that the Commission should require telephone service providers to distribute four times a year an insert with the information on the do not call list rules, the exemptions, the complaint process and that the information should also be provided in the white pages.

4992     Could we have your comments on whether you think that's practical?

4993     MR. COLLYER:  Excuse me.  I think, dealing with the white pages first, we are, as companies, all worried about deforesting the planet and in printing these books, if we could accommodate it with our, you know, changing page counts and rearranging some of the other mandatory messages that we have got there, I think that's reasonable.

4994     We certainly are, you know, worried to adding to page count and particularly as well, I mean, the directory is, you know, less and less becoming a relevant communication vehicle as more companies or, you know, customers are using on‑line services like Canada 411.

4995     I mean, personally, I am actually responsible for a relationship with WPG and Directories and as the product sponsor, I can't tell you within the last two years when I have looked at a directory other than perhaps the glance for the terms of service on occasion.

4996     With respect to bill stuffers, again it's probably a low impact communication vehicle.  Our hope would be that we have got something, you know, broader out there that has more noise.  I think one of the things that we can do and I think you have seen us do this with respect to local competition and local competition awareness is the short information message that we put on the bill and there is actually a mandatory Commission message that's on there right now talking about local competition and directing customers to visit the Commission's web site and the fact sheet with respect to local competition that's there, that might be more appropriate.

4997     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Thank you.

4998     MR. COLLYER:  Yes.  Interestingly again, it saves... saves papers.

4999     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  No and I appreciate.  Those are all helpful comments.

5000     With regards to the presentation yesterday by the Consumer's Association, how would you like to respond to their statement or how would you respond to their statement that ‑‑ and maybe I'll just quote it exactly because I don't want to misstate it.  I am sure you heard it.  They said :

"Let it never be forgotten that residential rate payers paid for the building of the networks over which telemarketers now exercise their dubious trade calls..."

5001     ‑‑ and you don't have to comment on that part.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

"... calls therefore to fund the do not call list from subscribers constitute double taking from rate payers and are unjustified, the do not call list should never cost the residential subscriber a penny."

5002     And I would like to give you a chance go comment if you are interested in commenting on that.

5003     MR. McARTHUR:  So, can we really comment on the first part then?

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

5004     MR. McARTHUR:  As we pointed out in our submissions, there is the cost of consumer awareness which should be, as we have indicated, a much broader with the engagement of the federal government and other stay colder parties, as it relates to the telecommunications infrastructure again, we don't control the telecommunications infrastructure that is used by telemarketers.

5005     In fact, it was Contact New Brunswick that said yesterday that they were a fully IP‑based telecommunications operation.  So, I don't think that rings through in today's market‑place for the tools available to telemarketers for processing their trade.

5006     COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:  Thank you.  Those are my questions, Mr. Chairman.

5007     THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Langford.

5008     COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.

5009     I wanted to concentrate on enforcement and perhaps respond to Ms Crowe's call for timely enforcement, but before I do this, just a couple of little clean‑up questions in my own mind, having listened to your exchange with Commissioner Duncan, and having read some of the other submissions and heard some of the other submissions made earlier to us in the last couple of days.

5010     The first one is about just a general idea of who could act as an operator.  There are ‑‑ in any number of submissions there is a notion that there could be a conflict, that almost anybody that... they are not specific, but they sort of tend to say almost anybody we can think of that you could name is an operator, would be in a conflict of interest because they are in other aspects a telemarketing one assumes or whatever.

5011     Who do you think, in your knowledge of this subject, which you people have been batting around in various commissions for a lot longer than most, who comes to top of mind as sort of possible candidates to be an operator, to be the operator of the do not call list?  Who could do that?

5012     MR. WOODHEAD:  I mean, the usual suspects, EDS, CGI, IBM, some other firm that has some database experience that wants to get a return investment for doing the investigations.  I mean it could be any number of people.

5013     I mean, in the other kinds of databases that have been set up, we have had huge back in the mist of time, Lockheed Martin was interested in the LNP database.

5014     The portable contribution database is done by a small Ottawa accounting firm that it will have some sort of Excel spreadsheet on steroids.  It depends, you know ‑‑

5015     COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  Well, let's take the Welch's example, the Welch's accounting firm in Ottawa that's doing the contribution and they seem to be doing a fine job, we don't hear any complaints about it.  But then, they also have to be policemen, so then we move into a whole other world.

5016     I mean, even in your own submission in paragraph 97, you say :

"The role of the DNCL operator, simply stated, is to manage the DNCL database, investigate complaints and issue notices."

5017     So, they administer and they police and then I guess we go in for the kill at the end, hand out the penalties, anything from warnings and hugs and whatever and counselling to ‑‑ short of capital punishment, I suppose, depending on who you listen to.

5018     So, any ideas there as to who could fill?  I mean, we talk about this thing as though we all know who we have in mind, but who do you have in mind?

5019     MR. WOODHEAD:  I mean, I take your point.  I don't think it's that big a deal.

5020     I had ‑‑ like in a previous incarnation, I had ‑‑ was involved with a private sector firm that actually investigated Human Rights complaints.  It's this firm that would go out and set up this data base and then establish this investigation function, would go and it would do a business case, it would say, you know: is there money in this for me, and they would, you know, go and hire people who would be proper investigators.

5021     There is ‑‑ you know, it would be, you know, people out of investigation programs, communications, I don't know, but somebody would just compile this, these resources, be they technical and human.  There would be, you know, they would set up a process and away you go and that's basically it.

5022     COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  Terrifying, isn't it?  Set up a process and away you go, get somebody from the community calling.  Thank you, Mr. Woodhead, that really helps.

5023     I am going to move right along now.  I think we have exhausted the well.

5024     MR. WOODHEAD:  Well, we are not.  I mean, in fairness, we are not investigating war crimes here.  It's a contravention of a pretty simple rule when you read the statute.

5025     COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  Well, we'll get to that simple process in a moment.

5026     But assuming we have to fall out, and it's just another general question that I thought, you know, in your kind of analysis of this over the year, you might have given some thought to, assuming we have to find this person or create this institution or whatever that has to be created, that's one aspect of this.

5027     I also noticed in your submission and I don't have every paragraph numbered, but any number of times in your submission you say: well, this is appropriate to send of to a CISC committee and have a look at, so that strikes me as more processes that are going on and perhaps rightly so, no complaints.  It's just I note that that is a kind of a solution offered up by your written submission in any number of places.

5028     My question then is: with so much yet to do by us, by CISC, by some operator that has got to be born, how long do you people think it will be if we move as smartly as we can before this thing is up and running and running reasonably smoothly?  Have you given that any thought?

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

5029     COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  Somebody say something; this head shaking doesn't come out well on the tape recorder.

5030     MR. McARTHUR:  I think it's fair to say that we have, in our context, put forward the submissions and recommendations on how it should work, not how long it will take to do.  So, we have not given thought to that.

5031     COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  Come on, Mr. Woodhead, secretly in your heart, you have given this some thought.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

5032     COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  Let the record show that Mr. Woodhead has no idea.  All right.  Then we are going to go to enforcement and I think I wrote down correctly what you've said and you are probably reading it anyway, but so it's somewhere on the record, but Ms Crowe you talked about timely enforcement of the rules is essential and, you know, but for those in ancient start chambers who could argue with that, but ‑‑ and I don't say this as a criticism.  In fact, I enjoyed reading this long discussion of common law defences, although I was rather sad not to find drunkenness and automatism there.  But I enjoyed reading it.  It was a like a trip down memory lane.

5033     But it did bother me in one way, because what it seemed to be is a kind of smorgasbord for defence lawyers looking for a way to either pad their bills, defend their clients, or both.

5034     How do you get a timely system, which in my mind I kind of thought of as our expedited process that we have in place now at the Commission, if this truly is available?

5035     Can you give me a sense from your own position of how much of what you have offered us here as a kind of Ph.D. in common law defences might actually be thrown on the table in a violation?

5036     MR. WOODHEAD:  The whole, the twenty pages we spent on the enforcement section ‑‑ which I am glad you enjoyed ‑‑ was to try and give a sense of a continuum or progressive discipline.

5037     I think there would be a triage of a lot of these complaints that would be dealt with incredibly swiftly.  I take your point when you read this section that that smorgasbord of common law defences and the due diligence defence that is enshrined within the actual legislation, those are ‑‑ and it goes to the question I first answered of Commissioner Duncan.  It's this proportionality thing.

5038     There will be, or there could be potentially, a contravention that is continuing and premeditated, wilful, deliberate ‑‑ or at least that's the allegation ‑‑ and where that telemarketer or organization would be subject to considerable monetary penalties.

5039     What we are saying here is that that becomes quasi criminal in nature and that procedural rights have to be afforded.  That is basically it.

5040     But the vast number, at least in our estimation of these things, will be of the sort of consequential variety.  There may be a due diligence defence.

5041     I think that the Commission has the ability to deal with those very swiftly, aside from procedural rights out in this ‑‑ well, I think we do.

5042     COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  I agree with you in theory, but the problem as I see it ‑‑ and again it's not a criticism of what you have put in front of us.  What you have put in front of us is wonderful and educating.

5043     The problem is that what it seems to indicate is that if all of this truly is available under the heading of common law defences, we've lost control of our process here.  Arguably, we lose control of our processes.

5044     MR. McARTHUR:  If I could draw the analogy to a complaint under the federal privacy legislation, officially there are approximately 350‑or‑so complaints that have been adjudicated by the Privacy Commissioner.  Of those, if my memory serves, less than 10 have actually gone to federal court and used the process of which you speak.

5045     Even greater than those, if you look at the number of inquiries and investigations that have not resulted in findings by the Privacy Commissioner, is an even larger number than the 350 on their website.

5046     What that speaks to is that it is only a minority of those circumstances that will need to avail themselves of natural justice in that process.

5047     As Ted has indicated, the proportionality would be that a great deal of them can be dealt with in a mediation process, in a notice process, in the complaint adjudication, and the very small minority would ever proceed.

5048     We are just highlighting the principles of natural justice and due diligence available to any individual.

5049     MR. WOODHEAD:  In some respect, Commissioner, it is a consequence obviously of the AMPs power.  The AMPs power is an important power.  It is an important tool in the Commission's toolbox.  But with it comes these common law notions which, while irritating to some, have served us well for a millennia.

5050     MS CROWE:  I would just add one final thing that goes along with the notion that there should be, we anticipate, relatively few big problem cases that come along.

5051     As you say, it may be that initially a defence lawyer will come along and try everything possible.  But I suspect that that would only last for a limited period of time.

5052     At first people will challenge the parameters of these defences in this context, so that may happen a few times.  But eventually I think it will be more efficient and settle down as decisions are made.

5053     COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  I thank you for that.  I didn't expect a clear‑cut answer.  Nobody has it.  It depends what we are dealing with out there in the future.  But you certainly did open my eyes to one of the reasons why I got out of criminal law as fast as I could in the old days.

5054     We move then on to kind of sentencing, if I can call it that, from process to sentencing.

5055     I notice from about paragraph 110, or 1‑something‑or‑other onward, that you discuss the kind of notion of a pyramid model, as you say in paragraph 110, a pyramid model approach similar to the Bureau's ‑‑ the Competition Bureau, that is ‑‑ conformity continuum as part of the procedure.

5056     Out of the context of this proceeding it seems to make eminent sense, but when you hear what other parties are calling for, you know, zero tolerance ‑‑ although one party yesterday softened his stand on that somewhat ‑‑ but a kind of almost "take no hostages" approach because, rightly or wrongly, and whoever is to blame it's unclear, but a lot of consumers are just fed up.  They've had enough.  They want it to stop.  Make the music stop, I don't want to dance any more.

5057     Is this going to meet the sort of consumer need or desire, if I can put it that way, that seems to be implicit in some of the poll results that everyone has referred to in these proceedings and is to some degree relied on: a high consumer dissatisfaction with what is going on as they try to have their family meal in the evening?

5058     It does, if I can characterize it, take quite a long time before anything like a penalty is assessed here.

5059     If I go to your fifth step ‑‑ it seems to be about a five‑step process here; or maybe it's your fourth step ‑‑ you say at the end of paragraph 115 that you can move both up and down the pyramid.

5060     It seems a little bit like the Kyoto Accord where you can get credits for good behaviour.  So if you are bad later, we take that into account.

5061     Is that going to do it for anybody or would it be just a lot simpler to give small fines, medium size fines and big fines so that people see it going on, see it going on clearly and transparently?

5062     This notion of sending letters to people, of having helpful suggestions, as you call it in paragraph 111, it's kind of like "hugs for thugs" in a way, isn't it.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

5063     COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  It may not do it in the sense of what consumers are looking for.

5064     MR. WOODHEAD:  I think, to go back to what I understand was Mr. Goldberg's presentation, not everyone in this thing is a thug.  There are well‑meaning people who simply tripped over an administrative process that they are not familiar with and they are trying to fund raise, or do whatever they are doing, or sell something.

5065     And I take your point.  The obvious and simple answer would be as soon as we see the whites of their eyes, we're going to fine them.  We're going to fine them and we are going to publicize that, and that's the way to do it.

5066     I guess what we are trying to say here ‑‑ and it's maybe a typically Canadian solution.  We are trying to find a culture compliance here.  We are trying to use all of the tools in the toolbox.

5067     It is up to the Commissioners, it is up to the Commission to use its adjudicative function to decide what the appropriate remedy is.

5068     We are simply saying, or what we are trying to encourage you to at least give some thought to is you are given the fining power.  You have a hammer and everything looks like a nail.

5069     It doesn't necessarily work that way in real life.

5070     The Commission has operated for 30‑some years or 20‑some years using a whole variety of suasion; you know, pick up the phone, stop doing that, that kind of thing.  You now have the AMPs power.

5071     To go back to what I said earlier, a lot of this is driven by the AMPs power.  So, you know, you spend 20 pages talking about common law defences.  Well, that's what you get with an AMPs power.

5072     Before you get to imposing a penalty ‑‑ and you will have to obviously assess the severity of these things ‑‑ there is a lot of other stuff you can do and the Commission staff can do, and they do every day in the complaints group and other places.

5073     COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  I take your  point, and we do a lot of this stuff now.  You are quite right.

5074     Mediation ‑‑ we have Randy Hudson standing by.  If anybody needs counselling, he's there.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

5075     COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  As I say, when I kind of flippantly use the term ‑‑ not kind of flippantly, really flippantly ‑‑ use the term "hugs for thugs", I'm trying to capture some of the frustration of the consumers, some of the frustration we see in the poll results.

5076     Surveyors have been recognized by Parliament now as important, so we should listen to these survey results.

5077     I just wonder whether this is going to do it and whether it might be simpler ‑‑ I take your point, Mr. Woodhead, that when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail.  But you don't have to hit the nail so hard every time.

5078     You could have a continuum.  Instead of starting with letters and warnings and counselling and mediation and credits and debits, and finally, finally moving someone toward something that could be punitive and give them a chance to trot out their defences, what about a $1.00 fine?  Just do it strict liability but leave the discretion in the hands of the judge, whoever the judge will be.

5079     So it's a dollar.  Then anywhere between $1.00 and $1,500, or anywhere between $1.00 and $15,000.

5080     MR. WOODHEAD:  To some extent, I don't know that I can really comment on that because this is for you to decide when you have a case before you.

5081     What I am suggesting or what The Companies are suggesting is that there is a large continuum here of remedies that you can employ.  I don't want to be in a position of suggesting to you, or in fact agreeing with what you are saying at this point:  Oh, why not a dollar here, why not $500 there.

5082     That is what you are going to have to decide when one of these complaints comes before you.  I wouldn't sort of fetter your discretion that way.

5083     That is what we are trying to say: that you have from zero to 100 miles an hour and everything in between.

5084     You people and your colleagues deal with various fractious disputes and transgressions of regulations and all of the assorted things that go on in the broadcasting and telecom side and you make your decision.

5085     You have from doing nothing to doing something.  That might be $1,500 or $15,000, whatever it is.

5086     We are just encouraging you to continue doing that solemnonic thing you do.

5087     COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  There is a sea change going on in The Companies, I think.  It must be some news you've gotten lately that has made you so sanguine.  I don't know.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

5088     COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  Those are my questions, Mr. Chair.

5089     I thank you for your responses.

5090     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Chairman Cugini.

5091     COMMISSIONER CUGINI:  Thank you for the promotion.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

5092     COMMISSIONER CUGINI:  Good morning.  And I promise you it is still morning.

5093     I have just a couple of questions.

5094     A couple of parties in this proceeding have asked us to more clearly define the term "existing business relationship".

5095     So to that end I would like to ask you:  Currently, if I am an existing Bell customer, for example, and you telemarket to me ‑‑ I think you were here when I had this discussion with Rogers yesterday ‑‑ and I say to you put me on your "do not call" list, do I then get placed on the "do not call" list of all of The Companies within Bell as a result?

5096     MR. COLLYER:  Actually, yes you would.

5097     I'm just ‑‑ yes, you would.

5098     COMMISSIONER CUGINI:  And do you see that as something that should continue in establishing the "do not call"?

5099     MR. COLLYER:  In terms of letter of the law, I'm sure from a privacy concern, if our Sympatico Member Services were actually going to go and call you after you had called into 310 Bell saying "hi, please stop calling me", we would be onside.

5100     In the interests of customer service and not wanting to damage your customer relationship, we would honour that "do not call" request.

5101     It might take probably the course of a month for it to actually work through all of the affiliated companies, but that is something that we would do.

5102     COMMISSIONER CUGINI:  Then I guess the other side of that coin, of course, is if I give consent to being, however, telemarketed by Bell Mobility, for example.

5103     MR. COLLYER:  We actually can do that.  We actually also have the ability to provide consent where I prefer to be telemarketed by a Bell employee versus not being telemarketed by an outsourcer, for example.

5104     So we have exclusions that work that way as well.

5105     COMMISSIONER CUGINI:  Do you currently ‑‑ anyone can answer, or everyone.

5106     Do you currently do telemarketing to wireless numbers?

5107     MR. COLLYER:  I would think Bell Mobility would on a very, very limited basis and it would be more like a customer service feedback sort of thing.  And more so it would be farmed out to a research house.

5108     We don't actively telemarket to wireless telephone numbers.

5109     COMMISSIONER CUGINI:  I think it was Rogers who yesterday said that wireless numbers should be able to be registered on the "do not call" list.

5110     MR. COLLYER:  We have had no issue whatsoever to put them on the list.

5111     COMMISSIONER CUGINI:  Thank you very much.

5112     THE CHAIRPERSON:  I thought we would take 15 minutes at this point and come back at five to 11:00.

5113     Thank you.

‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 1037 / Suspension à 1037

‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1055 / Reprise à 1055

5114     THE CHAIRPERSON:  We were at the point where, I think, you had finished Commissioner Gugini.

5115     COMMISSIONER CUGINI:  Yes, thank you.

5116     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Woodhead.

5117     MR. WOODHEAD:  Mr. McArthur had a comment that he thought of during the break, and before Commissioner Cram starts, could he inject that comment?

5118     THE CHAIRPERSON:  All break comments are welcome.

5119     MR. McARTHUR:  I would like to express that the operation of the DNCL is a balancing act, and I am familiar with balancing acts from the wording in the privacy legislation, "balancing the rights of Canadians with the needs of business," and I see this as a very similar balancing act.

5120     We have, on the one hand, the interests of business, in terms of growing and thriving in the Canadian economy, and certainly employing Canadians in their telemarketing activities, but the need for businesses to grow and thrive is contrasted with the rights of Canadians to control, to some extent, how they are contacted.

5121     I think, over the first three years of this regime, there is going to be a lot of learning for both parties, and we want to ensure that, in the guidelines and the thinking and jurisprudence of the Commission in assessing fines and notices and penalties, that is foremost in the mind, that there is a continuum, that there is learning on behalf of both Canadians and businesses in terms of what it is to comply.

5122     There will be, as we go through that, guidance issued through notices and decisions and other things, but there is always that balance in mind.

5123     The one piece of information, I think, that is valid, is that telemarketing, when done appropriately ‑‑ and, as we look across the companies, it isn't 97 percent of our customers who do not want to be contacted.  We have been operating "do not contact" lists for a number of years, and it is less than 10 percent of our customers who have expressed a desire to not be contacted.

5124     In that context, in balancing the needs of both business and the rights of Canadians, I think it is worthwhile to bear in mind.

5125     Thank you.

5126     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Commissioner Cram.

5127     COMMISSIONER CRAM:  Thank you, gentlemen, and Ms Crowe.

5128     First, I want to start with what I will call the Obermeyer ideas, especially the ideas for the smaller ‑‑ I forget, Martha's something or other ‑‑

5129     MR. COLLYER:  Martha's Flower Shop.

5130     COMMISSIONER CRAM:  Yes.

5131     Is something like that feasible?

5132     MR. COLLYER:  I personally think so.

5133     It will all come down to how, through CISC, we actually decide how we are going to build this beast.  But I certainly think that for people who are making relatively few calls, or are manually making calls ‑‑

5134     We are sitting here as a collective, as a company, and we have diallers who are making calls on our behalf, and we are preparing lists in the order of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of records to put into those diallers.

5135     For someone who is making a few calls, I think there should be a scalable ‑‑ entry level, if that is the phrase you want to use ‑‑ way for them to ensure that they are in compliance.

5136     I actually think that the green light/red light idea has merit.

5137     COMMISSIONER CRAM:  What about the larger one that he was talking about?

5138     I understand that the technology exists and is being used in the U.S., but I think the objection was that it was costly.

5139     MR. COLLYER:  Yes.  Mr. Obermeyer made reference to this.  All of us, as telcos, are bound by legacy systems.  The core of my operating system at Bell Canada dates back to the sixties.  I like to call it a Christmas tree.

5140     We started out with a beautiful Christmas tree in 1964, and then we kept putting decorations on it.  Every year we went down to ‑‑ at the time, I guess, Simpsons or Eaton's ‑‑ and got decorations.

5141     We just kept piling decorations on the tree, and then, eventually, the tree started to warp in its shape.  Anytime we wanted to change the tree, we had to wade through layers and layers of these decorations to actually get at the core of the tree.

5142     We are continuing to put decorations on that tree.  It doesn't even look like a tree, it is just this big giant ball of glitter.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

5143     MR. COLLYER:  That, in laymen's terms, is really the system architecture that we have.

5144     The challenge that we would have with Mr. Obermeyer's suggestion would be to actually get to the core of our collective trees here and build that pathway in a cost‑effective manner.

5145     I have built long distance billing solutions, and we are working through our price caps proposal right now, in terms of implementation, and it is, I would say, obscenely expensive.  It is unreasonably expensive for us to do these things.

5146     And to have that sort of real‑time compliance, I can see that being extraordinarily, extraordinarily expensive.

5147     COMMISSIONER CRAM:  One would suppose, though, that maybe in three years the technology would become, as with everything ‑‑

5148     MR. COLLYER:  I don't think that technology will morph that much.  It may actually become easier.

5149     At the end of the day, though, it still has to talk to our big ball of glitter, which won't be updated in three years.  That is our biggest challenge.

5150     COMMISSIONER CRAM:  So the problem isn't the software, which is available ‑‑ the problem isn't that it is expensive, it is the issue of the legacy networks.

5151     MR. COLLYER:  Exactly.  It is how you would integrate what would be a very simple software application.

5152     You have a telemarketing record.  Is it on the list?  "Yes/No."  That is a very simple solution.

5153     It is integrating that "Yes/No" back into all of our systems so that we are able to appropriately capture that, yes, this person is on the list; no, they are not on the list, and dates and all of that sort of stuff.  That is where it becomes very complex.

5154     COMMISSIONER CRAM:  Do you have any problem with a 30 or 31‑day grace period?

‑‑‑ Pause / Pause

5155     MR. COLLYER:  Yes.

5156     I don't want to sound like I am on the fence.  I will actually hop off now.

5157     COMMISSIONER CRAM:  You are doing it, though.

5158     MR. COLLYER:  We are.

5159     We have a real challenge in terms of working with outsourced telemarketing providers.  A lot of our service level agreements say that, generally, 14 days to a week prior to the start of the calling month we have our lists prepared and sent over to them.

5160     Theoretically, that is the last kind of scrubbing that we are going to be able to do, immediately prior to shipping the list, based on what our service level agreement is.

5161     They will run with the list.

5162     The difference, at least in Bell Canada's experience, and I would expect that I am speaking on behalf of all the companies, is that we don't carry callbacks into the next month.  We actually try to complete them at the end of the month, so as of the 31st of the month the list is done and it is returned.

5163     COMMISSIONER CRAM:  The major problem, then, is the outsourcing.

5164     MR. COLLYER:  Yes.  When we used to do more of our telemarketing in‑house, it used to be quite simple, we would go and pull a list.  But when we are using vendors who are out of province, who are further afield, it becomes more difficult.

5165     And their service level agreements say that, in order for them ‑‑ because they are being rewarded on the number of sales they are getting per list.  If we have to stop them in the middle of the list and pull the list back and do a refresh on it and hand it back to them, that actually impacts their telemarketing efficiency.

5166     COMMISSIONER CRAM:  Mr. Woodhead, when you were talking with one of my colleagues ‑‑ I can't remember ‑‑ you were talking about our ability to publicize offenders ‑‑ and it is in the Act.  Are you suggesting that there should be limits on that?

5167     To me, that is far more than what has been said at the LSUC conference to be very small fines.  To me, the ability to publicize who has offended is probably the major deterrent, I would think.

5168     Are you suggesting that there should be limits on that?

5169     MR. WOODHEAD:  To be honest with you, I hadn't really thought of that in terms of what I was trying to say.

5170     What I was trying to say was that the Commission has a fairly deep and broad tool kit for remedies, and it is provided for in the Act that you can do that.

5171     As to what limits, I don't know.  Do you want to take out billboard space, or put it on the big screen at Times Square?

5172     I don't know ‑‑

5173     COMMISSIONER CRAM:  I think that media releases would be ‑‑

5174     MR. WOODHEAD:  Yes, I mean ‑‑

5175     COMMISSIONER CRAM:  "We caught TELUS."

5176     MR. WOODHEAD:  The Commission keeps all kinds of lists of things on its website.  Whether you put out media releases ‑‑

5177     Part of that, to be perfectly honest with you, would be in what role ‑‑

5178     Again, when the Commissioners decide on the first one of these things, there will be a whole pile of plans, I would assume, and it is how you communicate it (a) to the person or the organization that was the offender, and how you communicate that to the public at large.

5179     It is for you to decide, but there are, obviously, a variety of things you could do.

5180     I believe that Mr. McArthur has something to add.

5181     MR. McARTHUR:  Again, I hearken back to an element of the privacy legislation in Canada.

5182     While, on the federal case, there is generally no naming of names, but that is certainly a capability that the federal Privacy Commissioner has, I would note that many companies abide by rulings that don't apply to them in terms of federal privacy legislation.

5183     In other words, the federal Privacy Commissioner publishes a finding on their website.  The reputable firms across Canada, who are trying to grow their businesses in appropriate ways, pay attention to that, make modifications to their processes, and find ways to comply with the law voluntarily.  It isn't a way of compelling people to do it.

5184     A great deal of the marketplace will comply with a notice put on a website that says, "This is a recommended best practice for telemarketers."

5185     Then, in those exceptions where it is deemed appropriate by the Commissioner, the naming of names can occur.

5186     COMMISSIONER CRAM:  I want to talk about the three‑year expiry issue.  To me, it comes down to an issue of costs, if we can make the DNCL affordable with a three‑year expiry.

5187     In your talk today you talked about affordability, and then, out of the other side of your mouth, you said that you wanted it to expire every three years.

5188     Given your 85 percent rate, that is very feasible for Bell, but I am wondering if that would be feasible for the majority of telemarketers.

5189     I have no idea of the cost escalation between an infinity list and a three‑year list.

5190     What would you think of us saying that the list could either be until infinity or three years, depending on the majority of subscribers to the list ‑‑ depending on their option?

5191     In other words, telemarketers look at the affordability issue and they say, "Oh, my God, I can't afford the three year one, so I will go for infinity."  If the majority of those went for infinity, the list would go for infinity.

5192     Or, if the majority of telemarketers see it in their best interest, and see it as profitable for a three‑year list, they would opt for a three‑year list.

5193     At the end of the day, the majority would rule.

5194     What do you think?

5195     I have everybody whispering.

5196     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Sidebars.

5197     MR. COLLYER:  Unfortunately, it is kind of like herding cats on this side of the table.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

5198     MR. COLLYER:  I think our original position is that three years is a reasonable measure.  It aligns to what is currently in place in the market with the CMA list, and the CMA is governing best practice, and, as members of the CMA, we fully support it.

5199     I think that if you put that question to telemarketers, they would all come back and say three years, because they are in the business of contacting customers.

5200     COMMISSIONER CRAM:  But then they will turn around, like you have, and say that there is a great possibility that the "do not call" list is not feasible economically.

5201     MR. COLLYER:  I think that ‑‑ and this is more, sort of, solution engineering, thinking about how we would put this forward ‑‑ we would be looking at having a telephone number and a date in, in terms of the record fields that we would be maintaining in terms of managing the list.

5202     With only two data fields ‑‑ going back to Mr. Obermeyer's presentation, instead of 2 pennies we have 4 pennies.

5203     To be honest, that would actually, I think, keep our costs quite down.

5204     I think, really, where we are worried about costs is when we start talking about validating whether a customer is a consumer segment customer or a business segment customer, or whether it is a wireless form, and then there are all of those validations that you have to do with legacy systems.

5205     What do you do if I don't have a telephone number?  Do I have to farm it out to TELUS because it might be a TELUS number ‑‑ and so on, just trying to populate the list well.

5206     I think we could have an inward date from which we could count three years' time, and I think it would still be very, very affordable from a solution perspective.

5207     COMMISSIONER CRAM:  On page 3, at the second sub 3, third party costs ‑‑ and this is modifying systems to establish a data feed ‑‑ you talk about costs.  How much?

5208     MR. COLLYER:  I think that a lot of that will depend on what CISC decides, and what we decide as appellants, and the Commission, as to how this list will look.

5209     COMMISSIONER CRAM:  Okay.  Best scenario; worst scenario.

5210     MR. COLLYER:  Horribly expensive and terribly expensive.

5211     The best case scenario, if it is just a flat file data feed that is, really, two columns of information, telephone number and date, probably modifications for us would be in the order of $1 million or so, to try to accommodate this.

5212     Worst case scenario ‑‑ if we are talking about the solution that Mr. Obermeyer proposed with respect to live data feeds and everything else, that is beyond my expertise as a product marketing manager to estimate, but wildly expensive.  Tens of millions of dollars.  Just because of all the cross‑systems that we would be looking at updating, and all of the various corners of the company that we would be looking at doing it in.

5213     You are not only looking at the consumer segment, you would be looking at S&B and enterprise, because, potentially, those numbers could be there.  You would be looking at wireless.

5214     Currently, the way that our systems are set up, wireless and wireline don't talk to each other.  So we are going to be building all of these data bridges everywhere, and that becomes inordinately expensive.

5215     COMMISSIONER CRAM:  You were talking about publicity, and you said that the company should not be primarily responsible, it should be telemarketers in the federal government.

5216     As a telemarketer, what is your communications plan?  What are you going to do to publicize?

5217     MR. COLLYER:  I think there are plenty of things that we could do with respect to education and training within our channels, so that they know they can actually talk to customers and handle customer requests.

5218     We certainly have Bell Media available to us, informational messaging that appears directly on your bill.

5219     COMMISSIONER CRAM:  Do you have a budget and a plan?

5220     MR. COLLYER:  We haven't, just because we don't know what it would be.

5221     Obviously, we will try to do this as cost effectively as we possibly can, just because our discretionary marketing dollars are very, very scarce.

5222     What we will be trying to do is look at, as a telemarketing company, what is the way that I can reach the broadest number of customers to communicate this to, without incurring huge amounts of cost.

5223     COMMISSIONER CRAM:  You could always voicecast it.

5224     MR. COLLYER:  No.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

5225     COMMISSIONER CRAM:  All right.  Here is the converse of Bernard Shaw.  We have been regulating telemarketing forever.  I am not going to talk about the efficacy of it, but we have been, and the telephone companies have been paying us for our regulation, including regulating telemarketing.

5226     The only difference now is a difference in quantum.

5227     So how can you justify saying that you shouldn't pay when you have been paying for our regulating of telemarketing?

5228     MR. PALMER:  I think there is an important difference, though, that has changed with Bill C‑37, in that the Commission now has powers and broader tools directly available to itself ‑‑

5229     COMMISSIONER CRAM:  So it can be effective.

5230     MR. PALMER:  ‑‑ to regulate telemarketers.

5231     Prior to Bill C‑37, the Commission did not have a direct way of reaching out to telemarketers, and it accomplished the regulation of telemarketers through the telephone companies and through their tariffs.

5232     I think, with this change in the framework under which the Commission can now get at telemarketers, the role for the telephone companies, from what we see, has been removed.

5233     COMMISSIONER CRAM:  You had no problem paying us to regulate telemarketing when we were ineffective.  You are now having problems paying us to regulate telemarketing because we can be effective.

5234     Is that your rationale?

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

5235     MR. McARTHUR:  I will take the first shot, and I think that Ted will have something to add.

5236     COMMISSIONER CRAM:  It is a serious question.  The philosophical reasoning is difficult for me to understand.

5237     MR. McARTHUR:  I think it would be fair to say that the Commission's regulation of telemarketing was done through the tools that were available at the time, and that tool was through the regulated telecommunications service providers.

5238     So given the tools that were available, you use the tools in the kit bag you have.

5239     So, yes, you have been trying to regulate telemarketing through the telecommunications service providers.

5240     The reality in the marketplace now is that we aren't the only mechanism by which telemarketing is conducted, and, at the same time, many communities in Canada are offering incentives to telemarketing firms to locate in their own areas and set up communications infrastructure, outside our domain in many cases, to operate telemarketing operations and to attract those kinds of businesses for employment in their communities.

5241     I guess that maybe the efficacy could be attributed to the inability to control the marketplace through the telecom service providers, when it is much more broadly utilized throughout Canadian business.

5242     COMMISSIONER CRAM:  What you are really saying, then, is that we should have charged telemarketers when telemarketing became a viable business ‑‑ had a viable business case.

5243     MR. WOODHEAD:  I don't think you had the ability to do that.

5244     What this statutory amendment gives you is the ability to reach out and touch the people who are involved in this business.

5245     It is one of these sort of historical kinds of arguments that people in the Commission have grappled with for a number of years.  When the only tool you had was the ILEC tariff to reach out and touch resellers, that's what was done, because that was the only way to impose requirements, through ILEC tariffs, on resellers of services provided under those tariffs.

5246     So all manner of things have been required by the Commission through ILEC tariffs.

5247     From my perspective ‑‑ and someone else can chime in here ‑‑ what this opportunity provides you in Bill C‑37, once it is proclaimed, is to establish a database, to direct a database to be established, to set the rules for who will access it, and, in addition to that, be able to establish a cost recovery scheme that will fairly distribute those costs, which, incidentally ‑‑ and I don't want to mix it up with the contribution thing, but the contribution mechanism and the way that the fees are collected is, quite frankly, one of the most innovative mechanisms in the world.

5248     COMMISSIONER CRAM:  I was on that panel.  Thanks.

5249     MR. WOODHEAD:  Indeed, you were.

5250     My point is, the thing that works with that is that the fees have been spread across ‑‑ the subsidy has been spread across the largest number of people.

5251     I am not going to sit here and say we are just wee telemarketers here at this table.  Yes, we are substantial telemarketers but we are not the only telemarketers.

5252     There are a lot of other companies that are much larger even than the companies that are sitting here that telemarket far more frequently and directly to the public than we do and those people should bear their fair share of those costs.

5253     I think that is the kind of message that we are trying to leave you with.

5254     COMMISSIONER CRAM:  Thank you.  I will read the transcript to see if I can understand what you really said, Mr. Woodhead, because that was a lengthy ‑‑ because philosophically I am worried about what the difference is between the two.

5255     I take it that the other issues about the government paying that you will be speaking to the government.  Thank you.

5256     Thank you, Mr. Chair.

5257     THE CHAIRPERSON:  You ‑‑ maybe this is a question principally for Mr. Collyer ‑‑ you use predictive dialling?

5258     MR. COLLYER:  Yes, we do.

5259     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Could you help us a little because we haven't had much testimony ‑‑ I would just like to hear about your views on the regulation of dead air by the Commission.

5260     Let me start with saying I presume that your telemarketing managers can have data that indicate to them whether you lose calls because of dead air and what percentage of dead air?

5261     MR. COLLYER:  Yes.

5262     THE CHAIRPERSON:  I don't pretend to be a specialist.  Help me a little understand how you manage it now and what you would think would be reasonable in the way of Commission requirements if you think Commission requirements would be useful.

5263     MR. COLLYER:  I think Commission requirements are useful.  We support the 5 per cent that has been put forward and has already been established.

5264     Basically what that measure is measuring is truly an abandoned call, which is ‑‑ what happens is the dialler dials out, predictively assuming that an agent is going to be free in the field to speak to a customer, we get the customer online, the customer is listening to the dead air and the customer hangs up prior to the call being answered by an available agent.  That is what is an abandoned call and that actually ladders up into that 5 per cent.

5265     Now, there is no minimum, or at least the way that Bell Canada measures it there is no minimum or maximum time to what that could be.  That in theory could be ‑‑ I pick up the phone, I see in the call display and I put the phone down ‑‑ so, you know, a half second of air time.  It could be that.  It could be a couple of seconds.  It could be five seconds.  It could be 10 seconds.

5266     So there is no duration measurement there.  It is just that the customer disconnected prior to a rep being available to answer a call.

5267     Now, I don't know if you as commissioners are familiar with how predictive diallers work and if you would find that useful for me to go through.

5268     THE CHAIRPERSON:  No, I think we understand how in general they work.

5269     MR. COLLYER:  Okay.

5270     THE CHAIRPERSON:  It is more the policing of this particular dimension that I am interested in and ‑‑

5271     MR. COLLYER:  Well ‑‑

5272     THE CHAIRPERSON:  ‑‑ I ‑‑ I am sorry.

5273     MR. COLLYER:  I am sorry.  No, go ahead.

5274     THE CHAIRPERSON:  I retain that you are supportive of the 5 per cent standard, you think it is reasonable?

5275     MR. COLLYER:  I think it is reasonable.

5276     I heard from Mr. Lawford the request for 3 per cent based on the U.S. standard.  I would argue against that, the only reason being is that as with everything in the United States ‑‑ you know, just multiply it by 10, Canada times 10, and that is what you get with the United States ‑‑ telemarketing operations numbers of available agents and efficiencies are that much larger.

5277     So if we go back to Contact New Brunswick and that was Rainmakers' operation where I believe he said he had 125 agents ‑‑

5278     THE CHAIRPERSON:  One hundred and fifty.

5279     MR. COLLYER:  ‑‑ 150 agents over four locations.  Basically, he has got, you know, 37 and a half head count on switch answering calls.

5280     When you are using predictive dialler with a smaller base of CSRs making those calls, the opportunity for, you know, an abandoned call actually is higher.

5281     If you were working in, you know, a 1,000‑, 2,000‑, 3,000‑seat call centre over potentially multiple locations ‑‑ you know, I am not saying that there are factories of 3,000 people in the States calling hither, thither and yon but they are all tied into the same dialler over multiple locations.  You know, you can get actually get that efficiency level down to about 3 per cent.

5282     Generally at Bell ‑‑ and I actually came through the telemarketing organization ‑‑ if we were running a bad list, and basically it would be a lot of answering machines, a lot of just unable to reach customers, we were averaging around 4 per cent in terms of our dialler efficiency from an abandonment rate.

5283     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.

5284     On the list that you run, the internal DNC list, you have it for three years, then you call a customer and say, we know you have been on the list, would you like to come off the list and receive our calls, in essence?

5285     MR. COLLYER:  Well, not ‑‑ it is not as simple as that.  You know, we aren't looking every month and saying, oh goody, we have got another 60,000 customers that we can call.

5286     I mean if they fit into a campaign that we are running, we will actually create a sub‑cell for those and generally we will actually put those calls through skills‑based writing to a senior or seasoned telemarketing rep just because the call probably ‑‑ potentially, I won't say probably ‑‑ potentially can be a little bit tricky.

5287     So if we have got a campaign that actually we can fit those customers in, you know, we will place the call.  We will have specialized scripting for those calls to acknowledge the fact that they have been on our internal do not call list and basically right up front we gain permission from the customer to proceed into the call.

5288     And if they don't want to hear us, we are more than pleased to actually remind them that we will put them back on the list effective today, that will last for three years and, you know, talk to you soon, and, you know, always you are available to call us.

5289     THE CHAIRPERSON:  So you don't systematically call everyone at a ‑‑ you don't gather up a three‑year horizon over six months and then systematically call them all?

5290     MR. COLLYER:  We don't have enough records to actually do that.  The number of customers that we have got is quite small.

5291     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Do you scrub the list with numbers that are no longer active?

5292     MR. COLLYER:  Well, being the telephone company, yes, we actually have that available to us.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

5293     THE CHAIRPERSON:  So the answer to the question is yes?

5294     MR. COLLYER:  Yes.  Yes.

5295     THE CHAIRPERSON:  And how much does it cost?

5296     MR. COLLYER:  It is basically built into our system.  Everything is ‑‑ no, not millions.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

5297     MR. COLLYER:  Everything is tied into an active BTN or billing telephone number.  So if a telephone number is not active, it is not available to us as a campaign, so we naturally exclude it.

5298     THE CHAIRPERSON:  And in your mind, it would be very substantially more expensive, so much more expensive than you thought it worthwhile bringing to our attention today, to recycle numbers on, say, a monthly basis to a DNC so that the do not call list could be purged of numbers which are no longer active?

‑‑‑ Off record discussion / Discussion officieuse

5299     MR. COLLYER:  I am sorry, can you ‑‑

5300     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Maybe I misunderstood.

5301     MR. COLLYER:  Can you rephrase the question?

5302     THE CHAIRPERSON:  I understood you to say that the issue of whether or not the telcos would be ‑‑ or all local service providers would be required to recycle ‑‑ would be required to provide lists of no longer active numbers, inactive numbers ‑‑

5303     MR. COLLYER:  Okay.

5304     THE CHAIRPERSON:  ‑‑ on a periodic basis to the do not call list would be very costly.  That is what I understood you to have said.  I might have completely misunderstood.

5305     MR. COLLYER:  Oh no, no, I don't think I said that.  I mean there will be costs associated with that but I don't believe I said that.

5306     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes, it wasn't you who necessarily said it, it was ‑‑

5307     MR. COLLYER:  I may have misspoke.  I mean there will be costs associated with it but I mean ‑‑

5308     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Well, let me read it to you and you tell me what you said.

"Certain third parties may be asked as part of the DNCL implementation to take on functions in support of the DNCL regime.  One specific example is that some parties have proposed that telephone companies modify their systems to establish a data feed to the DNCL operator of all telephone numbers that are disconnected from service.  This information will be used to scrub the DNCL of numbers that are no longer in use.  Now, this specific case has not been accepted by the Commission at this point but if it is, parties who would be incurring one‑time and ongoing costs to support the DNCL should also be eligible to recover these costs through the DNCL cost‑recovery plan."  (As read)

5309     MR. COLLYER:  Yes, okay.  Correct.  I did say that, yes.

5310     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Okay.

5311     Now, I am asking you, I guess, if it is not expensive to do that relative to your own list, why would the expense be so high that you would feel it was necessary to bring it to our attention at this point if you had to do it for a national list?

‑‑‑ Off record discussion / Discussion officieuse

5312     MR. COLLYER:  Again, I guess, maybe it just goes down to our ability to merge and purge those ‑‑ the list.

5313     I mean ‑‑ I guess, for example, if we were just to supply a list of disconnected numbers to the DNCL operator and the DNCL operator did with it what it chose to do with it, I think it would, you know, be actually quite simple and quite cost‑effective to do.

5314     If, you know, through the committee we determined that we wanted to have, you know, automated feeds and really sort of technical bulletproof‑type solutions to actually go ahead and do it, that is actually where we get into costs.

5315     So I guess it is really what it is that we want to design here and I think what we are looking to try and do is, depending on the collective wisdom here, what it is that we do design from a DNCL perspective, the companies wish to be able to recover their costs as reasonable to support that because it is going to result in a better list for everybody.

5316     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Okay.  So I guess I retain that you will be participating enthusiastically and with a clear set of objectives in the operations and other groups that we have set up under CISC?

5317     MR. COLLYER:  I am definitely available and we definitely are participating.

5318     THE CHAIRPERSON:  And for the moment you wouldn't be in a position to substantiate the necessity ‑‑ you wouldn't claim that a requirement to have lists of numbers, on a periodic basis, which are no longer active, with an ultimate objective of removing those numbers or an immediate objective of removing those numbers from the do not call list, that would be, ipso facto, a burden that would be unfair and unreasonable for you to bear, it would all depend on how that requirement was defined?

5319     MR. COLLYER:  Exactly, and that is really what it is.  If it is as simple as us just providing the list to the operator and the operator does with it what they choose with it, that is, you know, a handshake and an envelope being passed back and forth basically.

5320     COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  Not in Ottawa.  We don't do that in Ottawa.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

5321     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Well, let us talk about the more general question of costs.

5322     Let me make it clear first that there seems to be a difference of legal opinion between your legal advisors and our legal advisors.

5323     The Commission's expressed ‑‑ "intention" is a strong word.  The Commission's expressed policy of needing to require its own costs ‑‑ we are not now talking about the list operation costs ‑‑ from the telephone companies is, I am told, a requirement based on the fact that our legal advisors' interpretation of the Act suggests that CRTC expenses associated with telemarketing are not recoverable through the list operator from the telemarketers.

5324     So I simply note, unless there is a point of view otherwise, that it was not because we said to ourselves one morning, or at least not because I said to myself one morning, gee, it would be fun to charge the telcos even more for this, but rather because we felt at this stage legally we didn't have a choice.

5325     I just think it would be useful to have that discussion between your legal advisors and our legal advisors.

5326     MR. WOODHEAD:  We would be more than happy to have that discussion but in case ‑‑ I assume this was raised by something I have said.

5327     I don't believe I suggested that the Commission's incremental costs would be recovered through necessarily the DNCL operator.

5328     I mean a lot of this is up in the air because we don't know what the Commission's incremental costs will be, we don't know what the Commission's involvement will be.

5329     The Commission recovers the costs of its adjudicating function through fees and I know you are looking at ‑‑ you can point me ‑‑

5330     THE CHAIRPERSON:  I have this sort of naive belief that when you said it in your presentation that is what you mean.

5331     MR. WOODHEAD:  Well, I didn't say it but just point me to where ‑‑

5332     THE CHAIRPERSON:  We are on page 3 in the middle:

"It would be much appropriate for the Commission's costs to also be funded from the broader telemarketing industry."  (As read)

5333     And I don't have an argument of principle, I am just ‑‑

5334     MR. WOODHEAD:  Yes.  No, I ‑‑

5335     THE CHAIRPERSON:  ‑‑ trying to convey to you, Mr. Woodhead, that my understanding is that we don't have that liberty because of the way the law is written, and your legal advisors would appear to feel otherwise, and that is very interesting.

5336     MR. WOODHEAD:  We would have to take that under advisement and think about it.

5337     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes.  I mean I am not ‑‑ I am noting that your legal advisors have advised you of the possibility that our legal advisors have advised us it is not a possibility, so offline let us please talk about it.

5338     I am also underlining for your benefit that it is not de gaieté de coeur, as we say in French, that we have included this in our PN, it is because we don't think we have a choice and we want to be honest with Canadians and with yourselves.

5339     MR. WOODHEAD:  Life is full of conflicts.

5340     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Indeed.

5341     A final question.  What are your plans to convey to the government your views that budgetary appropriations would be appropriate for much of the initial costs associated here?

5342     MR. WOODHEAD:  We have and a variety of other parties, to my knowledge, have met with officials from Industry Canada to lay out a case for appropriations and further involvement by government.

5343     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes.  I would just like to say in that regard that we appreciate your point of view and you have every right to express it to us.  You mustn't feel that having expressed it to us you have expressed it to anyone who has any leverage whatsoever in the government's budgetary process.

5344     MR. WOODHEAD:  We are aware of that and we are not here asking for you to seek stuff from Treasury Board or whatever.  We are dealing directly with Industry Canada on that.

5345     THE CHAIRPERSON:  I am just going to ask, colleagues, anything further?

5346     COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  No, I am fine, thank you.

5347     THE CHAIRPERSON:  There are very important deliberations going on.

5348     Counsel, any questions?

5349     MR. MILLINGTON:  Oh, yes.  I beg your pardon.  I was being ‑‑ another sidebar.  Yes.

5350     I would like to start with page 7, paragraph 25, and the verification of numbers and relate to that business customers' registrations.

5351     I am just looking for suggestions as to whether you have any ideas as to a cost‑effective and an efficient, reliable way of doing registrations of businesses.

5352     I understand it is simpler with customers, residential customers, but I am wondering if there is available with respect to business customers something that is as relatively cost‑effective and equally efficient in terms ‑‑

5353     I mean you were discussing that script that you have when you deal with somebody whose name is associated with a telephone number and you have to get verification from the person that is identified and only that person can make changes to the services associated with that telephone number, as an example.

5354     Is there a comparable kind of process that could be used for businesses that wouldn't drive costs very high but would be equally efficient?

5355     MR. McARTHUR:  If I could just clarify, the question then is as it relates to a consumer registering on the do not call list ‑‑

5356     MR. MILLINGTON:  Yes.

5357     MR. McARTHUR:  ‑‑ and you would confirm that it was appropriate individual that was registering that number on the do not call list, how would that occur for a business?

5358     MR. MILLINGTON:  Exactly.

5359     MR. McARTHUR:  Our position was that it is fundamentally consumer‑based and we indicated earlier that the definition of "telemarketing" might want to be indicated that it is telemarketing to consumers.

5360     Our position was not that it was ‑‑ a number on the list was not identified as a business or a consumer.  A number is a number.  All there is on the list is numbers, very simply, and it was not a registration process for a business per se.

5361     MR. MILLINGTON:  No, I understand that but ‑‑

5362     MR. PALMER:  Could I ‑‑

5363     MR. MILLINGTON:  Yes.

5364     MR. PALMER:  If I could as well perhaps just challenge the premise underlying the question, that there is a cost‑effective way of verifying that consumers or that authorized parties for consumers are registering.

5365     COMMISSIONER CRAM:  I am sorry, could you repeat your answer and put your ‑‑

5366     MR. PALMER:  I will try to get a little bit closer to the mic.

5367     COMMISSIONER CRAM:  ‑‑ one inch from the mic or ‑‑

5368     MR. PALMER:  Yes.  My comment was just to challenge the premise of the question that there is in fact a cost‑effective means of verifying that consumers or authorized persons representing consumer numbers are registering.

5369     We are not convinced that is the case in particular with respect to registrations over the internet.  This is one the items being debated in CISC, is whether there is in fact a cost‑effective means of doing that.

5370     Our overall view is, as Drew pointed out, a number is a number is a number, keep the whole system simple, and at this point we are on the page that let us not bother with verifying or validating who is registering a particular number, just accept the number and deal with it.

5371     MR. MILLINGTON:  Okay.  So then that would work for a business.  If a business supplied the number, it would be treated in the same way, just some data, as it would for a residential subscriber.

5372     But in terms of accepting the number into the registry, there would need to be some verification that the person who is supplying that number is authorized to do so.

5373     MR. COLLYER:  I think the validation question that we were talking about was for our own internal do not call list at Bell Canada.

5374     As far as the national do not call registry, we just see that as being either an IBR or a web interface that accepts numbers with no validation.

5375     MR. MILLINGTON:  Okay.  So you don't have any ‑‑

5376     MR. COLLYER:  The potential of calling line ID, you know, matching, or a reply e‑mail matching that comes in off the website, and these are the things that are being worked out at CISC right now.

5377     MR. MILLINGTON:  Right.

5378     And in the context of those CISC discussions, is there any advice that you can give us about the efficacy of a verification program to be able to assure the DNCL operator that the person registering the business number is really duly empowered to do so?

5379     MR. COLLYER:  As I say, I think we have asked for the business‑to‑business exemption.  So I mean that point would be moot.

5380     But I mean we aren't proposing to get into validation schemes or regimes just because it is going to make this thing just incrementally that much more complex and then, ergo, more expensive.

5381     MR. MILLINGTON:  Okay, I think this has been touched on a couple of times, it is in your presentation in footnote 5 on page 8 with respect to cleansing the list every 30 days.  And is it still your position that that is feasible, that the list can be purged every 30 days?

5382     MR. COLLYER:  Yes.

5383     MR. MILLINGTON:  And so notwithstanding the comments of what Rogers went into yesterday in terms of their 60‑day program?

5384     MR. COLLYER:  I mean it is difficult and optimally we would, you know, prefer to have 60 days just because we have contractual arrangements.  And I know that Rogers got the undertaking as to, you know, how could they crunch down their little time chart.  I mean, we would be able to make those same time reductions as well.  I mean, the big challenge that we have here is do we have some sort of online validation with the list operator and we are able to do things real time or if, you know, in the case of, you know, most telemarketing shops they are reliant on having their lists packaged to them and handed to them and just run with all of the pre‑work done.  Well I mean that, you know, contractually will take time.

5385     And then, you know, there is the actual efficiency of the telemarketing operation as is.

5386     MR. MILLINGTON:  But what you seem to be saying though is that with structuring your business appropriately to deal with a 30‑day time limit, it is possible.

5387     MR. COLLYER:  It is possible.  I think for the companies ‑‑ I mean, it would not be our preference and ‑‑

5388     MR. MILLINGTON:  I understand, but it is possible.

5389     MR. COLLYER:  ‑‑ it is possible and then, you know, also just looking at a broader telemarketing industry where I do have a little bit of experience.  I mean, smaller operators I think that, in particular, are reliant on, you know, larger companies that are purchasing their services to provide lists to them, they are going to be unfairly impacted just because of, you know, when the list is not in the dialler dialling and, you know, Rogers made the case with respect to when, you know, the list is not on the dialler they don't have reps in their chairs, I mean you are not calling.

5390     MR. MILLINGTON:  Have you turned your minds at all to the threshold that would qualify somebody as a chronic offender that you reference in paragraph 95 on page 24 who would there're be subject to disconnection?  Because this is something ‑‑ the disconnection is there today, it is something that you have indicated that you would like to move away from, but you reserve the sanction for what you call chronic offenders.  Have you got some colour around what a chronic offender would look like in your view?

5391     MR. COLLYER:  No.

5392     MR. MILLINGTON:  Okay.

5393     COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  That was your chance to say Ted Rogers and you blew it.  There goes your Christmas bonus.

5394     MR. MILLINGTON:  The list of circumstances where you wouldn't warrant a full investigation, which is set out in paragraph 100 on page 25, I am wondering if that is an area if we got into the realm of consent forms, whether that would be an appropriate placement of that defence if you like, when somebody has obtained the consent from the party that has been called?  Is that where it would sort of shutdown the investigation?

5395     MR. WOODHEAD:  If the party had an express consent?

5396     MR. MILLINGTON:  Right.

5397     MR. WOODHEAD:  Yes.

5398     MR. MILLINGTON:  Okay.  And you indicated that the storage retrieval of consent forms would be cumbersome, there was a record keeping associated with consent forms.  However, they would seem to be useful in a certain number of circumstances.  Is there a use ‑‑ is it your evidence today that you couldn't really accommodate the kind of consent forms that are envisaged in the insurance industry where people tick off boxes and sign at the bottom and send them in?  Is that something that is just way too much?

5399     MR. COLLYER:  Well you know I am thinking, you know, about Bell Canada where we have, you know, I think 25 million plus customer connections.  You know, in theory that is potentially a lot of paper that we actually have to store.  So that is why we would be looking at, you know, the already approved versions of electronic consent, just to cut down on that.

5400     MR. MILLINGTON:  So if we had ‑‑ but if express written consent, did include something that was electronic that would be something that you could accommodate then?

5401     MR. COLLYER:  Oh absolutely, yes.

5402     MR. MILLINGTON:  So that would be something.  The record keeping of the consent ‑‑

5403     MR. COLLYER:  Yes.

5404     MR. MILLINGTON:  ‑‑ is a factor that we should consider in terms of what forms of the consent we require.

5405     MR. COLLYER:  Exactly.  I mean you know I think, you know, for those companies that are comfortable working with paper, I mean certainly that should be available to them.  But, you know, the option of having some acceptable form of electronic consent I think would be quite agreeable to most large enterprises.

5406     MR. MILLINGTON:  Okay.  Under the enforcement provisions towards the end of your submission on page 43, paragraph 159 I believe it is ‑‑ let me just flip over there ‑‑ we talk about or you talk about an oral hearing and, you know, this is when you are getting into a ‑‑ at the sort of most serious type of violation.  I am wondering whether you thought what kind of oral hearing that would be like.  Would that be like what we know now as the expedited hearing?  And if you are talking about cross‑examination of witnesses, would you assume that witnesses would be sworn and it would have all of those kind of features in it?

5407     MR. WOODHEAD:  Yes.

5408     MR. MILLINGTON:  So that is ‑‑ you are thinking of a full blown..?

5409     MR. WOODHEAD:  Yes.

5410     MR. MILLINGTON:  But nothing ‑‑ anything more than what we do at the expedite with say sworn testimony?

5411     MR. WOODHEAD:  No, I don't think so.  Sworn testimony, what we were trying to layout was a package here of procedural rights and in terms of the actual structure of the hearing I would think that you would need sworn testimony, sufficient time given to make the representation or case that the defence wants to make.

5412     MR. MILLINGTON:  Okay.

5413     MR. WOODHEAD:  Including, apparently, the defences of drunkenness and automatism.

5414     MR. MILLINGTON:  Well, I guess if we open to the creativity of defence counsel.

5415     In this CMA's remarks they submitted on page 5, I will read you the section, it is about half or about three‑quarters of the way down.  They say,

"In introducing Bill C‑37 on December 13, 2004 the Ministry of Industry stated that funding for the operation of the list would be obtained on a cost recovery basis from the telemarketers."

I think their position was to read down to the legislation to say that there were certain activities, when delegated to the list operator and the rates that were charged in respect of those activities, they were all about the operation and so it is a very narrow set of responsibilities.

5416     I would just like your comments on their interpretation of that subsection and their general thrust that the operators' rate structure that they charge the telemarketers accessing the rates should really be restricted to the day to day kind of operation access to the list.

5417     MR. WOODHEAD:  I think their interpretation is more narrow than ours and we read section 41(2) to give a sort of broad jurisdiction to the Commission to administer that database, including costs and a complaint investigation and the rest of it.

5418     MR. MILLINGTON:  Okay.  I am wondering whether in your collective experience with the telemarketing industry and taking into account your comments earlier today with respect to the range of remedies available to the Commission in terms of dealing with the various complaints and the severity of those complaints, what your collective wisdom would say about dealing very sort of hands‑off or, you know, not quite the hugs for thugs approach, but having a fairly low intervention level or low level of sanction for early offenders or initial offenders and then the graduated compliance.

5419     Is your experience with telemarketers such that you would believe that, you know, minimal fines, warning letters and so on would be effective and that that's something that we should look at?

5420     MR. McARTHUR:  I would agree with that regime.  I think it is going to be, as the public awareness becomes more and more prevalent and as decisions made under the guidelines help clarify some elements of the Commission's thinking, it will be more clear to business how they should interpret those guidelines and how they should try to comply.  And in general, I think most businesses try to comply appropriately.  So short answer, yes.

5421     MR. MILLINGTON:  Okay, so there is nothing you need to the telemarketing industry that would suggest that we need to come out with a hard early stance to set the table so to speak?

5422     MR. McARTHUR:  I agree, I think it is evidenced by some of the larger telemarketers that have presented to you that they work to comply with the regulations and with the rules and, in general, are finding ways to comply and there might be rogue telemarketers and I say that those are the exception.

5423     MR. MILLINGTON:  Okay.  And finally, in terms of ‑‑ I know you guys collect a lot of stats on things ‑‑ do you have anything you could tell us about complaints with respect to survey companies and their contacting of customers as distinct from telemarketers who are trying to sell services in the traditional sense?

5424     MR. WOODHEAD:  At Telus we don't track by, you know, the line of business or whatever.  Although, I am curious about the question, because they are specifically exempted, correct?

5425     THE CHAIRPERSON:  I am too.

5426     MR. MILLINGTON:  That is true, but they are exempted from some things.  I am just wondering about whether, you know, going forward just hypothetically whether the survey companies ‑‑ they have been given very special treatment and I am just wondering what your experience, if any, could tell us about them and to what extent they do?

5427     MR. WOODHEAD:  Scott may have an answer, but for TELUS we don't track them by the line of ‑‑

5428     MR. COLLYER:  And Bell, we have the same answer.  I mean we will, through our customer care team and our executive care team, which is sort of an office of escalation, get telemarketing complaints, but we don't actually slice and dice by, you know, what flavour of telemarketing it was.

5429     MR. MILLINGTON:  Okay, thanks.  Those are my questions.

5430     THE CHAIRPERSON:  We are in conclusion.  Thank you very much.  It has been a long morning, but a fruitful one.  We appreciated, in particular, your presence here, your frankness and the length of and the searching nature of the presentation, which is extremely helpful and much appreciated.  Thank you.

5431     We are now going to proceed with final comments ‑‑

5432     THE SECRETARY:  Mr. Chairman?

5433     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Madame le Secrétaire.

5434     THE SECRETARY:  Yes, I do have undertakings for the companies.

5435     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Oh sorry, we have some undertakings for..  I also forgot, is Mr. Gahan here?  No.

5436     We are going to proceed with final comments in reverse order.  The companies do not wish to make any further comments.  So I would ask Mr. Obermeyer..  It is most unlikely that there will be any questions in relation to these comments, there are five parties who have indicated their interest in making final comments.  I would remind people who are making final comments that the subject matter must relate to their own or someone else's testimony and must not introduce new material that has not been discussed either in the written submissions or in the presentations over the last two and a half days.  Mr. Obermeyer.

‑‑‑ Pause

5437     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Obermeyer and I have agreed that he is going to complete his concluding comments within a reasonable compass and we are not going to warn him at the one‑minute mark, we will warn him at the six‑minute mark though.

CLOSING STATEMENT / DÉCLARATION FINALE

5438     MR. OBERMEYER:  Here we go again.  I am trying to be nice, olive branches all around.  Corporations try to legally make as much profit as they can as fast as they can.  Nothing is wrong with that, we just have to put the right legal box around them.  Telemarketers make money by making unexpected business propositions.  They catch us at our weakest moments, when we are hungry, sleeping, relaxing with our guard down.  Regardless of their intent, they have learned that it works.

5439     Telemarketers buy and sell lists of numbers.  A for‑profit collective might create a market for second hand downloaded DNCL information.  Imagine their delight if the CRTC serves up Canadians' confidential phone numbers on a silver platter as a downloadable DNCL.  February's list minus January's list equals a monthly list of expired registrations, all the people who haven't been pestered for a while and so have weakened immune systems, priceless.  Perhaps the platter is golden.

5440     Some suggest that we save the trouble and give monthly updates instead.  They are asking us to deliver a freshly scrubbed monthly do‑call on a platinum platter.  Carriers offer privacy services.  Should a carrier be allowed to sell back to Canadians their own privacy in the first place?  Perhaps they could more properly sell telemarketers a service, removing freshly disconnected telephone numbers from the DNCL.

5441     Researchers call to collect data for their own use.  Current rules say they are exempt.  If a pollster intends to sell that data to another party the call is an ordinary solicitation for monies' worth and is not exempt in our opinion.  Even a subscriber's refusal to participate is monies' worth of data, not research.  We want our telephones to stop ringing with useless sales pitches.

5442     Useful sales pitches, that is another matter, let us talk.  Parliament agreed.  To achieve the intent of Bill C‑37 the only reasonable approach that we can see is to treat the DNCL as confidential information belonging to the people of Canada who put it there.  This places a fair burden on each telemarketer by preventing aggregation of use.  The least costly number of databases to synchronize each month ongoing until then end of time is one, not two million.

5443     To promote widespread and convenient compliance give away unverifiable use, give it away.  Martha and her flower shop, go on the web, check your numbers.  Sell verifiable confirmation numbers to heavy users for efficient defence against complaints.  The best possible system has zero complaints and zero enforcement cost, a national DNCL services will get us closer.  Let us choose which of several categories of telemarketing to accept, both exempt and non‑exempt.  To illustrate the value of this, and with all due respect, I request the Government of Canada and all of its departments, agents and political parties to place me on their organization specific "do not call" lists for the purposes of polling.

5444     I bet they would all love to have a convenient national DNCL service now.

5445     We are not recommending that the CRTC subvert legislation in any way.  We recommend only that Canadians be given the freedom to express our choices efficiently to all telemarketers.

5446     This will prevent wasteful calls on both sides ‑‑ I feel for telemarketers who have to make unwanted calls ‑‑ and aid in gathering accurate data for future policy decisions.

5447     I sympathize with unpaid volunteers working for legitimate charities.  It is shameful that commercial telemarketing has polluted the well they drink from.

5448     I am not a lawyer.  This is a matter of fact.  I mean no disrespect in saying so.  In fact, a lot of my good friends are lawyers.  I have been referred to from time to time as an alleged goal tender.

5449     If I make you uncomfortable, good.  It means that you are thinking, evaluating the assertions I have made on their merits.

5450     The national DNCL service should be Canadian made and operated and house our confidential information using a bare minimum of proprietary software and data formats.  I am not here to sell anything.

5451     I am a very proud Canadian, but my employer is not based in Canada.  And we are busy, anyway, helping makers of submarines, ships, cars, jets and spacecraft organize truly vast collections of data.  We don't have time really for this.

5452     I'm here on my vacation, by the way.

5453     The DOWG is investigating issues fundamental to the architecture of a multi‑faceted database system.  I see this as a technical activity with some input from the legal profession ‑‑ valuable input, I might add.

5454     It is amazing how the advocacy system turns over a lot of rocks that us techies might not look underneath.

5455     I'm surprised by the apparent absence of technical experts in that group.  The result?  Prolonged legal discussion over what I see as trivial technical matters.

5456     THE SECRETARY:  Mr. Obermeyer, I'm sorry; six minutes.

5457     MR. OBERMEYER:  Have Canadians lost their capacity to innovate?  We can sell an effective DNCL service to the world.  There is no excuse not to.

5458     At the end of the day, I can look myself in the mirror and say I did not allow the DOWG to eat my homework.

5459     That's a joke.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

5460     MR. OBERMEYER:  What about you?

5461     I thank the Commission for this opportunity to be heard and would be more than pleased to answer any questions.

5462     I only wish I had more time to point out many areas where I am in complete agreement with a lot of the parties here.

5463     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you very much, Mr. Obermeyer.

5464     MR. OBERMEYER:  Cheers.

5465     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Much appreciated.

5466     MR. OBERMEYER:  By the way, I consider this to be a highly patriotic act, eating doughnuts.

5467     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Is it a Tim Horton's?

5468     MR. OBERMEYER:  I've developed great admiration for people who do so.

5469     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Ladies and gentlemen, next ‑‑ unless you have anything to add, madame la Secrétaire?

5470     LA SECRÉTAIRE:  Le prochain participant, Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, Mr. Peter Goldthorpe.

‑‑‑ Pause

CLOSING STATEMENT / DÉCLARATION FINALE

5471     MR. GOLDTHORPE:  Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I just wanted to thank you for your attention to our submission yesterday and to remind you that this is a very important issue for Canada's life and health insurers.

5472     The discussion over the last couple of days has been extremely useful in helping us understand the issues and the various concerns that relate to those issues.

5473     We have our undertakings.  We are going to try to be as constructive as we can in our responses to those undertakings and I hope the responses are useful.

5474     If there is anything that we can do to clarify any of the comments we have made in the last couple of days or the comments that we will be making in our undertakings, then we are happy to be at your disposal.

5475     In the meantime, if there are any other questions that occur to you now, I will be happy to try to answer those.

5476     Thank you.

5477     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you very much, Mr. Goldthorpe.  Your contribution was, as always, constructive and useful, both written and your personal presence is appreciated.

5478     THE SECRETARY:  The next participant, Mr. Chairman, is Consumer's Association of Canada, Mr. John Lawford.

CLOSING STATEMENT / DÉCLARATION FINALE

5479     MR. LAWFORD:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.

5480     We have two points to make.

5481     The first is with regard to clarifying how you can map out the existing business relationship and consent exceptions.

5482     Our view is that the existing business relationship again should be defined as just the single legal entity.  If that is the case, then for those corporations that seek to contact a larger group of people through the phone, they can use a consent model to do that.  That is still available to them.

5483     If they use a consent model, we would suggest that the requirement you put on them is that their affiliates are only allowed to contact persons if they do not make that consent contingent on getting the product or service; that is, you can't require someone to consent to telemarketing across your entire affiliate network if you want that product or service.

5484     We would like to make sure that is in there.

5485     The second point we would like to make is that with regard to Rogers 60/30 day, there are a number of points where it seems to us there is room to scale back time.

5486     First of all, moving callback activity into the actual 30 days is possible, it seems.

5487     Also, in terms of who is bearing the cost of adjusting systems, we would just like to underline the point that the costs of these systems running at 60 days are being externalized to the nuisance of consumers.

5488     So to the extent that they have to adjust systems to comply with what Parliament has said is a requirement to reduce nuisance to consumers, that is now a cost they have to internalize because Parliament has spoken and said that that is now a cost they have to internalize.  So they have to improve their systems to 30 days, for example.

5489     Those are the two points I would like to make with you this morning.  If you have a question, I will take it; otherwise, thank you very much.

5490     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you very much, Mr. Lawford.  As usual, PIAC has been a great help.

5491     MR. LAWFORD:  Thank you.

5492     THE SECRETARY:  The next participant is Primerica, Hande Bilhan.

CLOSING STATEMENT / DÉCLARATION FINALE

5493     MS BILHAN:  Good morning.

5494     On behalf of Primerica Financial Services, I would like to thank you and your staff for the opportunity to participate in this very important public consultation process.

5495     I would like to point out, as a matter of process, that we are looking forward to working with the staff through the CISC committees to work out further details.

5496     I just want to reiterate the importance of memorializing the common sense understanding that the rules we are discussing here were not meant to apply to personal calls and the importance of this for large companies that have stringent compliance requirements whereby we have no choice but to follow the letter of the law.

5497     Thank you very much.  I look forward to questions in the coming months.

5498     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Ms Bilhan, thank you very much.  Much appreciated.

5499     MS BILHAN:  Thank you.

5500     THE SECRETARY:  Mr. Chairman, the last participant is Association of Fundraising Professionals, Mr. Boyd McBride.

CLOSING STATEMENT / DÉCLARATION FINALE

5501     MR. McBRIDE:  Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Commission staff, once again I find myself standing between you and your lunches.  So I will be brief.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

5502     MR. McBRIDE:  Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to provide a closing statement and for the opportunity I think this hearing has presented for all Canadians to participate in the process.

5503     I want to make just a few comments.

5504     First, I would like to make it clear that my testimony during this proceeding isn't meant to change any position that my organization, The Association of Fundraising Professionals, took in our application to review and vary Telecom Decision CRTC 2004‑35.  Several of the questions that I fielded during my previous testimony are addressed in that application and my oral statements to this Commission need to be taken in the context of the written presentation we provided.

5505     In addition, questions were asked during my earlier presentation regarding the educational issues that AFP briefly raised in our more recent March 2006 written statement.

5506     In the March submission, AFP urged the CRTC to provide some form of guidance or education to the public when the national "do not call" list goes into effect just so that Canadians will understand that charities aren't subject to the list.  It is imperative that the government partner with the non‑profit sector to deliver that message so that charities aren't seen to be flaunting the regulations in that new regime.

5507     The government is imposing new rules and the government, we feel, should assure that the public understands which organizations are subject to and exempt from the new requirements.

5508     AFP is always willing to collaborate with the CRTC on such issues, but our resources are limited.  Members of our organizations almost all work for charities, so it is important to emphasize my earlier statement that most donors would probably frown upon the use of charitable contributions to publicize or enforce a government regulatory regime.

5509     Finally, if additional information or clarification is needed regarding any question raised during my previous testimony or anything in our written submissions to the CRTC, AFT can follow up with a response in writing.

5510     As we stated in our written comments to the Commission in March, if the CRTC contemplates applying new telemarketing rules to exempt charities, we respectfully request that you consult with us and more broadly with the voluntary sector to ensure that the right balance is found between the charitable sector's need to raise funds for its critical programs and the public's need to be free from excessive telemarketing calls.

5511     Thanks very much again for your time.

5512     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. McBride, thank you.

5513     I must convey to you again, as I think I tried to the first time, this is the consultation.  That doesn't mean, of course, that we are not interested in your views and you can always convey them to us.

5514     MR. McBRIDE:  Okay.

5515     THE CHAIRPERSON:  There are also committees which operate ‑‑ and I don't know whether you are involved.  You have heard about them, the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee subcommittees.  So if there are things you wish to comment on, that would be fine.

5516     You must not assume, I think, that the Commission will be taking any more major formal steps for there to be public consultation.

5517     We are interested in your views at all times, but this has been the moment when it would have been most appropriate to address your views on any possible extension of regulation to any exempt groups.

5518     However, we are certainly going to keep in mind the constraints or standards which you have suggested to us, or criteria which you have suggested to us as appropriate for judging whatever those regulations may or may not be.

5519     MR. McBRIDE:  Thank you very much.

5520     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.

5521     Ladies and gentlemen, I think that brings to a close our consultation.

5522     Madame la Secrétaire, avez‑vous des choses à ajouter?

5523     LA SECRÉTAIRE:  Non, monsieur le Président.

5524     THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, everyone.  Much appreciate your presence and your participation.  It has been most valuable.

5525     The Commission will hope to do the very best it can in pursuing the issues that we have discussed in the last three days.

‑‑‑ Whereupon the hearing concluded at 1213 /

    L'audience se termine à 1213

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

REPORTERS

 

 

                             

 

_____________________                 _____________________

Marc Bolduc                        Lynda Johansson

 

 

 

 

_____________________                 _____________________

Sue Villeneuve                             Fiona Potvin

 

 

 

 

_____________________

Monique Mahoney

 

 

  

Date de modification :

????-??-??