ARCHIVÉ - Transcription
Cette page Web a été archivée dans le Web
L’information dont il est indiqué qu’elle est archivée est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’est pas assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du Canada et elle n’a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous.
Offrir un contenu dans les deux langues officielles
Prière de noter que la Loi sur les langues officielles exige que toutes publications gouvernementales soient disponibles dans les deux langues officielles.
Afin de rencontrer certaines des exigences de cette loi, les procès-verbaux du Conseil seront dorénavant bilingues en ce qui a trait à la page couverture, la liste des membres et du personnel du CRTC participant à l'audience et la table des matières.
Toutefois, la publication susmentionnée est un compte rendu textuel des délibérations et, en tant que tel, est transcrite dans l'une ou l'autre des deux langues officielles, compte tenu de la langue utilisée par le participant à l'audience.
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 3, 2006
Le 3 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 3, 2006
Le 3 mai 2006
TABLE DES MATIÈRES / TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE / PARA
Presentation by Marketing
Research and
342 / 2275
Intelligence
Association
Questions by the
Commission
376 / 2507
Presentation by Contact
NB
376 / 2514
Questions by the
Commission
382 / 2547
Presentation by the Consumers
Association
424 / 2823
of Canada (presented by
PIAC)
Questions by the
Commission
439 / 2903
Présentation par le Mouvement
des
476 / 3190
caisses Desjardins
Questions by the
Commission
486 / 3242
Presentation by RESP Dealers
Association of Canada 514 /
3404
Questions by the
Commission
520 / 3437
Presentation by the Canadian
Life and Health
561 / 3756
Insurance
Association
Questions by the
Commission
568 / 3794
Presentation by the Canadian
Marketing Association 596 /
4002
Questions by the
Commission
604 / 4034
Presentation by Mark
Obermeyer
661 / 4452
Questions by the
Commission
669 / 4491
Ottawa, Ontario / Ottawa, (Ontario)
‑‑‑ Upon resuming on
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 0900 /
L'audience reprend le
mercredi, 3 mai 2006 à 0900
2270
THE CHAIRMAN: Order,
please. À l'ordre, s'il vous
plaît.
2271
Welcome to this second day of hearing on the telemarketing
issue.
2272
Madame la secrétaire.
2273
LA SECRÉTAIRE: Merci,
monsieur le président.
2274
Our first group today will be Marketing Research and Intelligence
Association. I would like to
introduce Mr. Brendan Wycks who will introduce his
colleagues.
PRESENTATION /
PRÉSENTATION
2275
MR. WYCKS: Thank you
Commissioners and members of the CRTC for the opportunity to speak today at this
public consultation and good morning, ladies and
gentlemen.
2276
My name is Brendan Wycks and I am Executive Director or the Chief Staff
Executive of the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association, MRIA, and I
would now like to introduce to you my two
colleagues.
2277
To my immediate left is Mr. Barry Watson who is the President Elect of
our Association and to his left is Mr. Alain Choinière, the chair of our
Government Relations Committee.
2278
M. CHOINIÈRE: Bonjour. Il me fait plaisir, au nom de
l'Association de la recherche et de l'intelligence marketing, de prendre la
parole aujourd'hui.
2279
Nous vous remercions beaucoup de l'opportunité de prendre la parole
aujourd'hui et il nous fera plaisir de répondre à toutes vos questions tant en
français qu'en anglais.
2280
MR. WYCKS: The Marketing
Research and Intelligence Association, the voice of the market and survey
research industry in Canada is pleased to be a part of these
proceedings.
2281
MRIA is a Canadian not for profit association representing all sectors of
the survey research industry. Among
other initiatives, our organization is responsible for certifying both
individual research practitioners and research companies in
Canada.
2282
Our members include over 1,700 individual research professionals and over
200 corporate members, our corporate members being comprised of small to large
research agencies and many buyers of research services such as financial
institutions, major retailers, insurance companies, telecommunications firms and
manufacturers.
2283
And with that as introduction, I would now call on Barry Watson, our
President Elect, who will present our brief.
2284
MR. WATSON: One of the major
pillars of MRIA's mandate is to protect the good relationship that exists
between survey researchers and the general public.
2285
For the most part, this revolves around ensuring that the activities of
the research industry do not unreasonably infringe on an individual's right to
privacy. As such, MRIA applauds the
government's efforts to create privacy and consumer rights in
Canada.
2286
We believe the creation of a national do not call list will go a long way
toward meeting that goal.
2287
MRIA was an active participant in the consultations that led to the
passage of Bill C‑37. Legislators
agreed to exempt survey research calls because they acknowledged that there are
two key characteristics that define survey research and differentiate our work
from that of the telemarketing industry.
2288
First, legitimate survey researchers never attempt to sell anything. In fact, solicitation violates the
industry's rigorous code of conduct and ethical practices.
2289
And second, survey research gives Canadians an opportunity to voice their
opinions and to have influence on important issues in public policy, products
and services, overall serving a valuable societal role.
2290
Survey researchers currently enjoy a good relationship with the public
because Canadians are keenly aware of the impact that their opinions could have
when collected through survey research.
And they are willing to share their views with researchers because they
trust the industry to respect privacy.
2291
Clearly, the inclusion of survey research calls within the scope of the
do not call list framework would have severely impeded survey research. Statistical reliability is essential to
good research, which is in turn essential to good decision
making.
2292
Any such limitations were deemed by Legislators as well as regulators in
previous CRTC decisions to be a disservice to Canadians. U.S. regulators had previously reached
the same conclusion as Canadian Legislators where survey research is also
excluded.
2293
In fact, a number of important lessons can be learned from the experience
in implementing a do not call list in the U.S. In the U.S. the National do not call
registry has been plagued since it was introduced by problems related to poor
communication specifically about what's covered and what's
not.
2294
We understand that in many instances registrants to the do not call list
did not clearly understand the scope of the calling restrictions and were not
aware of exemptions. This led to
confusion and frustration when they continued to receive calls from exempted
parties such as survey researchers.
2295
In this connection, the key point we would like to leave you with today
is that a comprehensive communications plan is required to educate Canadians
about the registry and to make clear just what is covered and what is not and in
effect, to include messaging that explains the parameters of what should be more
accurately called "The telemarketing do not call
list".
2296
A robust communications and awareness program will be instrumental in the
smooth implementation of the do not call list as well as in reducing unwarranted
complaints of violations by exempted parties.
2297
The points that we are stressing through our participation in the CRTC's
operations working group are as follows:
2298
First, a robust communications and awareness program will be critical to
both managing public expectations with respect to the registry and to managing
public inquiries and complaints once it is operational.
2299
The U.S. do not call registry receives over 90,000 complaints a month;
15,000 of these are deemed to be incomplete or unfounded and a full 15 per cent
of the complaints are unfounded and many stem from consumer confusion about the
system, particularly with respect to what types of calls are
covered.
2300
New registrants with the Canadian Registry should be advised immediately,
in our view, upon registration as to its scope, including the list of exempted
calls.
2301
We would also like to speak briefly about two questions outlined in the
Public Notice 2006‑4.
2302
With respect to paragraph 48 of the Public Notice, MRIA recommends that
the do not call list rules be applied to telemarketers making the calls as well
as to the companies on whose behalf telemarketers are
engaged.
2303
MRIA also strongly recommends that the do not call list should apply to
voice casting calls.
2304
These two simple actions would serve to create a stronger, more coherent
telemarketing do not all list and go a long way towards limiting what has become
an increasingly prominent irritant for consumers.
2305
In closing, we want to stress that the market survey and public opinion
research industry regards Canadians who respond surveys as their partners. We believe that if that partnership is
to continue to thrive, our industry and our association will have to place
increasing emphasis on the treatment and rights of respondents as we go
forward.
2306
Therefore, as an important new initiative, we expect to introduce later
this year a respondent Bill of Rights.
This will be a major addition to our self‑regulatory and professional
standards program which includes the Canadian Survey Registration system which
monitors member research projects being conducted across
Canada.
2307
The system performs an important service by providing the public with a
toll free number to confirm the legitimacy of a given research survey and to
ensure that any personal information is being collected and used for legitimate
purposes.
2308
MRIA looks forward to continuing to work with the CRTC to provide input
and assistance towards a smooth implementation of the do not call list in Canada
and, in this regard we intend to align our industries communications programs to
support the CRTC in these efforts.
2309
Thank you again for the opportunity of speaking to you this morning and
for considering our views on this topic, which is of great importance to our
industry.
2310
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very
much, Mr. Watson for that very clear and concise
presentation.
2311
Commissioner Cram.
2312
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Thank
you. Mr. Wycks, Mr. Watson,
Mr. Choinière, I wanted to talk initially about your
organization.
2313
There are 1,600 members you say.
Are they all Canadian or operate in Canada and in the
States?
2314
MR. WYCKS: The vast vast
majority are Canadians operating in Canada. We do have a small handful of members
that are outside the borders of our country.
2315
COMMISSIONER CRAM: And when
you are doing the surveys, do you conduct surveys on wire line only or do you
phone wireless numbers when you do a survey?
2316
MR. WATSON: I think by far
the majority or almost all of the calls would be ‑‑ calls by telephone
would be with wire line.
2317
There may be some special surveys where wireless would be used. For example, possibly a customer
satisfaction study with customers of cell phone services where there had been a
pre‑arrangement to do that, but we would not routinely phone cell phone
customers as part of our regular surveys, no.
2318
COMMISSIONER CRAM: So, how
would you know ‑‑ I guess you would know that they were wireless because
they have different prefix numbers; is that it?
2319
MR. WATSON: Yes. Most of the dialling would be done based
on data basis that would be assembled from land line
phones.
2320
COMMISSIONER CRAM: And I
guess when the numbered portability comes in you are going to have a
problem?
2321
MR. WATSON: These are all
challenges for our industry. We are
thinking about ways to deal with these as they emerge,
yes.
2322
COMMISSIONER CRAM: So, the
point would be though that you actually avoid phoning wireless people, wireless
subscribers?
2323
MR. WATSON: As a general
rule, yes.
2324
COMMISSIONER CRAM:
Uh‑huh! And there has got to
be the odd person who gets pretty ticked about being phoned about a survey. Do your people normally have internal do
not call lists? I know it affects
the validity that you are worried about ‑‑ I know that, but I am not sure I
would like to be a surveyor, you know, phoning somebody who is fairly irritable
about this?
2325
MR. WATSON: We do
occasionally get such a call and I think it is generally the practice among our
members that when someone complains and asks that they not be called again, that
indeed a note is made and that person is not called
again.
2326
MR. CHOINIÈRE: If I may
add. The land that we are looking
at in that direction is that when people ask not to be called, each company has
their do not call list, but on top of that we feel that once the telemarketing
do not call list is in place, people will not be annoyed as much as they are
right now.
2327
The number of calls will go down dramatically for those who choose not to
be called and we feel this is going to be a plus for our industry where when we
call, they see that we are serious in getting their opinion and no longer
selling. I think the participation
rate will go up.
2328
COMMISSIONER CRAM: And do
you do surveys by e‑mails?
2329
MR. WATSON: Yes, we
do.
2330
COMMISSIONER CRAM: And you
find them statistically valid?
2331
MR. WATSON: It depends on
the purpose. There are many
sampling challenges when surveys are being done on the internet and then some
situations it works better than others, but these are areas where we are
developing standards to improve the quality as well.
2332
COMMISSIONER CRAM: So you
see that as increasing in the future?
2333
MR. WATSON: Yes. In our national surveys of our members
we see that the proportion of work that's done on the internet is increasing
each year.
2334
COMMISSIONER CRAM:
Uh‑huh! What are you doing
to educate your members about their obligations under telemarketing
rules?
2335
MR. WATSON: We have a very
comprehensive set of standards and best practices. These are practices which are included
as part of our education program.
2336
So, for example, there is a program or a course on standards and privacy
and ethics which all members who are looking to earn our individual
certification must take that course.
And also, elements of that program are part of the audit and
certification program that we have for our corporate
members.
2337
MR. CHOINIÈRE: May I add
also that to be a member, to be accepted as a member, they have to sign that
they will abide by the rules of conduct, all
members?
2338
COMMISSIONER CRAM: And you
said you're self‑regulatory. So,
let's say your best practices said you can only survey between, I don't know,
0900 in the morning and 0900 at night and if there was a constant breech of
that, do you have a continuum of punishments?
2339
MR. WATSON: Yes. We have a disciplinary process. When a complaint is received, there is
a ‑‑ it's investigated, a panel can be convened to review it and then,
there are... there are a stage of disciplinary actions ultimately being excluded
from the industry.
2340
M. CHOINIÈRE: There are two
types of members. Membership is
individuals and, as well companies.
Companies have to sign and abide by a set of rules and there are various
regulatory procedures.
2341
For individual members it's the same thing. There are as well under one of the
committees that handles all complaints.
2342
COMMISSIONER CRAM: So, you
wouldn't object to us imposing limitations on time of day calling in the
telemarketing rules, to which you would be subject?
2343
MR. CHOINIÈRE: Well, we are
not in the telemarketing business.
We are in the research business and, as
such ‑‑
2344
COMMISSIONER CRAM: So, your
position would be that any rules we would make for telemarketing such as time of
day, you would not be subject to them?
2345
MR. CHOINIÈRE: I think we
have been excluded in the Legislation.
2346
COMMISSIONER CRAM: From the
rules?
2347
MR. CHOINIÈRE:
Yes.
2348
THE CHAIRMAN: It's not clear
that that's the case.
2349
COMMISSIONER CRAM: You have
been excluded from being required to have a do not call
list.
2350
MR. CHOINIÈRE:
Uh‑huh!
2351
MR. WYCKS: But through
several prior CRTC decisions, we have been excluded from the telemarketing
framework.
2352
COMMISSIONER CRAM: So, are
you asking that that happen again?
2353
MR. WYCKS: We believe that
it is a legitimate exclusion based on the industries work and the societal value
that we bring.
2354
COMMISSIONER CRAM: So, you
would object to us imposing restrictions on time of day when you could conduct a
survey? Like these are the kind of
rules we are talking about, that you would not conduct a survey at midnight in
Saskatchewan.
2355
THE CHAIRMAN: Especially in
Saskatchewan.
2356
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Listen; I
love surveys. I answer everyone,
but ‑‑ I'm outside the demographic, that's right.
2357
MR. CHOINIÈRE: I think that
the position we have had from the start is that if we are excluded from the do
not call list and, by fact, in the past all decisions have been that we be
excluded from telemarketing rules, if these are rules that are to apply to
telemarketing, we would like to be excluded for sure.
2358
I am not talking specifically about time of day, but some of the rules
are ‑‑ that would apply to telemarketing we don't feel that we should be
included in those.
2359
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Yes. Time of day you wouldn't have a problem
with?
2360
MR. CHOINIÈRE: Not
necessarily. I mean, we do have
best practice.
2361
COMMISSIONER CRAM: And you
wouldn't have a problem with the requirement that you provide identification at
the first of the call, who is calling?
2362
MR. CHOINIÈRE: No. We do that already. All of our members have a set of
rules. The time of day, as long as
it's ‑‑ we have not had any problems in the past in terms of setting hours
ourselves and it is ‑‑
2363
COMMISSIONER CRAM: What are
the hours that you set?
2364
MR. CHOINIÈRE: We are
reviewing it right now, but I think it's nine o'clock at
night.
2365
MR. WATSON: Both of these
are recommended practices. For
example, that there be a clear identification of the member that is a required
part of our standards.
2366
We have recommendations with respect to the length of the interview and
recommendations with respect to calling times and from my familiarity with the
practice of certainly the larger companies, these are quite rigidly
followed.
2367
There are some ‑‑ there would be some problems with making it
absolute because there would be some circumstances when it might be necessary or
appropriate or not problematic to call late. You know, we deal with all sorts of
population and not all Canadians, you know, work nine to five jobs, for example,
and so, you know, sometimes its necessary to reach them later and we might even
have made a pre‑arrangement to reach them
later.
2368
COMMISSIONER CRAM: And you
would probably get the 15, 16 year olds at two in the morning and there would be
no problem.
2369
So ‑‑ and you, habitually, I would assume, and tell me if it's a
requirement or a best practice, you would have the number. You don't block the number, the phone
number ID on your ‑‑‑ when you do the surveys?
2370
MR. WATSON: We do not have a
particular recommendation with respect to that. I think the general practice though is
that companies display their name, partly because you know, most of the
companies have a certain level of brand recognition and if it says, you know, a
certain research company, then the caller knows that this isn't a telemarketing
call.
2371
I think in the experiments that we have done, showing the name actually
elicits more co‑operation than if you block the name.
2372
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Do you on
request provide another number if I want to find out that you are
legitimate?
2373
MR. WATSON: Yes,
absolutely.
2374
COMMISSIONER CRAM: It seems
like this, the 1‑800 number, is a common one in a normal
call.
2375
MR. WATSON: In practice I
think there are two responses that are given. Let's say, for example, an interviewer
has phoned a household and the respondent is a little bit uneasy about whether
this is legitimate. I find the
first response on the part of the respondent is to say: "Can I speak to your
supervisor."
2376
COMMISSIONER CRAM:
Yes.
2377
MR. WATSON: So there is
immediately a transfer. This is
usually a person who has more knowledge of the situation, is more
experienced. They explain the
situation and the respondent is satisfied.
2378
If they are not satisfied with that, then the survey registration system
is explained to them and they are given the 1‑800 number and they can make a
call to that number to verify the survey.
2379
We provide them with the registration number for the particular survey
that we were executing so that they can readily identify it when they call the
survey registration centre.
2380
COMMISSIONER CRAM: If you
want to be exempted from the telemarketing rules, I guess I need to know what is
the continuum of penalties that you give for a breach of your
requirements ‑‑ not the best practices but your
requirements.
2381
MR. WATSON: Could I suggest
that we provide you with the documentation on that, which would go through it in
some detail?
2382
These are all processes which are under some review. If it was appropriate to make some
enhancement to that, I think we would certainly be quite willing to do
that.
2383
In fact, this is something which is being reviewed right now, in that
there are a number of initiatives.
2384
One initiative that is being proposed by the world association that deals
with these issues wanting to have more visible policing and enforcement, that
would involve a more public presentation when in fact someone violated one of
the rules.
2385
So we are certainly open to looking at enhancements to that
process.
2386
COMMISSIONER CRAM:
Inevitably I would ask that you would file both the requirements and the
best practice, the recommendations.
2387
What are the consequences of breach of a best practice or
suggestion?
Nothing.
2388
MR. WATSON: There are two
things that happen. This is
reviewed by a number of peers who are aware of some violation. It is brought to the attention of the
member and it is recommended that the process be
corrected.
2389
This is also done when our auditor reviews the individual company's
practices. This is a process where
our auditor, which is done by Deloitte, goes through files in detail within the
research company, interviews the senior staff responsible for standards in
lengthy questioning on how certain standards are met.
2390
COMMISSIONER CRAM: So what
are the consequences?
2391
MR. WATSON: The consequences
are a report which indicates what needs to be improved. There is no particular penalty or
exclusion for best practice issues, though.
2392
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Do any of
your members use predictive dialling devices?
2393
MR. WATSON: I expect they
do. I think what is more common is
power diallers rather than predictive diallers. But I am not sure of the statistics on
that.
2394
COMMISSIONER CRAM: So all I
am worried about is dead air, abandonment.
2395
Do you have any standards for those who do use predictive dialling on an
abandonment rate?
2396
MR. WATSON: We don't have
one but it would certainly be something that we would be happy to include in our
standards.
2397
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Do you
have any position on ADADs? You
don't use them, ADADs ‑‑ automated dialling announcement
devices?
2398
MR. WATSON: No. I don't think that is commonly used by
our members.
2399
COMMISSIONER CRAM: I take
it, as you do not have to access the "do not call" issue, you wouldn't have a
position on fee structures.
2400
Both times, in your written submission initially and in this submission,
you use the word "strongly" recommend that the "do not call" lists apply to
voicecasting calls.
2401
Why "strongly"?
2402
MR. WYCKS: I think it's just
an adjective for emphasis.
2403
COMMISSIONER CRAM:
Okay. So it's not that it is
annoying to you guys or there is something that really is ‑‑ now you have a
young gentleman there.
2404
Maybe you can tell us why it is
"strongly".
2405
MR. JODOIN: We feel that any
calls that are considered an intrusion or a nuisance to the general public tend
to affect our industry.
2406
The calls that are considered a nuisance tend to impact our
industry. We have been found not be
considered a nuisance, either in the complaints that we receive or in CRTC
proceedings. But the general public
sometimes doesn't necessarily differentiate calls to the
home.
2407
So any type of nuisance calls tends to add up and it becomes a respondent
fatigue for us.
2408
So if we see a coherent telemarketing "do not call" list, we are strongly in
favour of that.
2409
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Mr.
Wycks?
2410
MR. WYCKS: Allow me to
introduce Greg Jodoin, who is MRIA's government relations
consultant.
2411
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Thank
you.
2412
I know you are involved in CISC‑2, the second CISC working
group.
2413
I guess my question is ‑‑ and I understand, and I think it is
certainly to your advantage, that we would have a robust communication
plan.
2414
The question in my mind, though, comes down to who is going to pay for
it. How much would your members be
willing to contribute to the cause?
It is certainly going to help you.
2415
That is going to be an issue, isn't it?
2416
Mr. Jodoin, do you want to say something? You can say something, you know. You don't have to
whisper.
2417
MR. WATSON: Brendan is going
to answer.
2418
MR. WYCKS: It was our sort
of understanding and belief that a robust communications program would be a
necessary element in what the CRTC would roll out, so be there by
necessity.
2419
We just wanted to emphasize how critical we felt it was and also the fact
that we will support it and sort of dovetail with it in our own communications
programs.
2420
That is the approach that we had in mind.
2421
COMMISSIONER CRAM: So you
are planning on your members contributing by having a communications plan sort
of individually, I guess.
2422
MR. WYCKS: As an
association, which our members would be kind of the grassroots roll‑out
component of it.
2423
MR. WATSON: Our organization
is not one which has a large ‑‑
2424
COMMISSIONER CRAM: I know
the organization doesn't have any, but my question, though, is: It is clearly to your advantage to have
this.
2425
One of these days it is going to come down to money and how much the CRTC
can or will afford.
2426
What do you think about the idea from PIAC that we would go back to the
2004‑35 decision and have notes in the bills? I think it was something like that. We would require that the telephone
companies put inserts in their bills.
2427
MR. CHOINIÈRE: This will be
part of our communication program.
We do have a plan that is being presently rolled out and in the coming
year we will have a specific communication program which will include various
utilities putting information in there so the public understands how important
their opinion is and why the research industry is so important to
them.
2428
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Thank
you. I'm glad you value my
opinion.
2429
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
2430
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you,
Commissioner Cram.
2431
Commissioner Langford.
2432
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Thank
you, Mr. Chair. I won't try to
drag this out. You have been very
kind and very generous with your time.
2433
I do have a question really of just straight
information.
2434
You are exempt. There is no
question about that. But I am a bit
curious about the desire for an exemption in the sense of what you
do.
2435
I'm not trying to roll back time here. It is done. But there is an aspect to it that I just
don't quite understand, and it's probably because I'm just not a
surveyor.
2436
If you are doing a survey ‑‑ we get a lot of surveys here,
particularly on the broadcasting side.
People who are applying for radio licences, television licences, they
survey the communities and they try to find out what people want and what
formats in radio they are particularly attracted to. Then they bring these surveys to us as
empirical data that they are onto the right kind of service
here.
2437
Of course, normally we get something like 300 or 500 people surveyed in
an average size city. They may
choose a demographic to survey.
2438
I have seen of the normal breakdown, "strongly agrees", "agrees",
"disagrees", "strongly disagrees", "no opinion". But I have never seen a "hang‑up" column
or a "do not call me" column or an "I don't want to talk to you" column in any
of these surveys.
2439
So what do you do when you are calling? You pick your 300 random numbers or your
500 random numbers and someone says: Put me on a "do not call" list. I don't care whether you have one or
not. Or they are just
annoyed.
2440
How do you quantify those in a survey?
2441
MR. WATSON: Actually, we
have quite a comprehensive set of specifications for how our members need to
classify every response they get on the telephone.
2442
So for every number dialled, they need to account for an
outcome.
2443
When you think of your 300 or 400 completed interviews that come to you
as some evidence, that is the number of completed interviews. But behind that there may be many
numbers that were out of service, numbers where the interview could not be
completed because there was a language barrier and this might have only been
interviewed in English and French and maybe one other language and it couldn't
be completed. There would be some
where you only reached an answering machine and were never able to reach the
person. And some, of course, where
people say no, I don't agree to complete the survey and I don't want to be
called again.
2444
So all of these are accounted for and in fact are used to calculate
various statistics that we used to reflect on how representative that particular
survey is.
2445
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: That
part interests me.
2446
So there is some value to any of these outcomes, whether they are a
hang‑up, an answering machine, a never call me again, I hate you, whatever, in
polite or rude terms.
2447
What is the value? How do
you weigh the value of those sorts of responses?
2448
MR. WATSON: We use them for
two general purposes.
2449
One is to assess the statistical reliability of the interviews that we
got. So we will want to know of
those people that we did not reach, is there reason to believe that they are
different in character than the people that we did
interview?
2450
For example, were they more in one part of the country than the
other? Are they individuals more of
one age category than the other?
2451
We will look at those sorts of things.
2452
The other reason that we look at that information is that we want to
maximize the level of co‑operation.
So if we are not reaching a household successfully, we want to know why
not and whether there is something that we might do that would improve that
situation.
2453
I gave the example of the language barrier. If we carry out a survey in a particular
area and a very large proportion of the interviews could not be completed
because of a language barrier, then there would be a good reason to speak with
that client and say perhaps we should translate it into additional languages and
complete it.
2454
It is also an indication of some technological
interviews.
2455
For example, if we are reaching answering machines or something of that
sort, in many cases where we get no response at all, sometimes that is dialling
into dead exchanges. And we need to
look at that.
2456
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: So if
I may ‑‑ and we are not going back in time. Parliament has spoken. I don't want to alarm anyone
here.
2457
But if I may, could I focus just on people who say "never call me; I
don't want to be called; leave me alone" ‑‑ for whatever reason. We don't know. They might have been scared by a survey
when they were children or something.
Who knows?
2458
What value are they to your companies?
2459
I can understand the language example you gave or perhaps a timing
element in some exchange or whatever value of some of the lists you are
getting.
2460
But what value is it to you to take the chance of keeping on getting
these sorts of responses?
2461
MR. WATSON: Statistically,
it is critical.
2462
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: It
is.
2463
MR. WATSON: You can't tell
in advance which phone number is going to be someone who may not be willing to
participate in this particular study.
2464
What we also know is that there are many reasons for not agreeing to
participate. It might be that "I
just don't want to be bothered at all for any reason whatsoever". I think that is quite a minority of
situations.
2465
The most frequent one is "this just isn't a convenient time". So we find that if we can have a couple
of seconds with the person and find out is there a better time to call, what can
we do to make it more co‑operative for you, then we can arrange the call at
another time.
2466
MR. CHOINIÈRE: May I answer
this?
2467
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:
Absolutely.
2468
MR. CHOINIÈRE: One of the
points that we have been looking at very strongly is that when there is a "do
not call" requirement, one person chooses for the whole household. Subjects may be very
different.
2469
If I need to speak to a 16‑year‑old or a 25‑year‑old, it is going to be
very different. One person in the
household may decide that they don't want to answer surveys, but when they take
that decision it should not imply that everybody else in the household will not
be called and will not give their opinion.
2470
The second element is I just want to step one step back on the
reporting.
2471
In most instances ‑‑ and in all instances very soon ‑‑
companies will give the administrative report with a calculation of the response
rate at the beginning of a report or in an appendix. So we do know if the response rate is
higher or lower.
2472
Our feeling is with the "do not call" list, our response rates will go up
and hence give a better quality survey.
2473
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: This
is what got me started because either you or one of your colleagues made this
comment earlier this morning.
2474
Wouldn't it be to your advantage to have your own internal "do not call"
lists so that you simply ‑‑ I know you don't want to be on the national one
because of all these reasons: you might be able to talk people around and
specify. You have been very clear
on that.
2475
In the sense of that small but determined group who never wish to speak
to you ever, as long as they live, wouldn't it be to your advantage simply not
to have these numbers and not to be burdened with having to keep these
statistics over and over?
2476
Wouldn't it be to your advantage just to get rid of
them?
2477
I can't see any advantage to you phoning them. And that's why I am missing it. If there is an advantage, let me
know.
2478
MR. CHOINIÈRE: There are a
few.
2479
Financially, it would be an advantage; statistically, it would not
be.
2480
As I mentioned, we are excluding everybody in that household because one
person has chosen not to be called.
2481
Most companies ‑‑ and I would say probably all companies who are
members in the MRIA ‑‑ do have their own "do not call" list. But it is not the interviewer that
decides.
2482
In my company it is my vice‑president, one of my vice‑presidents, that
decides yes, he is going to go on the "do not call" list. Sometimes it is the subject. They don't want to answer a survey for
something that is not interesting to them.
2483
When it comes to health, for instance, when we conduct work for Health
Canada and we say at the beginning that it is for Health Canada, the
participation rate is much higher, and very, very few people ask not to be
called.
2484
So the subject is an item.
2485
I think it is a very wide problematic, really.
2486
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: So
you are doing everything from sort of brands of instant coffee right through to
fundamental health issues, and you feel people should be able to
choose.
2487
MR. CHOINIÈRE: Yes. And people should also be told that
their opinion is very important, both in general public policy and in approving
products.
2488
If they don't give their personal opinion on it, their neighbour, which
does not necessarily have the same opinion, will give his opinion. Therefore, it is a statement of choice
really.
2489
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:
Yes.
2490
I just want to narrow it down once last time, if you don't
mind.
2491
I live alone ‑‑ I don't but this is
hypothetical.
2492
I live alone. There is no
one else in my household. One of
your members phones and I say:
"Look, I live alone. I don't
ever want to be bothered by any of your questions ever again as long as I
live."
2493
And this goes to your vice‑president. What is your
betting?
2494
MR. CHOINIERE: You will have
put them on the "do not call" list.
2495
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: So it
would be an advantage not to call this curmudgeonly old character one more
time.
2496
MR. CHOINIERE: Well, maybe
we will call two years down the road.
2497
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: To
see whether I have come around.
2498
MR. CHOINIERE: Yes. Or if you have read an article on
how important it is to have your ‑‑
2499
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: It's
gone. Why didn't you push me
harder?
2500
That helps me very much.
2501
So you probably will keep ‑‑ am I safe in assuming that all of your
members probably will keep some form of "do not call" list, but that they will
be judiciously culled by the pros, the experts, before names are put on
it?
2502
MR. CHOINIERE: I can't say
for sure, but that is certainly the practice right now.
2503
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Thank
you very much.
2504
Those are my questions, Mr. Chair.
2505
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you,
Commissioner Langford.
2506
Commissioner Cram.
2507
COMMISSIONER CRAM: You would
be filing those best practices and recommendations, say, within ten days or
so?
2508
MR. WATSON:
Yes.
2509
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Thank
you.
2510
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you
very much for your presence and advice.
We are aware of the importance of your industry. We appreciate your collaboration with
our various working groups, and we look forward to continuing that
collaboration.
2511
MR. CHOINIERE: Thank
you.
2512
THE CHAIRPERSON: Madam
Secretary.
2513
THE SECRETARY: Thank you,
Mr. Chair. We will now proceed with
a presentation from Contact NB, Mr. Rick DesBrisay.
PRESENTATION /
PRÉSENTATION
2514
THE CHAIRPERSON: Please
proceed, Mr. DesBrisay.
2515
MR. DesBRISAY: Thank you
very much, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners.
My name is Rick DesBrisay, and I am a member of the Executive Committee
of the Board of Directors of Contact NB.
Contact NB is the trade association for the contact centre industry in
New Brunswick.
2516
We have submitted a written presentation this morning, but I think, in
the interests of time, I will simply highlight the main points of
it.
2517
Contact NB represents about 45 companies, who employ about 16,000 New
Brunswickers in the inbound and outbound call centre
industry.
2518
The industry in New Brunswick is, in fact, the second largest industry
sector in New Brunswick, and it continues to grow. The largest is the tourism and
hospitality industry, but it is larger than forestry, larger than the
fishery. It has become a huge
industry.
2519
The principal focus of the association is to promote the industry as a
good place to work, a place to establish a career, which enables us to attract
quality employees.
2520
The industry had some kind of perception of being a place where there
were sweatshops and low‑paying, dead‑end jobs, but that is not the case. People do make very important careers in
the industry, and we wish to continue to play a role in that
business.
2521
The public image of the industry is vitally important to us as an
association.
2522
I should also declare that I have a business, which is called RainMaker
Call Centres. We are an outbound
telemarketing firm.
2523
We have four call centres, two in New Brunswick and two in British
Columbia. We employ about 150
employees. We call mainly into the
United States, on behalf of a client in the U.S., although we do some calling in
Canada. In fact, we are DNC
compliant and have systems in place to manage that.
2524
I will be talking this morning about Contact NB's position, but I will
certainly entertain any questions that you may have regarding my business during
the question‑and‑answer period.
2525
The association has five main issues. The first of those, and not necessarily
in order of importance, is calling business‑to‑business.
2526
We believe, fundamentally, that allowing businesses to put their numbers
on the "do not call" list will be a restraint of trade and will make it
especially difficult for emerging businesses who don't have existing
clients. Using the telephone is a
very powerful way to develop new clients.
2527
Having businesses put their numbers on the list tends to be an impediment
to the development, particularly of emerging businesses, but certainly the
development of any business.
2528
There is a danger with business numbers, in particular, that someone may
put the business number on the "do not call" list unbeknownst to the
company. I suspect that there will
be numerous ways of putting those numbers on the list, and there could be
numbers put on the list that the company would not be aware
of.
2529
Could you imagine IBM, for example, having their number on the list, put
there by a receptionist who didn't want to take as many calls, or by a
disgruntled employee, or by a hacker, or by a tele‑terrorist ‑‑ that is
someone who really hates telemarketing.
2530
If another company that had a "do not call" blocking system tried to dial
IBM's number, it just wouldn't let them call IBM because the number would be on
the list.
2531
Business‑to‑business is a very important
concern.
2532
The second concern is the cost to telemarketers to set up compliance
systems. I know from our experience
at RainMaker that it costs about $25,000, at a minimum, to establish the
hardware and software to allow you to mesh the CRM database, your customer
database, with the "do not call" list, and it costs several thousand dollars per
year to maintain it ‑‑ to keep it updated and maintain
it.
2533
If there are, maybe, 2 million companies in Canada who call their
customers, that means that about 2 million companies will have to spend $25,000
each ‑‑ $5 billion, maybe ‑‑ to make Canadian businesses compliant
with the DNC list, to manage it, and also to manage their own internal "do not
call" list.
2534
The third issue is: How long
will the number remain on the list.
2535
I don't know where I got this number, but I am led to believe that about
14 percent of Canadians move during the year, and numbers are moved. So, over a period of time, if a number
is left on the list in perpetuity, for five years or ten years, or whatever it
may be, there will be a whole lot of numbers that will be on the list that
should not necessarily be on the list.
2536
We need to think about how we go about doing
that.
2537
Furthermore, the process of putting numbers on the list needs to be
managed so that only the rightful owner of that number can add that number to
the list. There needs to be some
mechanism to make sure that happens.
2538
Fourthly, with regard to the cost of operating the system, we believe
that it should be spread amongst all users of the list, the 2 million or so
businesses across Canada that make calls to their
customers.
2539
Similarly, as was mentioned yesterday, we should consider charging the
consumers some fee for putting their number on the list.
2540
For example, people now pay their telco a monthly fee to have a
non‑published number ‑‑ an unlisted number. Why couldn't we do the same thing with
the "do not call". If you wanted to
be on the "do not call" list, you would pay $2 a month, or whatever the fee
might be.
2541
Most importantly, and our last point, is that the public image of the
industry may be damaged by this. We
believe, based on some of the testimony to the Senate committee that studied the
bill, and by anecdotal evidence that we have, that 80 percent or 85 percent of
the calls that are currently being received by consumers will be exempt from
these regulations. So consumers, in
particular, who expect their telemarketing calls to go to zero because they are
on the list are going to be shocked, perhaps angry ‑‑ "I added my name to
the list and you are still calling me.
Why are you still calling me?
I don't want to be called. I
am on the list."
2542
We think that there will be a public backlash about this, because people
who put their name on the list will expect the calls to stop, and they are not
going to stop.
2543
There needs to be, which has been mentioned before, and which we fully
support, a broad, strong education campaign to let people know that they are
still going to receive calls from all of the parties that are exempt, and to
expect that.
2544
Granted, there will be some reduction in the calls, but maybe 80 percent
or 85 percent of them will continue to be passed.
2545
That is my presentation.
2546
THE CHAIRPERSON:
Commissioner Cugini.
2547
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Good
morning, Mr. DesBrisay, and thank you very much for being here. I think you have made some very
interesting points this morning, coupled with your written
submission.
2548
I am going to ask you some general questions about Contact NB, and then
we will get into the specifics on both what you said this morning and what you
filed in your written submission.
2549
Just so I understand it better, Contact NB, you say, represents over 65
inbound and outbound customer contact centres. These are strictly call centres, or do
you do your own telemarketing?
2550
MR. DesBRISAY: They are
strictly call centres.
2551
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: What is
an inbound call centre?
2552
MR. DesBRISAY: When you call
your bank to inquire about an account, you are calling into the bank, and an
agent receives your call and handles your inquiry. That is an inbound
centre.
2553
An outbound centre is where the agent calls you to initiate the
contact.
2554
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: So
telemarketers will contract Contact NB to place the telemarketing calls for
them, through your outbound centres.
2555
MR. DesBRISAY: Contact NB is
primarily represented by inbound ‑‑ the membership is primarily inbound,
not outbound. But they still call
our customers.
2556
Under the definition of a telemarketer, anyone that calls a customer is a
telemarketer.
2557
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: You
said this morning that you maintain a "do not call" list.
2558
MR. DesBRISAY:
Yes.
2559
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Or your
members maintain a "do not call" list.
2560
MR. DesBRISAY: I said that
RainMaker maintains a "do not call" list.
2561
I can't speak for the Royal Bank, for instance, or Delta Hotels, or all
of the other companies, as well as Air Canada, which are members of the
association. I presume they do, but
I can't speak for them.
2562
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: So
RainMaker's "do not call" list currently ‑‑ consumers that you phone, how
do they register their name on your "do not call" list?
2563
MR. DesBRISAY: They say so
to our agent, and on the computer screen our agent clicks a button, "Do not
call", and it gets registered in the computer database
immediately.
2564
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Do you
have a way of acknowledging for the consumer that you have placed them on your
"do not call" list?
2565
MR. DesBRISAY:
No.
2566
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: What
happens when a consumer changes his mind and wants to be
de‑listed?
2567
Is it the reverse process?
2568
MR. DesBRISAY: Yes, only it
requires a senior manager to remove a number from the "do not call" list. An agent can't do
that.
2569
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: An
agent cannot do it.
2570
Is it always through a live person answering the phone or placing the
call that receives the request to either be listed or
de‑listed?
2571
MR. DesBRISAY: No, it can
come in by fax or by e‑mail. Mainly
by phone. We have an 800 toll‑free
number that they can call.
2572
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Have
you received any complaints from consumers who have said, "Hey, I have been
placed on your "do not call" list and I am still getting calls from
you"?
2573
MR. DesBRISAY:
No.
2574
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: How
soon after the request comes in are you able to remove them from the
list?
2575
Is it immediately?
2576
MR. DesBRISAY: Yes,
immediately. The computer system
will not dial a number that is flagged "Do not call".
2577
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Do you
currently place a time limit on how long a consumer can be on your
list?
2578
MR. DesBRISAY: No, it is in
perpetuity.
2579
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: What is
your suggestion for how long consumers should keep their name on the "do not
call" list?
2580
MR. DesBRISAY: The
association doesn't have an opinion on that.
2581
Personally, I think it should be one year, because numbers change all the
time. If you want to be on the
list, you will be obliged to re‑register every year.
2582
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: What if
we were able to build in provisions that ensured that numbers that either were
reassigned or disconnected would be automatically scrubbed from the
list?
2583
MR. DesBRISAY: That would be
good.
2584
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Would
you still maintain that a one‑year limit would be
appropriate?
2585
MR. DesBRISAY: No, it could
be longer in that case.
2586
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Would
you have any objection to it being in perpetuity?
2587
MR. DesBRISAY:
No.
2588
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: The
point is, if we were to impose a shorter time period than perpetuity, we would
get into the complications of: How
does a consumer know that their registration on the "do not call" list is about
to expire. Whose responsibility
would it be to remind that consumer that, "Hey, your three‑year limit is up and
you have to re‑register." And what
would be the costs involved with implementing that type of renewal
system.
2589
MR. DesBRISAY: I see the
problem, but I just don't think ‑‑
2590
I am going to retract my earlier comment. I don't think that numbers should be on
there in perpetuity. There should
be some deadline that allows people to change their mind. If they forget that they are on the
list ‑‑
2591
Maybe people would like to receive survey ‑‑ not survey calls, but
other calls from telemarketers with whom they have not had an existing business
relationship in 18 months.
2592
Forever is ‑‑
2593
COMMISSIONER CRAM: A long
time.
2594
MR. DesBRISAY: ‑‑ a bit too long.
2595
COMMISSIONER CRAM:
Business‑to‑business. Do you
currently do any telemarketing?
2596
MR. DesBRISAY: Yes, we
do.
2597
COMMISSIONER CRAM:
Business‑to‑business.
2598
MR. DesBRISAY:
Yes.
2599
COMMISSIONER CRAM: The
current telemarketing rules, do you agree that they should continue to
apply?
2600
MR. DesBRISAY:
Yes.
2601
COMMISSIONER CRAM: What do
you see as the major impediment to including business‑to‑business calls on the
"do not call" list?
2602
I take your point about emerging businesses. You made it very strongly. They need the opportunity to build a
client base. But do you have any
other examples of what would be a major
impediment?
2603
MR. DesBRISAY: Sure. A lot of companies, big and small, rely
upon using the telephone to contact prospective customers, former customers,
existing customers, and using the telephone to do that is a very powerful
marketing and sales tool. Very
powerful. It is the most
cost‑effective method of marketing.
2604
Businesses placing their numbers on the "do not call" list, and people
using automated blocking devices, such as we do ‑‑ and I think that
everyone will have to go that way, in some way ‑‑ we will just not be able
to call IBM any more if their number is on the list. You won't be able to reach
them.
2605
It opens up a huge problem for companies that want to contact other
companies whose number is on the list.
2606
COMMISSIONER CRAM: What do
you foresee being a new rule on the "do not call" list that is not currently in
the telemarketing rules that would directly impact
business‑to‑business?
2607
In other words, what would change for businesses?
2608
MR. DesBRISAY: There will be
a lot of businesses that we won't be able to call.
2609
COMMISSIONER CRAM: If
businesses are currently doing telemarketing to consumers, they would have to
oblige by the rules.
2610
MR. DesBRISAY:
Yes.
2611
COMMISSIONER CRAM: They
would have to access the "do not call" list.
2612
How much further a step is it for those businesses who do
business‑to‑business telemarketing to access that same
list?
2613
MR. DesBRISAY: It isn't
difficult. The problem
is ‑‑
2614
Let me back up a bit. I
don't think there is any hue and cry by the business community to have their
numbers on the "do not call" list.
It is residential consumers who have been driving this. It is not the business community saying,
"We need to be able to put our numbers on the list."
2615
I don't think that's happening and, frankly, I think it's a mistake that
businesses were not given an exclusion and I would ‑‑ I would
recommend ‑‑ I know the chairman has said otherwise, that CRTC go back to
the House of Commons and ask to have businesses added to the
exclusion.
2616
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: I don't
know if you were here yesterday for the proceedings, but there was quite a bit
of discussion about family relationship exemption and I was just wondering if
you had an opinion on whether that should be included or
not.
2617
MR. DESBRISAY: The
association doesn't have any view on that.
We didn't consider it.
2618
COMMISSIONER CUGINI:
Okay. One of the things that
struck me in your written submission was the existing business
relationship:
"Many businesses
who have not previously considered themselves to be telemarketers will be forced
to install DNC blocking systems."
2619
What type of businesses were you referring to in
that?
2620
MR. DESBRISAY: Let me
give you an example. If you ‑‑
say you buy a car from an automobile dealer and in six months time the
automobile dealer will call you to say, oh, it's time for you to come in and
have the car serviced, oil changed.
That is a telemarketing call.
2621
And so if the consumer does not do business with the dealer for eighteen
months and one day, they will no longer be excluded and the automobile dealer
that's calling you, the consumer, to have you come in and have the oil changed
will be in violation because they will be ‑‑ if you are ‑‑ if your
number is on the list.
2622
So that automobile dealer is going to have to have some method of
checking their database to make sure that they have an existing business
relationship with that customer within the eighteen months and secondly, to see
whether or not they are on the do not call list.
2623
So that company is going to have to have some system, and it will be a
telemarketer and it's going to have to comply.
2624
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Do you
think it's the responsibility of that car dealership or the car maker to
maintain a do not call list and to, you know, be responsible for the scrubbing
and so on, or should it be both?
2625
MR. DESBRISAY: I'm not
sure it's ‑‑ it's whoever is originating the call. If the car maker of General Motors is
making the calls, then perhaps they should be required to comply also or be
responsible, but I don't think that ‑‑ I think it's the party making the
call or making the call on behalf of the party.
2626
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Because
that ‑‑
2627
MR. DESBRISAY: For
instance, a car dealer might hire my firm, for instance.
2628
COMMISSIONER CUGINI:
Right.
2629
MR. DESBRISAY: Or
someone else to make calls for them.
Call our 5,000 customers and tell them we have a special on summer
reconditioning for your whatever.
And so our telemarketing firm would be responsible to comply and so would
the car dealer, the customer.
2630
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Well,
taking your example further then, do you ‑‑ should it be the car maker, car
dealer and your firm who should be responsible for maintaining the list,
therefore accessing the list, therefore paying the fees to access the
list?
2631
MR. DESBRISAY: I don't
know. I'd have to give some thought
to that.
2632
COMMISSIONER CUGINI:
Okay. You make a strong
point this morning as well as in your written submission that a strong public
awareness program should be initiated so that consumers are well aware of what
is included and excluded from the do not call list rules.
2633
Do you have any suggestions for us as to what form that educational
process should take and who should be responsible for
it?
2634
MR. DESBRISAY: I
believe it's got to be much more than just putting in a little flyer in the
telephone bills. And by the way,
let's not forget that not everyone is going to get a telephone bill from their
telco anymore because there is a huge wave coming, starting right now, for voice
over internet phones.
2635
As a matter of fact, our company, Rainmaker, is a hundred percent voice
over internet. And so that's not
going to reach everybody. I never
read those little things that are in the envelope anyway and so it needs to be a
big campaign on television and newspapers and what have you and it should be
paid by the government.
2636
It is the government that has put this law into effect and it is the
government that has created all the exclusions and it is the government ‑‑
some branch of it is going to have to pay.
2637
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: You are
giving our Chairman more tasks. Do
you use voice casting?
2638
MR. DESBRISAY:
No.
2639
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Do you
use ADADs?
2640
MR. DESBRISAY:
No.
2641
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Thank
you. Those are all my
questions. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
2642
THE CHAIRPERSON:
Mr. Debrisay, I have a couple of questions and I'm going to exercise
my prerogative just to pursue them with you.
2643
Anyone who calls a customer is a slight overstatement as to what the bill
applies to, but you have given us some interesting illustrations of the problems
that could arise in a practical matter.
2644
Do you seriously ‑‑ are you seriously telling us today that based on
your experience, two million Canadian businesses are going to have to invest
$25,000 each to link their CRM software, which they may or may not have in the
first place, to the DNCL list or is it possible that's somewhat
overstated?
2645
MR. DESBRISAY: Well,
let's look at the definition of a telemarketer. It's any party or company or individual
that solicits, uses a telephone to solicit business. So if a company makes telephone calls to
solicit business, they are a telemarketer.
2646
THE CHAIRPERSON: To solicit
business.
Yes.
2647
MR. DESBRISAY:
Right.
2648
THE CHAIRPERSON: And in your
view, what would a prudent government have done or do to reduce that
burden?
2649
MR. DESBRISAY: The
burden ‑‑
2650
THE CHAIRPERSON: The cost
that you claim is going to fall on Canadian business as a result of the
legislation?
2651
MR. DESBRISAY: Frankly,
I don't think the government gave it that much thought, how much it was going to
cost. How is this going to be
implemented by each and every telemarketer? It's not difficult for the Royal Bank,
who is calling their customers because they've got a whole battery of IT people,
so they can do this.
2652
But the small business, the little car dealers, the hundreds of thousands
of small businesses across Canada who call their customers are going to have to
have an internal do not call list and be compliant with the national list, and I
don't know how that's going to be done.
2653
I do know that it cost us to buy a blocker ‑‑ it's a server
basically that allows you to download the list off the internet ‑‑ through
the internet download the list. It
costs us $15,000 for the box, the switches. All telephones in our offices have to be
routed through the switch.
2654
So you have got to go through the process of collecting all the telephone
lines in your business ‑‑ that car dealer as an example, you have to take
all their phone lines and put them through that blocker so they'll check against
their customer database and the do not call list to make sure they're not making
calls that are not compliant.
2655
THE CHAIRPERSON: And this is
because you are, in fact, already in compliance with the US
DNC?
2656
MR. DESBRISAY: Well,
Rainmaker is, yes.
2657
THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. That is extremely valuable information
from us in a practical sense, however, if indeed it's still your contention that
all of that apparatus will be required for every one of the Canadian businesses
which you estimate at two million who will be calling customers and therefore
become "Telemarketers", but there's ‑‑ you don't see any obvious thing that
the Commission could do or that the government should have
done?
2658
MR. DESBRISAY: Well,
perhaps we could order the telcos to modify their switches to block numbers, but
that doesn't ‑‑ still doesn't deal with internal do not call lists. So the telco is not going to be able to
monitor the internal list. They
might be able to monitor the national list, but not the internal
list.
2659
THE CHAIRPERSON: The switch
would be ‑‑
2660
MR. DESBRISAY: There
was no ‑‑
2661
THE CHAIRPERSON: Excuse
me. The switch would have to
be ‑‑ excuse me, sorry, please go ahead.
2662
MR. DESBRISAY: Go
ahead.
2663
THE CHAIRPERSON: The switch
would have to ‑‑ the teleswitch would have to recognize the source of the
call and the call party?
2664
MR. DESBRISAY: That's
right.
2665
THE CHAIRPERSON: It would
say these two combinations, no go.
2666
MR. DESBRISAY:
Right. Now, that could be
made to work. I mean, I'm not a
telecom. It could be made to work,
I don't know at what cost. But, A,
it doesn't deal with the internal do not call list, and, B, it doesn't deal with
companies and individuals that are using voice over internet protocol telephone
systems because those calls do not go through the routers.
2667
And there's more and more companies and businesses moving daily to voice
over internet systems.
2668
THE CHAIRPERSON: So, in
effect, you have given us some very valuable specific information about your
business, the cost to which are ‑‑ after all, costs inherent in the very
nature of your business and therefore they are a burden which you don't
particularly enjoy, as no businessman does, to incremental costs, but one which
comes to the territory, it seems to me.
2669
Whereas ‑‑ whereas ‑‑ and as for the auto maker who phones
5,000 people, well, he's put himself basically in the same area. But the auto maker who is calling back
customers and making single calls or twelve calls or a dozen calls a day by
someone whose primary job is elsewhere, your point to us today, and it seems to
be an important one, is that there is a potential incremental cost which is
quite large and which the Commission ought, at a minimum, to be cognizant of as
it goes forward and makes its rules.
2670
MR. DESBRISAY:
Certainly. If there's some
inexpensive way for all businesses who call our customers to scrub their
outbound calls against the list and their internal list, let's not forget
that.
2671
THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, for
example ‑‑
2672
MR. DESBRISAY: Then
let's do it.
2673
THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes,
okay. I mean that's a very
important and interesting piece of advise and we appreciate
it.
2674
On business to business, I think you were here yesterday, and I had a
discussion with ‑‑ I'm very embarrassed to say I don't remember the
witness, but it was a discussion, the burden of which was, instead of an
exclusion for business to business, which is really what you are asking us here
for, and I am not going to get into ‑‑ I don't think I am going to get into
the question of whether that is justified in principle, but as a matter
of ‑‑ as a matter of practice one thing we could do would be to
define ‑‑ to find a way of inputting in the definition of telemarketing,
the definition of a violation, the notion that telemarketing for purposes of
selling other than consumer goods, other than goods destined to be bought in
quantities of ones and twos for use in a residence by a family or a person in
his residence, other than that, that kind of telemarketing would be
allowed. I don't know if I am
making any sense to you.
2675
It would achieve, it seems to me, what you say you are looking for,
without getting us into the question of telling ‑‑ I guess it was
Mr. Hill and the CMA. Thank
you, I am sorry that ‑‑ that would allow us to ‑‑ not to get into the
question of distinguishing businesses from residences when people phone up and
say I want to put my number on the list.
2676
It seems to me it is a lot to ask us, and I am not sure how you intend
for us to do it, to say you are a business, you can't go on the list. How would we do that? I mean how could we do that or, more to
the point, would you be more sympathetic to the notion that we try by defining
what a telemarketing violation is, i.e., consumer goods only, to solving your
problem in that way?
2677
MR. DESBRISAY: The
logistics of checking every company, the two million, whatever number of
companies that there are in Canada to see whether or not they're telling
consumer goods and whether exempt or not exempt is humungous. Being flippant, maybe we could get the
gun registry people to do that for us.
2678
THE CHAIRPERSON: We're not
allowed to talk about gun registry here.
I am ruling it out of order right away.
‑‑‑
Laughter.
2679
MR. DESBRISAY: I am
from New Brunswick, so I have to put a plug in there for them. But I just see it as a horrendous
problem.
2680
If businesses want to have their number listed, then why don't we have a
special form that they have to fill out signed by an officer of the company and
sent in and say that's the only way you can have your number on
the ‑‑‑
2681
THE CHAIRPERSON: But how
would the list operator know it was a business?
2682
MR. DESBRISAY: Well,
because in my perfect world a residential customer is going to have to prove
that they own that number.
2683
THE CHAIRPERSON: And how
would they do that?
2684
MR. DESBRISAY: Send a
copy of the phone bill in. If
you're doing it over e‑mail ‑‑ I mean if you have a disgruntled employee
or, my term, teleterrorist, that just hates all telemarketing, there's nothing
to prevent someone from going on and putting hundreds ‑‑ thousands of
numbers.
2685
You can even download them off the internet from whitepages.ca or
yellowpages.ca, and someone could post thousands of numbers on the list without
any control and who is going to stop that?
2686
So only the owner, the rightful owner of the number should be allowed to
put that number on the list.
2687
THE CHAIRPERSON: Technically
the phone company owns the number, but anyway, we get the
point.
2688
MR. DESBRISAY:
Yes.
2689
THE CHAIRPERSON: And so in
your mind it would be reasonable to expect the list operator to police the
eligibility of the numbers which we're seeking to be placed on the do not call
list?
2690
MR. DESBRISAY:
Absolutely.
2691
THE CHAIRPERSON: Whereas in
the United States after three or four years of functioning there is no, as I
understand it, absolute demonstration that there aren't hundreds of thousands of
small business numbers on that database without any obvious harm it seems to me
in the industry in the United States or am I wrong? Do you
have ‑‑
2692
MR. DESBRISAY: Yes, I
have anecdotal evidence from another telemarketing firm in the United States
that I had some discussion with, and they tell me that they've had the case
where people have put thousands of numbers on the list, and as a matter of fact,
put his own number on the list, and he certainly didn't put it on the list. Someone else did.
2693
And so they believe that thousands and thousands of numbers were added
unbeknownst to the owner of the number.
2694
THE CHAIRPERSON: And these
were business numbers or residential numbers?
2695
MR. DESBRISAY:
Residential numbers. And I
believe that businesses are not permitted to put ‑‑ in the U.S. not
permitted to put their number on the list.
I don't know how they police that.
2696
THE CHAIRPERSON: No, I mean
I think you are right because they need to be exempt, so in theory they can't go
on the list. But the question which
I am asking you, which quite reasonably you can't necessarily answer
definitively is I've been told that there are lots of business numbers on the
list, but that no obvious damage to anyone has occurred as a
result.
2697
Well, thank you very much for that.
Commissioner Cram and then Commissioner Langford.
2698
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Thank
you, Mr. Debrisay. I wanted to
talk about ‑‑ is it rain ‑‑ Rainmaker?
2699
MR. DESBRISAY:
Rainmaker.
2700
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Yes. You operate out of Canada, but you phone
into the States. And is it the
position of the FCC that you are subject to their rules?
2701
MR. DESBRISAY: Yes,
because our client is an American company.
2702
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Ah, okay,
okay. So they would get ‑‑ if
there was a breach, they would get to the client, not necessarily
yourself.
2703
MR. DESBRISAY:
Yes.
2704
COMMISSIONER CRAM: And that
is the only reason, because the transporter issue is one that I would worry
about in terms of people phoning from the States up to Canada. So the only sort of jurisdiction we
would have would be over the client and where it would be.
2705
MR. DESBRISAY: That's
right.
2706
COMMISSIONER CRAM:
Okay. I wanted to talk to
you about business to business.
First there was the CMA distinction that said that business could
register with the ‑‑ with the list, but on business to business
type ‑‑ which would be sort of, I guess, bulk selling, that they would not
be immune from telemarketing calls.
What do you think of that distinction?
2707
MR. DESBRISAY: Who is
going to be the judge of that? I
just think it is impossible to police and ‑‑
2708
COMMISSIONER CRAM:
Yes.
2709
MR. DESBRISAY: ‑‑ make judgment calls and this company's okay
and this company isn't. Who is
going to say so? Who has that
wisdom?
2710
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Yes. And I am famous for taking notes. They say we don't even need the person
taking the transcript.
2711
You said if there is no business to business there will be a lot of
customers you couldn't call. That's
what you said, if there was no business to business
exemption ‑‑
2712
MR. DESBRISAY:
Okay.
2713
COMMISSIONER CRAM: ‑‑ there would be a lot of customers we couldn't
call.
2714
MR. DESBRISAY:
Sure.
2715
COMMISSIONER CRAM: So you
are saying presumably ‑‑ I mean, that's based on the fact that if there
were not a business to business exemption a lot of businesses would put
themselves on the do not call list.
2716
MR. DESBRISAY: Or they
could be put there unbeknownst to them.
The disgruntled employee, my teleterrorist, the
receptionist.
2717
COMMISSIONER CRAM:
Okay.
2718
MR. DESBRISAY: All
kinds of ways that a business number could be put on the list, unbeknownst to
the business. Then my call
blocker ‑‑ when I try to call that business, my call blocker will not
process the call.
2719
COMMISSIONER CRAM:
Okay. So that is how that
fits with ‑‑ the business community is not concerned.
2720
MR. DESBRISAY: Yes, we
don't think there's any demand by the business community to have business
numbers on the do not call list.
2721
COMMISSIONER CRAM:
Okay. And then you talked
about charging consumers for the do not call list, and I am going to read you
the opposite view by Mr. Gahan:
"Because the
consumer pays for telephone service, no marketer has the right to misuse this
service. Any unauthorized contact
intended to make a profit directly or indirectly must be considered
misuse."
2722
I guess the argument then comes down to, if Mr. Gahan is correct, he
pays for the service, he pays a pretty penny for having a phone and he should be
able to decide who phones him because he's paying for the
service.
2723
If he didn't have the telephone service, Rainmaker couldn't call
him.
2724
MR. DESBRISAY: He also
has the ability to arrange with his telco to have his number listed as a non‑published number and it
is not in the directory. He does
pay for that. It is an additional
service over and above the standard service offered by the
telco.
2725
COMMISSIONER CRAM: But that
wouldn't ‑‑
2726
MR. DESBRISAY: So why
wouldn't the do not call be another additional service similar to a
non‑published number.
2727
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Does a
non‑published number get him out of being telemarketed?
2728
MR. DESBRISAY: Not
completely because his number may somehow end up on someone's list, but you are
not going to see it in the white pages.
2729
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Okay,
thank you very much.
2730
THE CHAIRPERSON:
Mr. Langford.
2731
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. I just want
to pursue last point. And you have
been very patient with us and I am sorry to drag it out, but we don't like to
let a witness go if we think there's still a little information we can squeeze
out of you.
2732
MR. DESBRISAY: Plus I
am a telemarketer.
2733
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:
That's right. Get ones brave
enough to come in here, you know, we like to see what we can
do.
2734
MR. DESBRISAY: Sheep
amongst the lions.
2735
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: I am
just trying to figure out why it would out why it would ‑‑ we've mentioned
the word done registries. I'll just
say those two words again and say no more.
They say it all. Nobody's
happy with it, nobody's proud of it, and let's assume everybody went into it
with the best intentions in the world, but somehow these things ‑‑ to me
they stand at least for the proposition that these things can get out of control
and they're very, very difficult to project into the future in terms of costs
and ongoing expense.
2736
I think it is an important lesson, because if you start to charge
consumers and they have to send in a phone bill and they have to prove their
number and it is getting pretty close to sending in, you know, what model of gun
you own and where you live and a picture of yourself and you end up getting the
gun registered and then you get registered as well. It all seems like a great idea in
theory, and then you look at the costs and it is out of
sight.
2737
I just wonder why you wouldn't take a chance on something simpler. I take the point about the terrorist,
but perhaps you wouldn't have to charge consumers if you didn't make it so
complicated. In other words, you
put in your number and that is it, there's got to be a way to test it, I
suppose.
2738
I mean if people find out they're not getting calls, I guess
theoretically they could explain and say what's happened. I haven't heard from
anybody.
2739
MR. DESBRISAY: It is
not going to happen.
2740
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: No,
you are right, which tells us a lot.
It just seems excessive. I
mean have you ‑‑ you are experienced in dealing with a reasonably large
industry and a membership in a really large industry, can you actually see the
feasibility of keeping a cap on those kinds of expenses if you require so much
from each registered person?
2741
MR. DESBRISAY: Well,
let me just address the whole concept of costs. To my knowledge, no one has tried to
really estimate how much this is going to cost to operate the DNC list, to
implement it.
2742
I haven't ‑‑ I am on one of the working committees and I don't think
it is been ‑‑ unless I have missed it, I don't think it is been
discussed.
2743
I don't think anyone has really put pencil to paper and say it is going
to cost a million dollars or a hundred million dollars, no one knows. So how much are we going to have to
charge? How many people are going
to be buying this list, what are we going to charge them? I don't think that arithmetic has been
done.
2744
So no one knows how much it is going to cost, and just the principle that
we are coming at is saying, yes, all users of the list should pay and that we
need to consider having consumers pay their share, a share of it by paying as
they would for a non‑published number.
2745
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: But
you folks are already going to have to pay for this automatic dialing or
blocking device that you have put in at a cost of 15 to 25,000 in your own
firm. I heard two figures so I
wasn't quite sure which it is.
Fifteen for the server and then an extra ten for software and things like
that?
2746
MR. DESBRISAY:
Yes.
2747
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: So 25
all told. You've got to put it in
anyway. You could write it off as
an expense. I know that is the old
song and dance, but you can at least write it off over time as a business
expense.
2748
Since you have to have it in anyway, since you are calling people and
they say please push the DNC button, they are already in a sense
registered. What's the point then
of going back to them and saying pay $2 a month for what's been done
already? It is over, it is
done.
2749
MR. DESBRISAY: I see
your point. It is a valid
point. It is done, it is just the
initial cost of setting that up.
Maybe there's a $10 fee. I
really don't know. I just feel that
there's some obligation on behalf of the consumer to pay a share for
implementing this what will be a costly system, not just to install, but to
operate.
2750
It costs us thousands of dollars a month to continue to keep our list
updated and to solve problems, because it is technology and they are not trouble
free. They do break down and you
have to fix them. So there's a huge
cost to keep it operating.
2751
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:
Yes.
2752
MR. DESBRISAY: And
plus, the car dealership that we were talking about, the hypothetical car
dealership, not only they, but all the other businesses that call our customers
are going to have to put some kind of a system in.
2753
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: So
are you suggesting this $2 a month or $10 flat fee would go to subsidizing the
machinery you have to buy?
2754
MR. DESBRISAY: No,
no.
2755
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Just
the ongoing costs once you are in it, the list operator and that sort of thing,
violation enforcement and what not.
2756
MR. DESBRISAY: Keep in
mind, it is only a suggestion. I
mean we are looking for alternatives here and I think that it is a reasonable
thing to expect the users to pay.
It is a principle that is established in Canada, user pay. User ‑‑
2757
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Oh,
that is for sure. That is for
sure. It is a principle with which
I am familiar.
2758
I once ‑‑ I shouldn't indulge in anecdotes, but I actually once
received, having filed my income taxes back in the years ‑‑ some years ago
when I was running my own business, a bill demanding a 41 cent payment with a
thick computer print‑out as to how my accountant, the fool, had failed to
realize that it was 41 more cents owed than he had put
down.
2759
And perhaps because I am slightly contrary in my views, I let it run just
to see what would happen. And every
once in a while after that I'd get another one in a big thick envelope, 41
cents. I figured the government
must have spent close to a hundred dollars before I finally took pity on them
and wrote them a cheque for the 41 cents.
It was so small I don't even think it went up with interest costs or
anything. Just stayed there at 41
cents. Month after month I'd get
these thick computer print‑outs.
2760
And I sort of think of trying to collect that $10 fee from somebody and I
just wonder whether it won't get out of control.
2761
But I take your point that it is a view, it is a position, it is ‑‑
what you are giving us here is something to consider and I am grateful for
it.
2762
MR. DESBRISAY: It could
be collected by the telco.
2763
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Ah,
yes. I
saw ‑‑
2764
MR. DESBRISAY: A source
of revenue for the telco. They will
take a chunk of it.
2765
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Well,
we will run that by Ted Woodhead when he gets up here with the companies
later. Thank you very much. Those are my
questions.
2766
THE CHAIRPERSON:
Counsel.
2767
MR. MILLINGTON:
Mr. Debrisay, I just have a couple of questions. Yesterday we were talking to the
insurance company about consents. I
am wondering whether in the context of your car dealership scenario if at the
time of purchase or whenever the relationship was established, if the car
dealership obtained the consent to continue to have a relationship with respect
to servicing the automobile, as an example, if that mechanism was
available.
2768
It doesn't remove the list scrubbing, but those ‑‑ I am just making
it up as I go along here. So those
customers could be kept internal to the car dealership and could be contacted
because they have agreed to being marketed for the purposes of the services of
that company.
2769
Is that kind of mechanism feasible for a broad number of companies that
you see being encumbered with the costs of managing a do not call list
participating in the regime? Does
that go any distance at all in helping out?
2770
MR. DESBRISAY: The
company ‑‑ all telemarketers will have to have technology, computer‑based
system of some kind to manage this, and they will be able to ‑‑ once they
get written consent, I think it needs to be written consent by e‑mail or fax or
some other way, letter, then the company will be able to go into their own
system and remove a number from the do not call blocker. It is possible and we do
it.
2771
MR. MILLINGTON:
Because, I mean, I am ‑‑ you know, emboldened by the recent anecdote
to recount one of my own.
2772
I get my car serviced, and following every service I get a call from the
dealership asking me how it was.
You know, whether it was good for me.
‑‑‑
Laughter.
2773
MR. DESBRISAY: Was it
good for you too?
2774
MR. MILLINGTON: And
they obviously keep me in a database of some kind that exists today. They call me regularly, and so I am just
wondering if this is really a huge financial impediment because they have
obviously got a system there already.
All they have to do is simply delete me if I say I don't want to
participate or just maintain my name in the current system that they have and
continue to call me anD call me about next
updates.
2775
MR. DESBRISAY: Well,
they need some technology to do that, because if your number is on the file,
they need to be able to tell whoever is calling next week or next month that,
hey, don't call that person or it is okay to call that
person.
2776
There's training that goes on.
You would have to train every employee, every new hire, what is
the ‑‑ how do we continue to comply with the do not call legislation. So there's a training component of
it.
2777
It has to be done. Everyone
who works at every company will have to be trained on management of the do not
call system. So, yeah, it can be
done.
2778
MR. MILLINGTON:
Okay. The other question I
have has to ‑‑ goes to, again, the business to business
telemarketing.
2779
I am ‑‑ you know, I heard the discussions and I am wondering about
this exemption. The problem I have
with it is that if ‑‑ people other than the ‑‑ these teleterrorists
and the disgruntled employees, presumably a company who values services being
provided by other businesses would not put themselves on the list and certainly
companies that are familiar with how difficult it is to get started wouldn't put
themselves on the list because they might have some empathy for what it is to
start a new business.
2780
They are in an entirely different class of ‑‑ than the residential
consumer, who is sort of captive of their phone calls and they want to be
excused from the nuisance.
2781
So I take your point that there has not been any ‑‑ there doesn't
seem to be a ground swell, in your view, a ground swell of public opinion within
the business community that is driving them forward to get themselves on the do
not call list.
2782
So wouldn't that logically say at the end of the day that if they aren't
unhappy with it, they won't put themselves on it.
2783
You know, we don't have ‑‑ the Chairman indicated we don't have a
lot of evidence coming out of the States that would indicate that it has been a
problem there, although their regime is different. So I am wondering why it is, in your
view, that this is such a problem for businesses when they don't have to
participate if they don't want to and they can just not put themselves on if
they value being telemarketed by other
businesses.
2784
MR. DESBRISAY: Well,
the problem is that if you have a curmudgeon running the business, he may have a
bad day and say, "I don't want any more calls" and put my number on the
list. Or the curmudgeon's secretary
can do it.
2785
I mean there could be a whole lot of ways that that company's number
could get on the list and maybe in hindsight it wasn't the right
thing.
2786
I just think that it is a restraint of trade that we don't ‑‑ just
don't have to deal with it. It is
tough being in business already for all business people. Nothing's easy, and this just adds
another impediment.
2787
MR. MILLINGTON: Would
you feel any better if there were some ‑‑ there was some sort of
verification process that it would take out of ‑‑ the registration out of
the hands of disgruntled employees, as an example, the ability to register a
company on behalf of a company?
That the steps were a little bit more onerous because it is not ‑‑
you know, a company is not a single person that owns a phone number like a
residential customer, but there was a little bit more in terms of process
associated with putting a company on the list? Would that deal with your
concern?
2788
MR. DESBRISAY: Yes, I
would think if the ‑‑ if it was some way of having an officer of the
company sign that they wanted the number on the list, then it creates sober
second thought of putting the number there.
2789
If someone ‑‑ a business owner really doesn't want their number on
the list or really does want their number to be on the list, then I guess I
wouldn't have any objection.
2790
MR. MILLINGTON: And
would you ‑‑
2791
MR. DESBRISAY: But just
to open it up carte blanche for all businesses I think is a serious
mistake.
2792
MR. MILLINGTON: So if
it took more to put on, would you also see the need to have different kind of
other rules, for example, how long you stay on the list as being different from
residential? Would this enchain a
whole different sort of sub‑regime to deal with businesses as opposed to
residential? Would that kind of
address your constituency's concerns?
2793
MR. DESBRISAY: I hadn't
really thought about that, but first thought, yes, perhaps that might be a
solution. Maybe the number ‑‑
a business number would only be ‑‑ if it's put on by an officer of the
company, maybe it is on there for a year and it has to be removed or is removed
automatically.
2794
MR. MILLINGTON: Thanks
very much.
2795
THE CHAIRPERSON:
Commissioner Duncan.
2796
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:
Yesterday we heard from the Primemerica people that ‑‑ in the U.S.
that they have a line, a toll free line, as I understood it, where consumers or
companies could call and verify, find out if their number was on the list. So would that satisfy your concern if
such a facility was in place in Canada?
2797
In other words, you could do it periodically or if you were suspicious
or ‑‑
2798
MR. DESBRISAY: It is
possible to go on the FTC website and enter the number and see whether or not it
is on the list or you can call the FTC 800 number and ask if the number is on
the list. I presume that the
operator here will have the same capabilities.
2799
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: But do
you think that that would go a long way to addressing your concern about ‑‑
what did you call it, tele‑‑
2800
MR. DESBRISAY:
Teleterrorist?
2801
MS. DEWAL: Teleterrorists,
yes.
2802
MR. DESBRISAY: That's
my own.
2803
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I get
that. Would it go a long way to
addressing that concern?
2804
MR. DESBRISAY: No,
because most people are not going to think to do that.
2805
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Well, I
guess maybe that might be a function if it is published. Over time people would become aware of
it.
2806
MR. DESBRISAY: It is
probably ‑‑ probably not adequate, but it will help.
2807
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: And do
you think after the three year review period we might be in a better position to
assess the impact on business to business?
As it is today it is exempt, as you know ‑‑ it is not
exempt.
2808
MR. DESBRISAY: Not
exempt. Three years in business is
a long time and I know if I wanted to call IBM and their number was blocked I
would be pretty upset.
2809
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Thank
you.
2810
MR. DESBRISAY: Because
I am dialing through my call blocker, and all businesses will have to if they
are going to be compliant.
2811
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Just on
your call blocker, then, does that ‑‑ it works obviously with your internal
call list?
2812
MR. DESBRISAY: Yes, and
the national list.
2813
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: It
will.
2814
MR. DESBRISAY:
Both.
2815
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Yes,
because you are ‑‑ all right, great.
Thank you.
2816
THE CHAIRPERSON:
Mr. Debrisay, thank you very much. It has been extremely valuable to hear
what you have to say. You bring us
information from the front lines and you create employment. Those are important things and they are
considerations the Commission cannot afford to just dismiss. So we appreciate very much your
coming.
2817
We're going to take a break.
we'll start again at five minutes to eleven and, then, I promised the
Public Interest Advocacy Centre that they will be first.
‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 1040 /
Suspension à 1040
‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1055 /
Reprise à 1055
2818
THE CHAIRPERSON: Order,
please.
2819
Madam Secretary.
2820
THE SECRETARY: Thank you,
Mr. Chair.
2821
The next participant is the Consumers' Association of Canada, represented
by PIAC.
2822
Mr. John Lawford, would you please present your
panel.
PRESENTATION /
PRÉSENTATION
2823
MR. LAWFORD: Thank you,
Madam Secretary.
2824
With me today is Joy Mauthe, who is a student volunteering at PIAC, and
Hasini Palihapitiya, who is our articling student for this
year.
2825
I am here to talk about the devil; that is, the devil that is in the
detail of this "do not call" list.
2826
The "do not call" list is a very promising development for consumers, and
the CAC fully supports it. However,
the seemingly pleasing shape of this development hides certain consumer pitfalls
which would make it, if not quite hellish, then certainly not consumer
nirvana.
2827
Although the Commission has been handed new powers in relation to
telemarketing by Bill C‑37, the underlying framework regarding unsolicited
telecommunications still exists.
This must be borne in mind during the Commission's deliberations on this
Public Notice.
2828
Section 7(i) of the Telecommunications Act has, as one of its policy
objectives, to contribute to the protection of the privacy of persons. Most importantly, however, section 41
gives the Commission the power to, by order, prohibit or regulate the use by any
person of the telecommunications facilities of a Canadian carrier for the
provision of unsolicited telecommunications, to the extent the Commission
considers it necessary to prevent undue inconvenience or nuisance, giving due
regard to freedom of expression.
2829
These policy objectives and powers of the Commission are, therefore, to
be supplemented and not supplanted by the creation of a "do not call"
list.
2830
The cardinal principles that should guide the Commission's consideration
of all the rule‑making in this proceeding, therefore, are the protection of
privacy, the prevention of undue inconvenience or nuisance, and freedom of
expression.
2831
Note that the powers to regulate telemarketing under the Act, even as
amended by Bill C‑37, do not have as their goals either the health of the
telemarketing industry or the creation of jobs in general. Such considerations are irrelevant to
creating a "do not call" list.
2832
There are several exceptions to the "do not call" list, as laid out in
Bill C‑37, and we submit that it will actually come as a very large surprise to
most Canadians that these exceptions even exist. After all, the "do not call" list, in
people's minds, will mean "do not call".
2833
However, these exceptions have the potential to become the rule. This proceeding, therefore, is the
Commission's chance to set limits on these exceptions and, in so doing, preserve
the greatest utility of the "do not call" list for telephone
customers.
2834
The Commission can do this, firstly, by narrowly and clearly defining the
undefined terms in these exceptions in the telemarketing
rules.
2835
First I will deal with existing business
relationships.
2836
The Commission can exorcise quite a few of DNCL's demons with a detailed
definition of "organization" under the existing business relationship exception,
as it is applied in subsections 41.7(1)(b)(i) and (ii).
2837
"Organization" should be defined strictly. It should mean that the legal entity
with which I do business is the only one that may rely on the exception to call
me.
2838
For example, my local telephone account at Bell would not let Bell
ExpressVu, Bell Mobility and Sympatico all call me. It is of no importance that all four of
these entities are, in turn, controlled by BCE Inc.
2839
We submit that it is within telephone users' expectations that their
business relationship with one business will not automatically make them
customers of the affiliates for any purpose of being called under the DNCL
customer exception.
2840
This is not quite the practice in the United States. Actually, you won't find the answer in
the telemarketing final rule.
However, if you go to their information guide, called "Complying With the
Telemarketing Sales Rule", on page 43 of the hard copy it says that an existing
business relationship, or established business relationship, as it is referred
to in the final rule, is between the seller and the customer, and not
necessarily between the seller's subsidiaries or affiliates and that
customer.
2841
I quote:
"The test as to
whether a subsidiary or affiliate can claim an established business relationship
with a sister company's customer is:
Would the customer expect to
receive a call from such an entity, or would the customer feel that such a call
is inconsistent with having placed his or her number on the National Do‑Not‑Call
Registry..."
2842
It goes on from there to give more factors to consider, and I have
appended a copy of those two pages to the end of our
submission.
2843
The CAC submits that we here in Canada can do better than that. The Commission can instead adopt a
clear, bright line, legal entity test, which we have proposed, and avoid a very
large number of existing business relationships, which all businesses will
contend fall under these exceptions.
2844
Many large businesses can actually control entities within an entire
economic sector. Obvious examples
are banking, insurance, telecommunications and broadcasting, as you can see from
the list of intervenors.
2845
We are concerned that they will all try to use the exception in a very
broad manner without this narrower definition. This may have the effect of eating the
entire "do not call" list.
2846
Secondly, the charity exception.
The Commission can keep devilishly minded people out there from putting
hayloads over their horns by clearly defining a telecommunication made by or on
behalf of a registered charity as a sole‑purpose call; that is, any other type
of solicitation may not be made in connection with the charitable call in order
for it to shelter under this exception.
2847
While this tactic could be used with all of the other exceptions, it is
most likely to be used with charitable calls.
2848
I will address briefly the newspaper of general circulation
exception. We feel it is ripe for
use, also, by little devils. The
Commission, therefore, should make a clear and cogent definition of that
term.
2849
The CAC suggests that the Commission define "general circulation" as
requiring the existence of an independent editorial board, a reasonably large
circulation, perhaps 100,000, as an example, except where the newspaper is the
only one in a small town of, say, 10,000 or more persons.
2850
Finally, the newspaper would have to have general or local news content
and not specialist information, such as a specialist
magazine.
2851
I will turn now to the existing telemarketing
rules.
2852
We believe that the Commission can do most for consumers, as I said, in
preserving the present regime and adding to it with a "do not call" list. That would include all of the
telemarketing rules thus far, and the ADAD restrictions.
2853
However, what we would really like to speak about are the Decision
2004‑035 requirements.
2854
Very briefly, the CAC would support all of the restrictions in 2004‑035,
with the exception only of those which have been rendered unnecessary or not
compatible with a "do not call" list.
2855
However, one of those, which is quite contentious, has been the tracking
of individual "do not call" list registrations, as required by Decision 2004‑035
at paragraph 93.
2856
We feel that actually could be suspended, if there were other safeguards,
and I will get to those.
2857
The CAC also expects that the "do not call" list operator will continue
to collect the type of information that the Commission had ordered
telecommunications service providers to collect and report semi‑annually under
Decision 2004‑035.
2858
However, the "do not call" list operator should
also ‑‑
2859
This is the safeguard to do with removing the requirement to give a
reporting number.
2860
The "do not call" list operator should also track complaints related to
compliance with company‑specific "do not call" lists, and if there continues to
be a problem, we will have adequate evidence when the review comes, within three
years, to decide whether that should again be added.
2861
There are a number of other unnecessary elements, which I will skip
over.
2862
Regarding the consumer awareness aspects of Decision 2004‑035, we believe
that they are appropriate for the general awareness of a "do not call" list in
Canada, and that would be a full page in the ILECs' white pages directory
describing the rules under the "do not call" list, and also in every
telecommunications service provider's billings, one bill insert for the next
three years describing the "do not call" list.
2863
This could be justified on the basis that the telecommunications service
providers and ILECs are logical sources of information about "do not call" lists
for consumers, where they can expect to see it. In addition, hopefully, there will be
some other consumer awareness materials created by the Commission, but that is a
logical place for people to look.
2864
Other requirements of Decision 2004‑035, such as predictive dialler and
abandonment rates, we would like to have continue. Therefore, the CAC respectfully submits
that the review of applications filed by the Canadian Marketing Association and
others in connection with Decision 2004‑035 be dismissed.
2865
Finally, the CAC would ask the Commission to make time‑of‑day
restrictions on voice calls. As
stated in our initial comments, calls could be made between 9:00 a.m. and 9:00
p.m. on weekdays, and 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays, and
there should be restrictions roughly the same as those for fax
calls.
2866
The last points have to do with enforcement. With respect to enforcement, we have a
number of concerns.
2867
First, the Commission asked whether the "do not call" regime should apply
to telemarketers or to sellers, or both.
We believe that this is an enforcement question. The CAC supports the liability of both
the seller and the telemarketer for violations. If it is not done, rogue telemarketers
will move from client to client. On
the other hand, if telemarketers only are made liable, companies that wish to
perform illegal or sloppy telemarketing will have a ready subset of fly‑by‑night
telemarketers to take the rap for the violation. Only by making both liable will greater
compliance with the "do not call" rules be achieved.
2868
Secondly, we wish to underline that the list operator choice is a
difficult question, but it is of crucial importance, given the wide scope of
investigation and enforcement powers that Public Notice 2004‑035 implies will be
given to the "do not call" list operator.
2869
The CAC is participating in the CISC committee on choosing the
operator. However, the CAC would
caution the Commission that the choice of a marketer or a marketer‑controlled
group to run the DNC list is clearly inappropriate. There is a clear conflict of interest in
disciplining one's own industry.
2870
If the Commission wishes, however, to trust the devil you know, then we
would ask the Commission to ensure that the composition of whatever body
oversees the eventual list operator will not, in turn, be controlled by
marketers. Here we are thinking of
the consortium.
2871
There are a couple of points under investigation and
enforcement.
2872
Firstly, the Commission should set some clear guidelines for both
functions, that is, investigation and enforcement, so that the list operator
will be made to meet an acceptable service standard and account for shortfalls
in either area.
2873
Both functions are time consuming and expensive, and the list operator
will be tempted to cut either function to improve the bottom line, which will
undermine the effectiveness of a "do not call" list.
2874
Some specific guidelines we have for investigation are that all
investigations should be undertaken with a reasonable delay, and, if requested,
both the telemarketer and seller should be kept aware of the status of the
investigation ‑‑ both sides.
2875
In particular, consumers should be permitted to make
representations.
2876
The reason I am getting into this is, if the initial complaint goes up a
level in the mechanism ‑‑ for example, if there is an initial cut where an
operator decides whether or not the number is on the list ‑‑ that probably
wouldn't be a stage where representations could be made, but further up the
line.
2877
As well, both parties should be informed of the decision, if requested,
in writing, and be provided with information regarding any appeal
process.
2878
I also want to note that the reporting and investigation of complaints
should not be left to business or industry.
2879
I think both the banking and the newspaper associations have mentioned in
their comments that they already have complaint investigation mechanisms in
place and that they could handle telemarketing complaints. This cannot be allowed if the CRTC or
"do not call" list operator is to trap repeat offenders, fraud, the
effectiveness of the rules, et cetera.
2880
It is, in effect, making two tiers of complaints: those who are banking customers, for
example, and those who are customers of other kinds of
organizations.
2881
Guidelines for enforcement:
Violations are not a numbers game.
It can be a violation to have one single call.
2882
However, there are other factors which could be aggravating or not, and
we have suggested some of those in our initial comments, and I would be happy to
take questions on them.
2883
Enforcement, therefore, should match the gravity of the offence, rather
than sheer frequency, although high frequency and repeat offenders should tend
to produce progressive discipline.
2884
I will turn now to voicecasting.
2885
It is the CAC's submission that consumers find voicecasting just as
annoying as ringing telephone calls, but in a different fashion. It is time consuming and disturbing,
because it is stealthy, and we believe that it is against the spirit of a "do
not call" list.
2886
Most importantly, it is against the expectations of consumers as to the
level of protection they will receive from a "do not call" list that
voicecasting would be permitted, while entirely similar live calls would be
stopped.
2887
Primus, I believe, has suggested that finding and deleting voicecast
messages is not a consumer nuisance, and we beg to differ.
2888
We would point out that even Infolink is supporting a "do not call" list,
including voicecasting, as well as a number of other parties here
today.
2889
There is a somewhat cutesy legal argument that I have made about whether
the existing business relationship even covers voicecasting. I think it has to be to a real person,
not to your voice mailbox, but I will leave that to counsel to
probe.
2890
Quite apart from the legal gymnastics, pruning one's voicemail can be
costly for consumers. Such
voicemails may be placed on wireless numbers, where retrieving them incurs
airtime costs.
2891
Perhaps more importantly, whether on wireline or wireless accounts, it is
an incredible waste of consumers' time.
It is basically voicemail spam.
It can be expected to increase exponentially with VoIP
systems.
2892
The Commission has an opportunity to ensure that voicemail linked to a
number on the "do not call" list is not plagued with voicemail spam and should
seize it.
2893
Finally ‑‑ and I had hoped this wouldn't have to be such a big
issue, but it appears to be starting to rear its head ‑‑ let it never be
forgotten that residential ratepayers paid for the building of networks over
which telemarketers now exercise their trade. Calls, therefore, to fund the "do not
call" list from subscribers constitute double taking from ratepayers and are
unjustified. The "do not call" list
should never be costing the residential subscriber a
penny.
2894
However, from the proceedings in the CISC committee and other
information, it seems that there are dark clouds of costs on the
horizon.
2895
The U.S. "do not call" list received seed money from Congress to set it
up, and we have received no such guarantees here.
2896
The U.S. registry operator has indicated that there was a shortfall in
the early years and that part of the problem was that there was a lower number
of telemarketers than they had expected to sign up to the
list.
2897
However, we recall that in the Public Notice the Commission had initially
taken the position that the Commission was considering that the delegate would
charge telemarketers who access the "do not call" list and did not mention
anything about consumers.
2898
We are now calling on the Commission to remove any temptation of the list
operator to recoup cost overruns and start‑up or other costs. This could be done by having the
Commission explicitly mandate, under section 45.1, that neither those who sign
up for the "do not call" list nor residential telephone subscribers be made to
pay for it.
2899
If you set this out as a rule now, then we won't be revisited with a
shortfall upon the backs of residential subscribers, or even, indeed, business
subscribers.
2900
The "do not call" list has come not to destroy the existing telemarketing
regime, but to fulfill it. The
Commission, therefore, would greatly aid consumers in setting clear rules,
defining key terms, and sending an enforcement direction that is consumer
focused.
2901
I thank the Commission for hearing us on behalf of the CAC, and I would
welcome any questions you may have.
2902
THE CHAIRPERSON:
Commissioner Cram.
2903
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Thank
you, Mr. Lawford and colleagues.
2904
First I want to talk about what types of calls telemarketing would
include. In other words, the ones
that we would exclude from telemarketing totally.
2905
Number one is wireless. Do
you have a position on that, whether it should be excluded or simply be allowed
to be on the list?
2906
MR. LAWFORD: Our position is
that consumers should be able to put wireless numbers on the "do not call"
list. If that results in certain
additional costs, then we would have to look at it, but that is our position at
the moment.
2907
COMMISSIONER CRAM: I was
somewhat surprised that you didn't push for e‑mails, for us to look at
spam. Was there a reason for
that?
2908
MR. LAWFORD: In terms of
making it a "do not e‑mail" list as well?
2909
I guess we were expecting a slightly more coordinated response from the
government after the Spam Task Force Report.
2910
Quite honestly, being realists, we wanted to hammer down the telephone
exceptions first.
2911
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Is there
any concern by the CAC about IP faxing?
2912
MR. LAWFORD: It is a
problem, and I am anticipating that you might ask about whether we should
include fax numbers on this list.
2913
Yes, in the same way that telemarketing ‑‑
2914
Voicecasting will be easy with IP, and it would be the same thing with
faxing. It could be quite
distressingly large.
2915
I am assuming that IP‑based fax numbers would still be recognized as
numbers under the North American numbering
plan.
2916
Is that not correct?
2917
COMMISSIONER CRAM: No, we
just have the Internet address.
2918
MR. LAWFORD: Just
IP.
2919
Well, then we will have to consider whether that could be something we
could control from the originating phone number, in which case we would have to
go back and given all of the parties a reasonable chance to consider
that.
2920
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Paragraph
64(8) of your brief, the March brief, says that it is a violation for a party to
pass on the cost of subscription to the list to its contacts or those with whom
it has an existing business relationship.
2921
Number one, what do you mean by contacts?
2922
MR. LAWFORD: We were
thinking of customers or clients, in the sense that, if you want to do business
with us, there will be a fee, because we are running the "do not call" list and
we are trying to recoup 2 cents from you and everybody
else.
2923
It is trying to download costs directly.
2924
I suppose that you could hike prices, in the sense
that ‑‑
2925
COMMISSIONER CRAM: I was
going to say that, at the end of the day, all they do is do it
indirectly.
2926
MR. LAWFORD: Yes,
indirectly.
2927
MS MAUTHE: I think that part
of the concern, as well, was to eliminate fraud in that respect; people
purporting to provide a "do not call" service or charging for that additional
service.
2928
The value‑added aspect.
2929
COMMISSIONER CRAM: All
right.
2930
I think it was Primerica yesterday who was talking about an exception for
family, friends and acquaintances.
2931
Do you have a position on that?
2932
MR. LAWFORD: Yes. That is not in the legislation and we
don't feel that it is necessary for the Commission to add that
exception.
2933
COMMISSIONER CRAM: I have to
say that they made a pretty persuasive presentation with the reverse onus,
because the risk has been higher to the telemarketer.
2934
If I don't think the person who phoned me is a friend or an acquaintance,
I can complain, and they are almost presumed to be in
violation.
2935
Do you not think that that would be a sufficient
protection?
2936
MR. LAWFORD: In the sense
that that is a defence to the ‑‑
2937
COMMISSIONER CRAM: It is not
a defence. In fact, it's
almost ‑‑ if I don't think that that friend that phoned me is a friend, I
complain and it's almost prima facie a breach of the
rules.
2938
MR. LAWFORD:
Right.
2939
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Yes, go
ahead.
2940
MS MAUTHE: I think our
position is that it was something that could be considered as part of a
defence. A true referral from a
close friend or neighbour, if it is genuinely invited, would not even lead to a
complaint. But by setting out a
limit of what can be referred by a family or friend, you invite people that
abuse that by soliciting referrals.
They are rewarding customers for providing those
names.
2941
So by setting in stone a limit, you invite people to stretch it rather
than just considering it a defence in the true
case.
2942
COMMISSIONER CRAM: I see two
steps here. I see the exception
being family, friends and acquaintances, in which case there is the reverse
onus. But then the next step is
referrals, where family, friends and acquaintances give referrals to third
parties yet again.
2943
So the first step though, an exception of family, friends and
acquaintances, you think that that would be a defence.
2944
MR. LAWFORD:
Yes.
2945
COMMISSIONER CRAM:
Okay. So what about
referrals?
2946
MR. LAWFORD: That's a good
question.
2947
Referrals as a business model cause us some pause.
2948
Go ahead.
2949
MS MAUTHE: I'm not sure if I
understand the distinction.
2950
If you make a referral to your acquaintance, is that an acquaintance
exception or a referral exception?
I'm not sure under what case you would refer someone who you didn't have
that relationship acquaintance with.
2951
COMMISSIONER CRAM: That's a
good point.
2952
MS MAUTHE: A blank referral
to a strange third party falls under an affiliate or the stretching of the
existing business relationship exceptions.
2953
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Thank
you.
2954
Voicecasting, you say in paragraph 77 that it is annoyance. There is a cost. There is an
inconvenience.
2955
Has CAC compiled complaints data on this at all?
2956
MR. LAWFORD: No. It is our intention to do that,
though. We don't have those studies
done yet.
2957
COMMISSIONER CRAM: All
right.
2958
You have answered the one question about continuance of the
rules.
2959
You have said nothing about ADADs except today you said you
supported ‑‑
2960
MR. LAWFORD: The
existing.
2961
COMMISSIONER CRAM: And
that's 5 percent.
2962
MR. LAWFORD: We called for 3
percent, I believe, in our submissions.
2963
Oh, sorry. Are you talking
abandonment or ‑‑
2964
COMMISSIONER CRAM: No. I am talking about
ADADs.
2965
MR. LAWFORD: ADADs, excuse
me.
2966
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Yes, you
are right.
2967
MR. LAWFORD: Are you
referring to the CMA proposal about allowing ‑‑
2968
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Let's
start at ADADs.
2969
MR. LAWFORD:
Okay.
2970
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Your
position today said that it should just continue. Our present rules should
continue.
2971
MR. LAWFORD: They shouldn't
be reduced in the sense of the Canadian Marketing Association request to allow
ADADs with existing business relationship, yes.
2972
COMMISSIONER CRAM:
Okay. So
don't ‑‑
2973
MR. LAWFORD: They shouldn't
be relaxed.
2974
COMMISSIONER CRAM: They
should be relaxed.
2975
MR. LAWFORD: Shouldn't be
relaxed.
2976
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Should
not be relaxed.
2977
MR. LAWFORD:
Right.
2978
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Okay;
good.
2979
Then on predictive diallers, what percentage of abandonment are you
talking about?
2980
MR. LAWFORD: We asked for 3
percent in our initial comments because that is the rate that seems to be
achievable in the United States, and we don't see a lot of difference in the
technology here.
2981
COMMISSIONER CRAM: You are
saying no to guidelines but not no to principles.
2982
Is that the concept?
2983
MR. LAWFORD: It is so
difficult at the moment to know what shape the enforcement regime will be in,
because the list operator isn't chosen.
We don't know whether there is going to be a consortium on top and
whether there will be a telemarketing review board at your level or
not.
2984
I am assuming that whether you call them guidelines or general
principles ‑‑ that's a hard one at this stage.
2985
We really think that in our submissions today we wanted to give you a
sense of general principles. But as
these questions are dealt with, for example, in finer grain in the CISC
committees, there may emerge in the reports there guidelines which could be
recommended out of that.
2986
But at this stage, it is difficult to say what those guidelines should
be.
2987
If you have a particular example, I would be happy to try to give you our
viewpoint. But at this point in
general, I can't say that you have to have a 30‑page guideline set
out.
2988
The United States guidelines are a product of a lot of work, but I do
recommend that the Commission look at them closely and see whether the list
operator or the Commission couldn't use as a basis for a lot of the
work.
2989
COMMISSIONER CRAM: So
dependent on our structure of enforcement, if we do it, as somebody suggested
yesterday, or if the list operator does it, or if a third party does it, the
stringency of the guidelines or principles, or the fineness of detail, would be
dependent upon that structure.
2990
MR. LAWFORD: In part. If you are going to err on any side, it
would be setting more rules from top down than not, is our viewpoint, so that
the list operator doesn't have extreme discretion in how they operate the list
and investigate and do enforcement.
2991
COMMISSIONER CRAM: You say
there should be no threshold but there is clearly a de minimis
defence.
2992
Could you, within ten days, sort of give us examples of what you would
think would consist of a de minimis defence?
2993
MR. LAWFORD: Of what would
be a very low level one? Can we
give examples also of ones which we think would be perfectly justified in one
call, this is a bad call and should be punished anyway?
2994
COMMISSIONER CRAM:
M'hmm.
2995
MR. LAWFORD: Okay. Then we will do that,
absolutely.
2996
COMMISSIONER CRAM: In other
words, what is the maximum of de minimis?
2997
MR. LAWFORD: Okay, I
understand.
2998
COMMISSIONER CRAM: I like
that question.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
2999
COMMISSIONER CRAM: I am
going to go to your brief now, the March brief.
3000
At paragraph 15 you say:
"The Commission
should clarify that the rules apply to parties within Canada and any parties
outside Canada who place calls to Canadian telephone
numbers."
3001
How can we enforce that?
3002
MR. LAWFORD: This is the
same difficulty which the Privacy Commissioner of Canada faces when Canadians
have personal information abused by companies outside of the
country.
3003
We foresee the same difficulty arising here in being telemarketed from
anywhere, by perhaps the United States.
And sure, it's a problem.
3004
Is there no utility at all in saying that that is a
violation?
3005
The result of the complaint which was in the Privacy Commissioner's
hopper lately about abeeka.com from Pacific, the Privacy Commissioner threw up
her hands and said, "Whoa, it's out of our jurisdiction." They did not even answer the question of
whether that had been a privacy violation.
3006
We would like the Commission to at least be able to say yes, there is
this company in the United States that is doing X, Y, Z and look at all the
technical violations it has done.
Sure, we can't punish them.
3007
But the other thing to consider is as well as the United States has a "do
not call" regime, England has a "do not call" regime. The Commissioner of Competition has been
working with those countries to mutually assist each other. Perhaps a treaty could be drafted or a
mutual assistance to prosecute each other's offenders.
3008
That is what we are looking at down the road.
3009
So we don't want the Commission to just give up on those cross‑border
situations.
3010
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Perhaps
in the sense of the three‑year review it would make sense, because we would then
have compiled data of whether or not it is a problem.
3011
MR. LAWFORD: That's
right. Actually, in all of our
submissions today we are hoping the Commission will lean very heavily to
record‑keeping by the list operator of all sorts of violations so that again we
will have some evidence to work with in three years, because it's always the
evidence that is lacking when we come to discuss
telemarketing.
3012
COMMISSIONER CRAM: At
paragraph 16 you talk about exempt organizations should receive free access to
the national "do not call" list.
3013
That would be in the case that they could not or chose not to run their
own "do not call" list?
3014
MR. LAWFORD: Exempt
organizations would be charities ‑‑
3015
COMMISSIONER CRAM: And
political parties.
3016
MR. LAWFORD: And political
parties.
3017
The thinking at the time I believe was that in order to encourage those
parties to keep very tight specific "do not call" lists for their own
organization, that they could devote resources which they would otherwise be
paying as telemarketing fees to shoring up their own
lists.
3018
It is difficult for the Commission to order that as quid pro quo, but
that was the thinking at the time.
3019
Since being in the CISC committees I am a little dismayed to hear that
perhaps there might not be enough telemarketers to shake out of the tree to pay
for all this. And we are
reconsidering that completely free access would be for all people holding
exceptions.
3020
But at the moment that was the thinking behind that
statement.
3021
COMMISSIONER CRAM: I need a
clarification of 19(1):
"Calls made by a
for profit organization where part of the proceeds of a sale would benefit a
registered charity."
3022
I think that is what you were also talking about
today.
3023
MR. LAWFORD: Yes, that's
right.
3024
COMMISSIONER CRAM: I am
selling you Encyclopedia Britannica and in exchange, if you buy ‑‑ maybe
that's not the thing to sell.
3025
If you buy that, I'll give $20 to SOS.
3026
MR. LAWFORD:
Absolutely.
3027
COMMISSIONER CRAM: That's
what you mean.
3028
MR. LAWFORD: That's what I
mean. And if survey people were
also not covered, I would say ones that said "by the way, we will donate $20 to
charity if you take this survey" also would have been covered. But they have an
exception.
3029
So that is the thinking.
3030
COMMISSIONER CRAM: All
right.
3031
Now we are at the single legal entity issue.
3032
It is fair to say that if you had a Bell account, when you signed up with
Bell, Bell could very easily get you to give them consent to market you for
Mobility and Sympatico and that sort of thing?
3033
MR. LAWFORD: Yes, they can
at the moment ask that they be able to share personal information, and that's
the way the clauses are worded at the moment. They inform you that they will be
marketing for those other corporations.
3034
The Act to amend the Telecommunications Act, C‑37, doesn't discuss
consent. So I am glad the
Commission is trying to sort it out now, because we urged the Commons to
consider and the Senate and they didn't.
So now we are stuck.
3035
If there is going to be a consent exception, we are very concerned that
again we will see the same pattern developing as we do with privacy and personal
information sharing, and that is that those clauses exist and no one ever sees
them. They are often buried. They are far away in the bottom of a
legal document. Consumers are
really not aware of what they are giving permission for the companies to
do.
3036
With the "do not call" list in the United States you have to get explicit
acknowledgement. We think that is a
sensible requirement that you could impose here as
well.
3037
It is more than PIPEDA would require because that allows implicit
consent. In the past the Commission
has asked, for example with customer confidential information, that a higher
standard, that explicit consent be required.
3038
You could do the same thing here.
3039
If you want to go around the telemarketing regime with consent, you have
to make it very clear to the consumer that you are going around the
telemarketing regime.
3040
If you will just bear with me, on the very last page of our submission
today I have cut out the U.S. rule on that as well.
3041
The very first line about written permission to call exceptions says the
rule allows sellers and telemarketers to call any consumer who gives his or her
express agreement to receive calls.
3042
So the kind of language that is being proposed, I believe, by the Bankers
Association earlier on was that if you have a clause in there that says we may
offer you products and services which might be of interest to you, blah, blah,
blah, that that is good enough. We
don't think so.
3043
We think it has to be an explicit acknowledgement of consent to be
called, even though your name may or may not be on the "do not call"
list.
3044
That would provide at least some boundaries to the consent exception,
which otherwise would be printed on every contract with a pre‑checked box saying
"yes, I agree to give my consent to avoid the do not call list". That would be on every piece of paper
from now on in every consumer transaction.
3045
COMMISSIONER CRAM: What you
are suggesting is that it says "yes, I agree to receive calls about markets,
about products available from this company and its affiliates", namely,
so‑and‑so, so‑and‑so, so‑and‑so?
3046
MR. LAWFORD: Well, ideally I
would like it if the Commission were able to prohibit them from including all of
their affiliates. I don't think
that you can quite go that far if you give people free
will.
3047
But yes, it has to say explicitly we are going to call you, despite the
"do not call" list, and you are giving permission now to all of these other
related entities.
3048
One last point I will just make about that before I finish my answer is
that keep in mind PIPEDA ‑‑ I think it is Principle 4.3.3 in Schedule 1,
which says that you cannot as a condition of offering a product or service
require someone to give extra personal information beyond that necessary for the
transaction.
3049
We would like to have a similar requirement where you can't require
someone to give consent to go around the "do not call" list in order to get that
product or service; that you can stay on the "do not call" list and not give
your permission to that but still get the product or
service.
3050
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Thank
you.
3051
On existing business relationships ‑‑ and let's just say we are
talking about Bell itself ‑‑ I take it that if Bell were working with
ExpressVu on a joint marketing plan, you would say that is not an existing
business relationship and they couldn't phone you unless you
consented.
3052
MR. LAWFORD: That's
right. That is not my
expectation.
3053
COMMISSIONER CRAM: So the
issue is your reasonable expectation.
3054
MR. LAWFORD: In effect, our
view is that consumers have that as their reasonable expectation just that they
will get that entity calling them and not every other
affiliate.
3055
COMMISSIONER CRAM:
Yes.
3056
In the due diligence defence, starting at paragraph 66, what I noticed
here ‑‑ and it is contrary to what Rogers said ‑‑ is that you have not
referred to monitoring compliance and auditing it by the
telemarketer.
3057
Do you think that that is necessary required
efficacious?
3058
MR. LAWFORD: If that type of
audit function is not going to be given to the list operator, then yes, in the
sense that you are saying that it is all very well to say that you have trained
your employees but there is no audit of whether it has actually been
done.
3059
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Then the
auditing would be about compliance.
They would do their own internal audits.
3060
MR. LAWFORD: I believe that
is useful feature which should be considered. It is not in our
submissions.
3061
COMMISSIONER CRAM:
Okay.
3062
On page 6 today of your presentation, on charities, what is the mischief
that you are worried about here?
3063
MR. LAWFORD: I believe we
may have touched on it earlier.
3064
COMMISSIONER CRAM: That is
the same, the Encyclopedia Britannica and $20?
3065
MR. LAWFORD: Yes, that is
the same example.
3066
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Okay;
good.
3067
Thank you. I have no further
questions.
3068
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
3069
THE CHAIRPERSON:
Commissioner Langford.
3070
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: I
have one question but it might grow.
You know how these things start and sort of turn into broccolis with many
branches ‑‑ but perhaps not.
3071
My question is: I wonder if
you are familiar with The Companies' submission, the written submission by The
Companies, which lays out in incredible detail their notion of defences and
common law defences that are mentioned, and how expanded a view any enforcement
body might have to take of that.
3072
Could you give me your comment on that.
3073
MR. LAWFORD: It is provided
for in the legislation that you have that defence, the common law
defences.
3074
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Could
you speak a little louder.
3075
MR. LAWFORD: Sorry. It is provided in the legislation, is it
not, that you have all those common law defences?
3076
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: It
says common law defences, and I just wonder how many of those you
recognize.
3077
It was a trip down memory lane for me, I must say.
3078
MR. LAWFORD: I guess I had
to think that there would be a rare case where you would need to have duress and
such, for example, in making the calls.
3079
I don't think that those common law defences would necessarily eviscerate
the enforcement of the list. I am
not concerned.
3080
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: You
are not concerned.
3081
MR. LAWFORD: I am not
concerned.
3082
Is there a particular one which seemed to be larger than the other, in
your view?
3083
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Not
necessarily. I noticed drunkenness
wasn't there, but I looked for it.
3084
That may only go to mitigation of sentence. It was always popular back in law
school. I remember sleep walking
was another one that we followed with great enthusiasm.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
3085
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: But
to be a bit serious, I think what got me wondering ‑‑ and I don't want to
direct you as a witness too much.
But what it might mean to process in the sense of I suddenly, as I read
that, began to see sort of stretching out in front of me some very, very, long
adjudications with openings to kind of routes to appeals, all of which, as a
believer in due process of course, one side of my brain is glad to
see.
3086
But in the sense of looking for kind of the sense of an expedited and
reasonably quick, though fair, process it seemed that these raise their heads
more as hurdles than as helps.
3087
I just wondered how you felt about it in that
sense.
3088
MR. LAWFORD: Okay. Well, it has never been phone companies'
style to let defences drop.
3089
It would seem to me again that the situations where that would be
seriously argued would likely be larger corporations who had been nonetheless
charged and were not happy about that.
In that case I would expect they would fight it to the death in any way
they could.
3090
What you might be able to do is have again at some level within the
Commission or perhaps a body above the list administrator that would deal with
those sorts of defences in a slightly more protracted process but still
administratively streamlined, as compared to a court.
3091
Then there is always judicial review and so on and so
forth.
3092
But the initial enforcement perhaps by the list operator, the first level
enforcement: Yes, the list
contained the number. Yes, you
called it. Now you are talking
common law defences. That's nice;
violation.
3093
Then the person gets to go up to the next level and try to explain it in
two pages. They try their
drunkenness defence and they say no.
Now we have an avenue of appeal again, to federal court or
wherever.
3094
But if it is not really raisable at the very first level, then I think
that would cut out ‑‑ it has to cut out an awful lot of them. I just can't imagine there are a lot of
common law defences going to be raised.
It will likely be in those situations.
3095
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:
Moving on to their sort of pyramid model approach which they seem to have
adopted from the Competition Bureau of everything from non‑punitive to punitive
mechanisms for bringing people sort of around to seeing the light, I see at
least five different levels, moving from kind of a letter to mediation to final
kind of rulings.
3096
And then there is the whole sort of notion that you can build up a
reputation as having maintained the rules, and that kind of gives you some sort
of credit in the bank.
3097
How do you react to that, again from a process point of view, from a
sense of ever getting around to making the point that at a certain point a
violation is a violation?
3098
MR. LAWFORD: I believe there
should be a definite tendency on the part of the list operator, whoever is
enforcing at first level, to give a fine.
It says up to $1,500 for an individual and up to $15,000 for a
business. So give a fine. The fine can be low at the first
stage.
3099
There may be some utility in a warning. I can't see where mediation would be of
assistance in all these other elaborate processes. It's supposed to be quick, bang, bang,
bang. There could be a hundred
violations and you might be fined $1.00 for each. But at least you got a fine. It was a
violation.
3100
And what is also important about that is when we get to three years from
now, well look, we've got a list of 4,000 companies that had on average 17.5
violations.
3101
That's of some utility as well.
3102
If it goes to mediation, it goes off the books. It's gone forever. This happens in the Privacy Commissioner
all the time.
3103
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:
Right.
3104
Do you have a sense ‑‑ you mentioned sort of fines for individuals
and fines for businesses.
3105
Do you have a sense that there should be some way to parse the business
one in the sense of small businesses versus large? Or do you just use the fining power and
give them a $1.00 fine or something and do it that way?
3106
MR. LAWFORD: The issue was
raised a little bit before the Senate committee by carpet cleaners, and that
sort of thing. I think any
reasonable enforcement regime will look at the source of the complaint and the
type of violation that it was, whether it is repeated or
not.
3107
It is not to say that a particular telemarketer in a small market, which
as a business can't be annoying and can't be annoying on a level where they are
thumbing their nose at the rules, that doesn't in certain situations require a
slightly higher fine in order to make the point, because pure reliance on size
of business, for example, might lead those types of businesses who rely on
telemarketing very heavily to just take it as a business
cost.
3108
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Thank
you very much.
3109
Those are my questions, Mr. Chair.
3110
THE CHAIRPERSON:
Commissioner Duncan.
3111
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Mr.
Lawford, I just have one question for you.
3112
Following up on the Marketing Research Association that was in earlier, I
am wondering do consumers consider research calls to be an undue convenience or
nuisance?
3113
MR. LAWFORD: I think I would
have to go to look at the Environics poll.
3114
I know that in that one, they certainly didn't make a lot of distinction
between telemarketing for charities and other ones. I can't remember offhand if it also
included statistics on whether they found studies, polls, to be also an
annoyance.
3115
If not, that would be wonderful research to have.
3116
Just anecdotal, I am of the same view as Commissioner Langford, that
there is a certain portion of people that are annoyed by it, by any call at
all.
3117
Unfortunately, that particular person doesn't really have much they can
do at the moment under the exception for surveys, is there. There has been no undertaking or
guarantee by the survey or polling groups that they will keep specific "do not
call" lists.
3118
What I would like to stress is perhaps that you might consider asking a
list operator to keep complaints about specific "do not call" lists even in
relation to exempt organizations, so I can call and say a survey person called
me. I was on the "do not call"
list. I know they are exempt, but
it still bugged me.
3119
Then in three years time you will have 50 of those complaints or
5,000. I don't
know.
3120
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: That's
a good suggestion with respect to gathering
data.
3121
So I can take it, then, that you would agree, if it were possible, that
they should be subject at least to the other telemarketing
rules.
3122
MR. LAWFORD:
Yes.
3123
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Thank
you.
3124
That was my question.
3125
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr.
Lawford, you have raised the issue of privacy and I would like to go a little
further with you on it, if I may.
3126
More particularly, the issue of privacy that interests me is the issue of
the privacy value inherent in the list, the "do not call" list
itself.
3127
MR. LAWFORD:
Yes.
3128
THE CHAIRPERSON: I make a
hypothesis that a given record, a record equivalent to one phone number, would
have the phone number. It would
have perhaps the name of the person who requested the listing. It might have the address. It might have the e‑mail address. It might have a unique number
administered by the operator, and there might be one or two other fields. But there wouldn't be much more than
that, I don't suppose.
3129
MR. LAWFORD:
Right.
3130
THE CHAIRPERSON: I am asking
this in the context of what would the danger be of someone hacking into or
otherwise accessing that list in the minds of your
organization?
3131
MR. LAWFORD: If that list
has all of the other information that you are saying it will be populated
with ‑‑ name or e‑mail ‑‑ well, that's the Holy Grail for rogue
telemarketers or anyone in fact who would like to do identity theft or any of
these nefarious activities because it is completely accurate. It can then be cross‑referenced with any
other information they have gathered on that person, and they can do it for
millions of people all at once.
3132
So protecting the list, the list operator will have to have it
bullet‑proof.
3133
What we would like to see ‑‑ I believe the U.S. model is this way:
that they just keep the phone number.
They don't even have your name.
3134
This is why they get into is it a business that got registered or a fax
number, a wireless number? We don't
know because they don't want to keep the name. You've just created name plus phone
number, leading to this sort of problem.
3135
It's a huge problem. To my
knowledge, it did arise in Australia.
It was perhaps the number portability database. It got in the hands of
telemarketers. It was being sold
around.
3136
And it will be something which could be a target.
3137
I believe that the way the U.S. confirms e‑mail ‑‑ because you can
register via the Web and you get an e‑mail back and you confirm. The operator on the calls in the CISC
committee has said that they hatch the e‑mail so that even the list operator,
there is some sort of algorithm that it is unrecognizable; it is unusable to
them.
3138
So they just keep the phone number.
That's how they get around it.
3139
THE CHAIRPERSON: This is
going to be a very subtle question, but I might as well ask you because I don't
know who else to ask.
3140
How upset would you be if another national state had, by virtue of its
domestic legislation, potential access to a "do not call" list in Canada, by
virtue of the nationality of the company that operated the
database?
3141
MR. LAWFORD: That would be
something which we should avoid from the start. It is something that may have already
occurred with the local number portability
database.
3142
It is a consideration that I think you should bear in mind when you are
choosing your list operator. It is
something that has been recommended against by the Privacy Commissioner of B.C.
and I think again has come out in the guidelines from the federal government as
to protection of personal information in government
databases.
3143
I believe it was also mentioned that where you can choose a Canadian list
operator, just choose Canadian list operator. You don't get into these
problems.
3144
It would be very upsetting for us to have that information available to
other countries which might be using it for whatever purposes they wish to use
it for once it is in their hands.
3145
So avoid that problem, if you can at all.
3146
THE CHAIRPERSON:
Counsel.
3147
MR. MILLINGTON: I have no
questions.
3148
THE CHAIRPERSON: I
apologize.
3149
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: No,
there is no apology needed. I
actually just thought of this when you got on the subject of
lists.
3150
My apologies to you, counsel, for butting
in.
3151
One question that I had wanted to ask you and it just slipped my mind,
was your notion that the grace period should be seven days, bringing it into
lines with the grace period on faxes.
It has a nice symmetry to it, and I appreciate
that.
3152
I am looking not only from you but from ‑‑ and unsuccessfully, I
must say so far from many witnesses.
3153
I am looking for a real kind of, I don't know, what would I call it,
practical, pragmatic functional reason why seven is more realistic than 30, or
60 is more realistic than 30.
3154
I am still having trouble trying to understand just how much of a burden
the difference between 90 and seven days is.
3155
Can you help me with that, or did you just ‑‑ and it's fine if you
did. Did you just pick the seven
because it's symmetrical with the fax rule, or do you have some sense of
technologically what these people have to go through to collect lists, scrub
lists, bring them up to date?
3156
MR. LAWFORD: I can speak as
one learning this myself, especially through the CISC committees and reading
people's submissions.
3157
Partly we recommended seven days because it was in line with the fax
rules. We would also like whatever
period was chosen to be as short as possible. So here we are echoing the Union's
submission.
3158
People put their name on the list.
They want calls to stop.
What's the problem? This is
the modern world. Why can't we have
it right now?
3159
I believe you will hear later from a consumer rep that will say there is
a way to do this. You can do it by
a Web querying thing where if I'm a telemarketer and I want to telemarket to a
list, I've got the list, right, my own list. I'm just about to call that list of
numbers. Well, why don't I send it
to the operator, who checks it against the national "do not call" list and says,
"Okay, 93 percent of your numbers are valid. You can call those. But the other 7
percent, no." And that can be done
in real time.
3160
Now people on the CISC committee are saying that is hugely expensive,
could never be done. The AT&T
operator in the United States is saying they do it for really huge clients down
there. So perhaps in the future we
could have that no delay and we would support that.
3161
Maybe that is something that will develop in the next three
years.
3162
On the other hand, we do know that there are some marketing campaigns
that go out there and are done, generally speaking, in a timeframe of 30 days,
45 days. This will just fit into
the way they are doing business so they can work it in. And practically speaking, they will then
do it.
3163
If you make it extremely impossible for them to do, or very expensive,
they will be pushed back and there will be delays in actually getting the "do
not call" list to work.
3164
If we get it to work and it's 31 days, well, you have 30 more days of
calls but then it starts working.
And that is really what we are after, is eventually that it starts
working.
3165
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: So do
you see a benefit to say starting at 31 days with a review, at the same time as
the stated review, that at that time we would expect more databased evidence for
wanting to move it one way or the other?
3166
MR. LAWFORD: Yes. We would really hope that the only trend
it could be would be downwards and that the technological aspects by then would
have been investigated.
3167
Doing the "do not call" list so quickly now, I don't have every
confidence that even in the CISC committee that we can come up with that
information.
3168
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:
Right.
3169
MR. LAWFORD: So hopefully by
then we would have some.
3170
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: So
you have flexibility there in the sense that seven is an ideal at this point but
31 is realistic perhaps.
3171
Do you have sympathy? You
must have sympathy for the sort of small business people, the sort of people
that the gentleman from New Brunswick was talking about earlier, who are going
to have a major kind of learning curve here?
3172
MR. LAWFORD: Do you really
think they will?
3173
If you have say ‑‑ I don't know ‑‑ 250 customers, if the list
coming from the "do not call" list operator is an XML spreadsheet, how hard is
it to cross‑reference 250 numbers?
3174
It doesn't seem like the end of the world difficult to
me.
3175
Perhaps there are things that I'm missing. If it is going to be encrypted and you
need a special program, who knows.
Right?
3176
And do you have to keep track of when people were put on? Maybe it is more difficult than
that.
3177
I just think we don't have evidence of whether it's difficult or not
difficult. We have statements from
people saying that there may or may not be difficulties for small business. But until the list is set up, we don't
know.
3178
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:
Thanks for that.
3179
That is my last question.
3180
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you,
Commissioner Langford.
3181
Counsel?
No.
3182
Thank you very much. Again,
I thank you for your flexibility with respect to
your ‑‑
3183
MR. LAWFORD: Thank
you.
3184
LA SECRÉTAIRE: Monsieur le
Président, I do have some undertakings for PIAC. Thank you.
3185
THE CHAIRPERSON: We will
take a five‑minute break.
3186
I'm told it has been reduced to 30 seconds; sorry.
‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 1158 /
Suspension à 1158
‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1200 /
Reprise à 1200
3187
THE CHAIRMAN: Order,
please. À l'ordre, s'il vous
plaît.
3188
Madame la
Secrétaire.
3189
LA SECRÉTAIRE: Merci,
monsieur le président. Nous allons
maintenant enchaîner avec le Mouvement des Caisses Desjardins. Je demanderais à monsieur Grimard de
présenter son groupe.
PRÉSENTATION /
PRESENTATION
3190
M. GRIMARD: Alors, bonjour,
monsieur le président, bonjour mesdames les Commissaires et monsieur le
Commissaire. Alors, je vais laisser
mes collègues se présenter eux‑mêmes, si vous êtes
d'accord.
3191
MME BOMBARDIER: Sylvie
Bombardier pour Desjardins...
3192
LE PRÉSIDENT: On m'informe
que la traduction ne fonctionne pas, alors on va attendre, avec votre
permission.
3193
M. GRIMARD: D'accord. J'attends votre
signal.
3194
LE PRÉSIDENT: Alors, ça va,
on marche. Est‑ce qu'on peut
recommencer? Je m'excuse, mais
paraît‑il que mes collègues n'ont pas eu bénéfice même de la présentation
jusqu'à ce moment.
3195
M. GRIMARD: Alors, bonjour,
monsieur le président, bonjours mesdames les Commissaires et monsieur le
Commissaire. Alors, je me présente;
mon nom, c'est Yvan Pierre Grimard.
Je suis Conseiller à la vice‑présidence Relations gouvernementales du
Mouvement des Caisses Desjardins et si vous êtes d'accord, je vais laisser mes
collègues se présenter elles‑mêmes.
3196
MME BOMBARDIER: Sylvie
Bombardier pour Desjardins, groupe d'assurances générales.
3197
MME CIMON: Kathie Cimon,
Chef de service pour la vice‑présidence service d'Accès au niveau de
télécommercialisation.
3198
M. GRIMARD:
3199
M. GRIMARD: Alors, bonjour
et merci de nous donner l'occasion de vous faire part du point de vue du
Mouvement des Caisses Desjardins dans le cadre des audiences publiques sur
l'Avis de Telecom‑CRTC 2006‑4.
3200
Alors, Desjardins Groupe Financier intégré de nature coopérative le plus
important au Canada et il est la plus grande institution financière au Québec
avec plus de 5.5 millions de membres et un actif global de plus de 118 milliards
de dollars.
3201
Il regroupe un réseau de caisses et une vingtaine de sociétés filiales
dont plusieurs sont actives à l'échelle du
Canada.
3202
Desjardins met à la disposition de ses membres et clients des services
conseils et un éventail complet de produits et services
financiers.
3203
Pour assurer une qualité de services optimale en télécommercialisation,
rien n'est laissé au hasard. Nos
ressources humaines sont formées aux meilleures pratiques de l'industrie et
bénéficient d'un support constant de la part de leurs supérieurs et de
l'organisation. Les taux de
satisfaction à l'endroit de nos services avoisinent les 90 pour
cent.
3204
À cela s'ajoute une vigilance constante à l'égard du respect des
différentes lois et règlement et ce, partout où Desjardins est présent, qu'il
s'agisse du réseau des caisses ou des sociétés filiales, chaque entité s'assure
d'être conforme aux obligations légales auxquelles elle est
assujettie.
3205
Par ailleurs, il importe de souligner que nous avons déjà pris des
mesures pour nous préparer à nous conformer aux exigences de la Loi C‑37 et à
l'implantation de la liste nationale de numéros exclus.
3206
En ce qui concerne plus directement la Loi C‑37 et l'Avis Public 2006‑4
maintenant, d'entrée de jeu il importe de spécifier que la principale
caractéristique de Desjardins est son statut de coopérative de services
financiers.
3207
Concrètement, il en découle que notre organisation appartient à ces 5.5
millions de membres qui, au fil du temps et de l'évolution de leurs besoins, se
sont donné des services qu'ils ont eux‑mêmes choisis, tels les services de
télécommercialisation.
3208
Ainsi, il apparaît essentiel que le Conseil élabore sur sa vision de ce
que représente une relation d'affaires existante au sein d'un groupe financier
réglementé et ce, notamment lorsque les membres ont donné leur consentement à
l'offre de produits et services financiers.
3209
Un autre élément important en lien avec la notion de relation d'affaires
existante que le Conseil devra clarifier concerne les questions relatives au
consentement. Cette notion a été
peu abordée et il serait intéressant de connaître le point de vue du Conseil sur
ce qu'il considère comme un consentement et sur les effets d'un tel consentement
sur les activités des entreprises assujetties.
3210
L'opinion du Conseil devrait aussi aborder cette question sous l'angle de
la possibilité d'invoquer le consentement lors d'une instance traitant d'une
violation à la Loi.
3211
Pour illustrer l'importance de cette notion, il est de pratique courante
en assurance de dommages notamment de demander à un consommateur l'autorisation
de communiquer avec lui peu de temps avant le renouvellement de son contrat
d'assurance maison ou automobile afin de lui soumettre un
devis.
3212
Dans le contexte de la nouvelle loi, il est probable que le délai de six
mois précédant la date de la télécommunication soit insuffisant puisque ce type
de contrat couvre toujours au moins une année entière.
3213
Alors, comment interpréter le fait que le client potentiel accepte de
donner la date de renouvellement de son assurance? Selon nous, ceci devrait être considéré
comme une demande formelle de soumission à laquelle il faut obligatoirement
donner suite et ce, même si l'individu s'inscrit sur la liste entre l'appel
initial et l'offre de service en bonne et due forme.
3214
C'est dans ce contexte que la notion de consentement prend toute son
importance et ce n'est pas en contradiction avec la Loi. En dedans de six mois il n'y a pas de
problème, il n'y aurait pas de problème, mais au‑delà, nous aurions besoin que
le CRTC reconnaisse le consentement ou alors, nous allons nous mettre dans une
situation propice à insatisfaire nos clients.
3215
Toujours en lien avec cette notion, le *référencement+ constitue
également une activité importante dans tout le secteur financier. Effectivement, il est possible que dans
le cadre d'une offre de service effectuée par téléphone un agent, avec le
consentement de la personne bien sûr, réfère le nom de celle‑ci à une autre
entité du Groupe financier afin que cette dernière puisse lui faire une
proposition sur un produit correspondant à ses besoins.
3216
Comme il s'agit d'une procédure courante et appréciée de nos membres,
nous souhaiterions que le Conseil exprime son point de vue sur cette façon de
faire.
3217
Selon nous, ce genre d'appel ne devrait pas être considéré comme une
communication non sollicitée puisque le destinataire aura préalablement donné
son accord pour être référé à une autre entité du Groupe
financier.
3218
Vu sous un autre angle, on pourrait dire que le client s'attend à
recevoir un appel, donc il ne s'agit pas d'une communication non sollicitée que
la Loi cherche à encadrer.
3219
Une autre des pratiques qui caractérisent le secteur de l'assurance
concerne le marketing en partenariat.
En fait, il arrive que des entreprises comme Desjardins et des
associations conviennent de partenariat d'affaires incluant des activités de
marketing.
3220
Par exemple, des assureurs, des associations de diplômés pourraient
s'associer et dans le cadre de ce partenariat le membre de l'association en
question serait éligible à des rabais que l'assureur présente parfois par
téléphone. Au moment de l'appel, le
destinataire est informé que c'est à titre de membre de l'association X qu'il
est sollicité.
3221
Puis il importe aussi de souligner que dans ce genre de partenariat, les
associations permettent toujours à leurs membres de ne pas être sollicités. En fait, les associations permettent aux
membres de s'exclure de leur liste.
Ainsi, nous aimerions obtenir le point de vue du Conseil sur cette
pratique.
3222
Dans l'Avis, le Conseil sollicite également des commentaires sur
l'établissement d'un délai de grâce au cours duquel les appels destinés à des
personnes figurant sur la liste ne constitueraient pas une
violation.
3223
Nous croyons nécessaire d'obtenir un tel type de délai et pour ce faire,
il serait intéressant de s'inspirer de l'expérience américaine puisque cette
dernière semble donner des résultats probants.
3224
Si les États‑Unis présentées par le Conseil comme étant à l'avant‑garde
en cette matière ont octroyé un délai de 30 jours, alors il faudrait moduler le
délai canadien en fonction des capacités technologiques de la liste. Ainsi, selon ses capacités, le délai de
grâce pourrait être plus ou moins long.
3225
En fait, ce qu'il faudrait faire, c'est de trouver l'équilibre entre la
capacité technologique de la liste, les capacités techniques des entreprises et
l'intérêt des consommateurs également.
3226
En ce qui concerne l'obligation d'identification qui est abordée à
l'article 41.7 de la Loi, il s'agit d'un élément important en ce qui nous
concerne. Il s'agit d'un élément
important, pardon.
3227
Nous croyons que la procédure d'identification devrait être exécutée sur
la base du destinataire de l'appel et non sur celle de la première personne qui
répond. S'il fallait que ça soit
sur la base du premier répondant, il y a des risques que certaines personnes
soient privées d'obtenir les services auxquels elle s'attendait. Dans notre secteur d'activités, cela
pourrait avoir des conséquences néfastes.
3228
En ce qui concerne l'obligation des télé‑vendeurs de tenir leurs propres
listes de numéros exclus, Desjardins estime qu'il faudrait qu'elles soient
maintenues.
3229
Si les entreprises exemptées en raison de relation d'affaires existantes
doivent le faire pour des raisons de respect du consommateur, la même obligation
devrait être prévue pour les télé‑vendeurs puisqu'il est possible qu'un
consommateur puisse vouloir recevoir des offres de tous les télé‑vendeurs, tout
en ayant la possibilité de rayer le nom de ceux dont il n'est pas
satisfait.
3230
Selon nous, cela permettrait d'ajouter de la souplesse et de permettre au
consommateur de conserver la liberté de choisir avec qui il souhaite faire des
affaires et recevoir des offres.
3231
En ce qui concerne la possibilité de choisir les entreprises à exclure,
ce que l'on craint c'est qu'involontairement, un consommateur, en s'inscrivant
sur la liste, pourrait se priver de connaître l'existence de produits dont il
pourrait vouloir bénéficier.
3232
Pour éviter que des membres et clients de Desjardins ou d'autres
organisations se retrouvent privés d'information qu'ils auraient voulu obtenir,
le Conseil pourrait prévoir la possibilité pour un individu de s'inscrire sur la
liste et de procéder ensuite à ses propres exemptions en fonction de ses
besoins.
3233
Concrètement, cela voudrait dire qu'une personne pourrait s'inscrire sur
la liste pour ne plus recevoir d'appels non sollicités, sauf lorsqu'il s'agit
des produits et services financiers offerts par Desjardins ou d'autres
entreprises qu'il aurait lui‑même ciblé.
3234
Il s'agirait encore une fois d'une formule ajoutant de la souplesse et
ce, tout en permettant au consommateur de contrôler personnellement les
communications qu'il souhaite recevoir.
3235
Dans le cadre des travaux actuels sur l'Avis 2006‑4, certains groupes se
sont prononcés en faveur du maintien pour trois ans de l'inscription à la
liste. Après cette période, le
consommateur devra s'inscrire à nouveau s'il ne souhaite toujours pas recevoir
d'appel sollicité. Il serait
intéressant d'entendre le Conseil à ce sujet.
3236
En ce qui concerne le télémarketing business to business, le Conseil
devrait se pencher sur cette question.
Selon notre compréhension, ce type d'activité ne semble pas être
révisé. À ce sujet, nous aimerions
entendre l'Avis du Conseil.
3237
Nos travaux nous indiquent qu'il n'était pas de l'intention du
Législateur d'inclure ce type d'appel.
3238
En terminant, en ce qui concerne les règles qui prévalaient avant 2004,
avant la Décision 2004‑35, nous pensons que celle‑ci était
suffisante.
3239
Alors, pour conclure, il importe de souligner que dans notre secteur
d'activité, le marketing direct représente pour certains segments de clientèle
souvent moins bien nantie, le seul moyen par lequel ils ont accès à des
renseignements sur des produits et services financiers.
3240
C'est dans ce contexte que les notions de relations d'affaires existantes
de consentement et de référencement prennent toute leur
importance.
3241
Je vous remercie de votre attention.
3242
LE PRÉSIDENT: Merci
beaucoup, monsieur Grimard.
3243
On pourrait commencer peut‑être avec la question de consentement que vous
trouvez aussi importante. Je ne
sais pas si vous étiez ici hier lors de la comparution de CADRI. Vous étiez là, ce sont vos concurrents
d'ailleurs, je pense?
3244
M. GRIMARD: Nous sommes
membres de CADRI.
3245
LE PRÉSIDENT: Bon. Alors, à ce moment‑là, on a discuté en
quoi consiste un consentement, si j'ai bien compris.
3246
Un consentement pourrait consister à une conversation téléphonique avec
un préposé, un de vos préposés qui est enregistré de façon digitale, de telle
façon à ce que ça constituait une défense dans le cas où le consommateur oublie
ou par la suite s'inscrive et se plaigne.
3247
Deuxièmement; que le consentement pourrait consister à un record de
message courriel que vous auriez eu de bonne foi, les bonnes raisons de penser
vient réellement de la personne en question, et caetera, qui est conservé, et
qui pourrait démontrer ou montrer dans le cas d'une défense par rapport à une
plainte.
3248
Et, troisièmement; évidemment la signature du client ou du plaignant sur
un document qui, entre autres choses, constitue un consentement à un contact
subséquent pour les fins en question.
3249
Est‑ce qu'on a raison que c'est à peu près
ça?
3250
M. GRIMARD: C'est à peu près
ça. Vous oubliez le consentement
oral, si j'ai bien... si j'ai bien compris. Il peut arriver qu'une personne donne
son consentement aussi au téléphone pour certains types.
3251
LE PRÉSIDENT: Mais j'avais
compris que le record était gardé, la conversation a été enregistrée de façon
digitale.
3252
M. GRIMARD: Oui, oui, oui,
tout à fait, c'est exact.
Excusez‑moi.
3253
LE PRÉSIDENT: Oui. Vient la question suivante : c'est que
dans le complexe formulaire qui est rempli par un client potentiel, date X
qui devient... fait partie de votre famille et donc, devient un client, il y a
quelque part une ligne qui dit : nous pouvons utiliser les renseignements
personnels qui vous concernent pour vous présenter d'autres produits et services
de temps en temps qu'on juge appropriés pour vous.
3254
C'est la question que ma collègue a abordée avec le groupe précédent :
dans quelle mesure est‑ce qu'un tel aspect de la formule, du formulaire est
perceptible pour le signataire au moment de la signature? Qu'est‑ce que vous avez actuellement par
ailleurs à cet égard?
3255
M. GRIMARD: Ce genre de
document signé là, ça se produit toujours de la même façon. C'est lorsqu'un membre d'une Caisse
Desjardins se pointe à sa caisse pour s'ouvrir un compte. Alors, à ce moment‑là, il se fait
expliquer par la personne qui est devant lui de quoi il est question dans ce
formulaire‑là.
3256
Donc, selon nos pratiques, le membre est informé qu'il serait possible
qu'il soit sollicité pour obtenir d'autres produits offerts par notre
entreprise. Est‑ce que vous voulez
ajouter quelque chose?
3257
MME BOMBARDIER: L'autre
point que je pourrais ajouter, c'est toute la notion de consentement, que ce
soit à travers l'ensemble de nos activités, elles sont toujours régies par la
Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels dans le secteur privé et il
y a la Loi fédérale aussi, PEPIDA Act qui a été discuté
aussi.
3258
Donc, toute cette façon d'obtenir un consentement, on estime que c'est
suffisamment légiféré et qu'il y a des lois pour mettre les balises qui
s'imposent pour obtenir les consentements suffisants auprès des consommateurs et
on s'engage, nous, à respecter ces lois‑là depuis déjà plusieurs
années.
3259
LE PRÉSIDENT: Je pense même
que j'ai été responsable alors que j'étais Ministre des communications du
Québec, le passage de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements
personnels.
3260
Donc, vous avez déjà un régime en place.
3261
MME BOMBARDIER: Tout à
fait.
3262
LE PRÉSIDENT: Votre régime
permet à l'individu de se soustraire de cet aspect‑là de l'entente. Il peut devenir client sans vouloir être
sollicité pour d'autres choses ou par d'autres réseaux, il peut indiquer ça sur
le formulaire. Il est donc sur
votre liste de numéros de ne pas appeler.
3263
MME BOMBARDIER:
Effectivement, ça pourrait être comme ça ou tout dépend des
activités.
3264
Il y a d'autres secteurs aussi où est‑ce que l'individu peut appeler puis
dire : écoutez, je ne veux plus que vous communiquiez avec moi et, là, chaque
entité se tient des listes à l'interne aussi de ne pas
appeler.
3265
LE PRÉSIDENT: Alors, dans le
fond, ce que vous nous recommanderez dans une telle situation, ce serait de
regarder bien les pratiques des compagnies telles vous autres, tels les membres
de CADRI ou d'autres compagnies qui endossent et utilisent les meilleures
pratiques dans la matière pour être certain que nous permettons à ce que les
règlements comprennent et sont réconciliés avec ces
pratiques‑là.
3266
MME BOMBARDIER: Tout à fait
et que le CRTC reconnaisse qu'il y a déjà des balises de mises en place pour
obtenir des consentements jugés raisonnables dans l'industrie pour que ce soit
l'information personnelle dont les numéros de téléphone et tout ça, donc, pour
obtenir les moyens de communiquer avec le client.
3267
Une fois que ça c'est déjà légiféré et que le CRTC reconnaisse que c'est
déjà légiféré et qu'il dise : bon bien, ça va. Quand les consentements sont jugés
raisonnables et suffisants en fonction des Lois provinciales et de la Loi
fédérale, nous reconnaissons que le consentement est valide et ça pourra être
une défense pour l'entreprise qui croit raisonnablement elle a le
consentement... elle croit que le consommateur ne sera pas offusqué, mais qu'il
s'attend à avoir une telle communication.
3268
Et on croit fortement que lorsque le consommateur s'attend d'avoir des
nouvelles d'une entreprise, il va de soi que l'entreprise, pour continuer son
bon service, elle devra faire le suivi requis.
3269
Et il va de soi aussi qu'il y a des clients qui pourraient se mettre sur
la do not call list et, par la suite, faire affaires avec une entreprise hormis
le fait qu'ils se sont déjà mis sur la do not call list, ce qui ne changera rien
au fait qu'ils s'attendent d'avoir des communications de cette nouvelle
entreprise‑là.
3270
M. GRIMARD: En fait,
monsieur le président, il ne faut pas que les effets de la Loi fassent en sorte
qu'un membre Desjardins ou un client Desjardins qui ait... qui veut obtenir des
services de notre part soit pénalisé.
3271
LE PRÉSIDENT: C'est très peu
probable que lui serait pénalisé; c'est plutôt la question si vous seriez
pénalisé si, entre‑temps, ils se mettent sur une liste nationale et il se plaint
après, suite à l'appel de votre part.
3272
N'êtes‑vous pas dans le fond en train de nous dire : une défense devrait
consister... un consentement légitime devrait constituer une défense face à une
plainte d'un de vos clients que lui‑même a oublié qu'il vous a déjà donné son
consentement et parce qu'entre‑temps, il s'est mis sur la liste
nationale?
3273
M. GRIMARD: Tout à
fait.
3274
MME BOMBARDIER: Tout à
fait.
3275
LE PRÉSIDENT: Oui. Écoutez, il me semble que vous avez un
problème avec la question des délais qui sont un peu moindres que certaines
autres compagnies, avec vos consoeurs, des banques?
3276
Vous avez... le client a toujours dans la mesure où son argent reste avec
vous, il a toujours une relation d'affaires avec vous.
3277
Alors, à moins que vous fassiez beaucoup d'assurance aux clients qui
n'ont pas de compte avec vous autres, à moins que vous fassiez beaucoup d'autres
activités de gestion de portefeuille, je ne sais pas si vous faites encore
ça?
3278
M. GRIMARD: Hum‑hum! Oui, bien sûr.
3279
LE PRÉSIDENT: Bon. Avec les gens qui n'ont pas de compte de
coopérative, de caisse pop. avec vous, vous n'avez pas de problème parce que le
client est par définition, il a toujours une relation d'affaires avec vous
jusqu'à aussi longtemps que le compte existe.
3280
MME BOMBARDIER: L'exemple
qu'on a donné aussi et que Yvan‑Pierre a soulevé et qui a probablement été
soulevé dans CADRI aussi ‑‑ je n'étais pas là ‑‑ c'est dans le cas où
un client qui n'est pas nécessairement membre d'une caisse et tout ça voudrait
avoir une assurance, il nous fait une demande : pouvez‑vous communiquer avec moi
pour me faire un prix lors de mon renouvellement?
3281
Les renouvellements se font aux années, donc parfait ça va dépasser six
mois. Donc, c'est le problème qu'on
vit, mais qui est assez important dans le cadre des activités
d'assurance.
3282
On considère, encore une fois, que le client, il s'attend à ce qu'on
communique avec lui et c'est un consentement.
3283
Il est possible que ce client‑là ait déjà... se sont mis sur une liste do
not call list, pour ne pas recevoir d'autres communications non sollicités, mais
nous considérons que suite à son autorisation ou à sa demande à ce qu'on lui
fasse un prix l'année prochaine, nous considérons que c'est un consentement, que
le client va s'attendre à ce qu'on communique avec lui et on ne voudrait pas que
ce soit vu comme une entrave.
3284
On veut que nos pratiques soient... dans le fond que le CRTC clarifie la
situation afin qu'on dise : bon, bien, écoutez, c'est clair, il n'y a pas
d'entrave à ce moment‑là.
3285
LE PRÉSIDENT: Je pense que
dans une telle clarification, on hésiterait beaucoup à faire référence aux lois
provinciales ou d'autres lois fédérales d'application
générale.
3286
On serait plutôt susceptibles, je pense, d'énumérer quelques cas de
consentement sans limitation du genre que je vous ai fait au début puis avec
lequel vous êtes d'accord et s'il y en a d'autres suggestions, on pourrait les
ajouter et de dire, donc, une légitime défense pourrait constituer un
consentement du genre tatata!, essentiellement indiquant que, à un moment donné,
de bonne foi, l'institution a reçu d'un consommateur averti, une invitation ou
une permission qui pourrait subséquemment être évoquée par l'institution en
question, lors d'une plainte de ce consommateur‑là qui aurait oublié ou qui,
bon...
3287
C'est essentiellement ça que vous cherchez, essentiellement ça qui est
possible pour nous autres?
3288
MME BOMBARDIER:
Effectivement.
3289
M. GRIMARD: C'est exactement
ça, monsieur le président.
3290
LE PRÉSIDENT: Pour ce qui
est des associations, du marketing au partenariat, est‑ce que vous êtes en train
de nous dire un membre d'une association qui est simultanément... qui s'est
simultanément inscrit sur la liste nationale, ne pourrait pas se plaindre et
avoir sa plainte reçue et appuyée parce qu'il est membre d'une association qui a
fait un partenariat avec les Caisses pop ou une autre entreprise de vente par
télémarketing?
3291
M. GRIMARD: C'est ce qu'on
vous dit.
3292
LE PRÉSIDENT: So, un
membership dans l'association efface en quelque sorte, en ce qui a trait au
partenariat de marketing de cette association, son inscription à la liste
nationale?
3293
MME BOMBARDIER: Si je peux
me permettre une précision, ce qui va arriver dans un contexte de partenariat de
marketing, souvent un membre d'une association, son association peut communiquer
avec lui et lui demander : est‑ce que vous acceptez... est‑ce que vous consentez
à ce qu'on transfère vos coordonnées à un assureur, par exemple, qui pourra
communiquer avec lui pour vous faire part des bonnes offres, compte tenu du fait
que vous faites partie...
3294
LE PRÉSIDENT: Que vous êtes
membre de l'association?
3295
MME BOMBARDIER:
Effectivement. Donc, la
personne consent, effectivement, oui, je suis d'accord; ou si vous ne voulez
pas, écoutez, faites‑nous le savoir, on vous met sur des listes et tout
ça.
3296
Donc l'entreprise qui reçoit une liste de numéros de téléphones qui est
déjà épurée des membres qui ont dit : non, je ne veux pas être sollicité par
l'assureur même s'il va m'offrir des bons prix parce que je suis membre de votre
association, je ne veux pas.
3297
Sauf que si la personne... si on a une liste des gens qu'on peut
s'attendre... qui s'attendent à obtenir des communications de l'assureur,
l'assureur va communiquer avec eux au titre du fait qu'ils sont membres de
l'Association et qu'ils ont déjà été informés.
3298
Donc, les gens s'attendent... les membres de l'association sont informés
que dans les prochains mois ils seront... ils auront des communications par
l'assureur pour leur faire part des offres, donc, là, ils seront au courant et
pourront accepter ou refuser.
3299
Au départ, ces gens‑là ont toujours la possibilité de consentir, donc
d'où l'importance de reconnaître le consentement. À cet effet‑là, il n'y a pas une
relation directe entre l'assureur et le membre de l'association, mais il y a une
forme de consentement.
3300
Le client s'attend à recevoir de l'information par un assureur qui va
communiquer avec lui. La
communication n'est pas non sollicitée.
Il pourrait arriver qu'une personne, membre d'une association, accepte et
veut recevoir les prix de l'assureur parce qu'il entend parler partout ses pairs
que c'est effectivement des très bons prix, il est
intéressé.
3301
Sauf qu'il est possible que cette personne‑là se soit mise sur la liste
de téléphone nationale exclus parce qu'il ne veut pas recevoir d'autres
communications non sollicitées.
3302
LE PRÉSIDENT: Alors, ce que
vous nous demandez, c'est de se prononcer sur la question suivante : est‑ce que nous sommes obligés, nous,
Desjardins, nous sommes obligés de tamiser notre liste par rapport à la liste
nationale dans le cas où une association qui a déjà eu des consentements
spécifiques à cet égard fasse de nous un partenariat de marketing par lequel on
voudrait solliciter l'ensemble, la totalité de leurs
membres.
3303
MME BOMBARDIER: Tout à
fait. Nous, ce qu'on dit, c'est
qu'on fait déjà une première épuration, on considère que ces gens‑là s'attendent
à ce qu'on communique avec eux.
Donc, compte tenu qu'on a ce consentement‑là, on ne voudrais pas avoir à
re‑vérifier auprès de la do not call list puis ça pourrait causer des problèmes
du fait que quand une personne dit : oui, je veux avoir... je consens à ce que
vous transfériez mes coordonnées pour recevoir la promotion de l'assureur, à
cause qu'il est sur la do not call list, nous on ne l'appelle
pas.
3304
Donc, il y a comme un vide ou un problème où est‑ce qu'on se dit : bon,
qu'est‑ce qu'on fait? Il s'attend à
ce qu'on l'appelle, il est sur la do not call list, en principe, by the book, on
ne peut pas l'appeler, mais il s'attend à ce qu'on
l'appelle.
3305
M. GRIMARD: Et puis aussi,
il faut ajouter à ça qu'il y a certains membres d'associations qui sont membres
des associations justement parce qu'ils savent qu'ils peuvent bénéficier de
certains rabais sur certains produits.
3306
LE PRÉSIDENT: Alors,
dans le fond, la question est assez précise : est‑ce que par une entente de mise
en marché en partenariat, une association pourrait transférer le consentement à
une compagnie de marketing de vente comme... ou une coopérative de vente comme
vous autres?
3307
MME BOMBARDIER: Tout à
fait. L'important, c'est d'obtenir
un consentement pour que le consommateur, lui, ait l'occasion de
consentir.
3308
LE PRÉSIDENT: Je répète,
c'est : est‑ce que le consentement que le consommateur a donné à son association
enlève la nécessité de mettre en application la liste nationale à un partenariat
dûment constitué entre l'association originale et la Caisse
pop.?
3309
M. GRIMARD: C'est bien
ça.
3310
LE PRÉSIDENT: Bon, c'est
clair, en tout cas, ce qui est devant nous et puis je vous remercie de votre
aide.
3311
Je ne suis pas sûr que j'ai compris la question de l'obligation
d'identification. Pourriez‑vous
passer à travers ça parce que ça a passé vite puis je suis loin d'être certain
que j'ai compris.
3312
M. GRIMARD: Je vous réfère à
l'article... l'article 41.73 de la Loi dit que :
* Une
entreprise exemptée lorsqu'elle appelle en vertu de son exemption une personne
inscrite à la do not call list doit se présenter et dire pourquoi la
communication est effectuée. +
3313
Alors, nous, ce qu'on demande, c'est que cette obligation
d'identification‑là soit mentionnée au destinataire de l'appel, c'est‑à‑dire que
vous, par exemple, si Desjardins...
3314
LE PRÉSIDENT: Je
comprends. Alors, supposons que je
suis le premier répondant, mais je ne suis pas la personne, c'est à ma femme que
vous voulez vraiment parler?
3315
M. GRIMARD:
Oui.
3316
LE PRÉSIDENT: Alors, quelle
est l'implication? Vous n'êtes pas
obligé de vous identifier à moi?
3317
M. GRIMARD: L'implication,
c'est que je puisse pouvoir appeler puis dire : est‑ce que je pourrais parler à
votre femme?
3318
LE PRÉSIDENT:
Oui.
3319
M. GRIMARD: Et lorsque votre
femme prend le téléphone, je lui dirais : bonjour, je suis Yvan‑Pierre Grimard
de chez Desjardins, je vous appelle pour vous offrir le
produit...
3320
LE PRÉSIDENT: Non, mais
monsieur Grimard, ça, ça va jusque là, pourvu que le premier répondant dise,
d'accord, je vais appeler ma femme.
3321
M. GRIMARD: Bien sûr, bien
sûr.
3322
LE PRÉSIDENT: Le problème
surgit lorsque le premier répondant qui n'est pas la cible de votre effort de
marketing dit : qui êtes‑vous puis qui est‑ce que je peux dire
appelle.
3323
M. GRIMARD: Tout à fait
puis, on portait cet aspect‑là à votre attention parce que dans la décision
2004‑35, il était question en quelque part que dès que quelqu'un répondait au
téléphone, il fallait enclencher un processus de présentation puis d'explication
de la nature de l'appel.
3324
Alors, on voulait seulement vous préciser qu'il faudrait que... qu'on est
d'accord pour se soumettre à cette procédure‑là, mais au destinataire de
l'appel, pas à la première personne qui répond au
téléphone.
3325
LE PRÉSIDENT: Donc, vous
voulez qu'on sanctionne votre refus de vous identifier au premier
répondant?
Non?
3326
M. GRIMARD: Non. En fait, si j'appelle chez vous et que
je veux parler à votre femme, c'est un bon exemple, ça, et que vous répondez, je
voudrais que le CRTC nous confirme que l'obligation de dire bonjour, je suis
Desjardins, blablabla!...
3327
LE PRÉSIDENT: Vous ne voulez
pas engendrer...
3328
M. GRIMARD: ... que je le
fasse à votre épouse et non à vous lorsque vous allez prendre le téléphone
puisque c'est à votre épouse que je veux offrir mon
produit.
3329
LE PRÉSIDENT: Vous ne voulez
pas enclencher le script formel, total, qu'à la personne que vous
cherchez?
3330
M. GRIMARD: C'est ça. On veut faire... on veut faire notre
laïus à la personne à qui on veut parler.
3331
LE PRÉSIDENT: Je
comprends. Par contre, ce n'est pas
là où j'en suis. Quelle est votre
obligation envers le premier répondant?
Comment est‑ce que vous gérez ça?
Qu'est‑ce que vous allez dire à vos préposés?
3332
M. GRIMARD: On va dire :
bonjour, est‑ce que je pourrais parler à monsieur...
3333
LE PRÉSIDENT: Oui, je sais
que vous allez dire ça d'abord. Ce
n'est pas ça la question. Quand la
personne répond puis dit : mais qui appelle? Pourquoi voulez‑vous lui parler,
qu'est‑ce que vous dites? Qu'est‑ce
que vous voulez qu'on vous conseille de dire?
3334
M. GRIMARD: Bien, nous
allons nous soumettre à ce que l'article de Loi dit. L'article de Loi dit qu'il faut se
présenter, dire quel est l'objet de notre
appel.
3335
MME CIMON: Monsieur le
président, si je peux me permettre.
Je suis en charge d'un des centres d'appels sortant et puis en ce moment,
on se présente immédiatement, que ça soit la personne, monsieur French ou madame
French qui répond.
3336
Toutefois, par le passé, on ne le faisait pas. On demandait : bonjour, pourrais‑je
parler avec madame French puis si monsieur French était au téléphone et nous
demandait : qui êtes‑vous? On
s'identifiait automatiquement : bonjour, mon nom est Kathie Cimon de
Desjardins.
3337
Alors, on n'avait pas... on ne s'empêchait pas de le donner parce que, de
toute façon, on ne voulait pas qu'il y ait de mauvaise communication avec la
personne, que ça soit la personne destinée à l'appel ou non, mais on le fait
déjà.
3338
LE PRÉSIDENT: En tout cas,
sache qu'on n'a pas l'intention... sachez, qu'on n'a pas l'intention de
compliquer votre vie indûment ça, c'est sûr. On n'a pas l'intention non plus de
sanctionner une espèce d'approche qui dit que je ne m'identifie pas, sauf qu'à
madame French parce que je ne pense pas que ça... ce n'est pas dans votre
intérêt, ça, et certainement pas dans le nôtre.
3339
Alors, on va essayer de trouver un moyen à la lumière des questions
pratiques que vous soulevez, que je comprends comme étant il y a une série
d'exigences assez serrées et on ne veut pas les enclencher dans leur totalité, à
la première personne, à moins que cette première personne est la cible de notre
effort de marketing.
3340
M. GRIMARD:
Exactement.
3341
LE PRÉSIDENT: Bon. Je vous remercie.
3342
M. GRIMARD: Puis on va le
faire comme ma collègue vient de vous mentionner, on le fait, on ne se cache
pas. On ne se cache pas, mais on
voulait juste clarifier.
3343
LE PRÉSIDENT: Non. Je le savais, mais je voulais juste voir
exactement quel était le problème.
3344
Dans le fond, vous êtes en train peut‑être de nous dire que l'exigence
telle qu'elle est actuellement, qui est suspendue là, est assez élaborée et
peut‑être trop élaborée?
3345
M. GRIMARD: Dans 2004‑35,
c'était effectivement trop élaboré.
3346
LE PRÉSIDENT: C'était mon
impression.
3347
M. GRIMARD: On est plus à
l'aise avec ce qui se trouve dans C‑37 là.
3348
LE PRÉSIDENT: O.k. Oui, mais on a le pouvoir d'ajouter
d'autres choses là, vous savez.
3349
M. GRIMARD: Je
sais.
3350
LE PRÉSIDENT: D'accord. Alors, je retiens qu'on soit raisonnable
dans nos exigences.
3351
M. GRIMARD:
Exactement.
3352
LE PRÉSIDENT: Merci. Ah! oui, l'exclusion des entreprises de
la liste nationale.
3353
En principe, on ne peut pas s'objecter, mais en pratique, comment
voulez‑vous qu'on fasse ça? Il y a
tellement d'exceptions possible, on vient de doubler ou tripler la taille de
notre record pour chaque individu.
3354
M. GRIMARD: Bien, nous,
notre point, monsieur le président, c'est que pour avoir suivi les travaux du
Sénat et de la Chambre, c'est que l'intention du Législateur était réellement de
limiter l'intrusion dans les foyers des individus.
3355
Alors, il n'était pas question de limiter le télémarketing entre
entreprises et on pense que ça ne serait pas nécessaire. On pense que ce n'est pas nécessaire
d'inclure ça puisqu'on...
3356
LE PRÉSIDENT: Excusez‑moi;
on n'est pas sur la même longueur d'onde là. Vous parlez de B. to B.
là?
3357
M. GRIMARD:
Oui.
3358
LE PRÉSIDENT: Non, ce n'est
pas ça que j'évoque. J'évoque que
le client peut s'inscrire au registre national, mais il peut dire, par contre,
quand la Caisse pop. m'appelle c'est O.k.
Est‑ce que vous n'avez pas demandé ça ou vous avez demandé ça d'après
moi?
3359
M. GRIMARD: Oui, oui, nous
avons demandé ça.
3360
LE PRÉSIDENT: Alors,
philosophiquement, mettons d'accord que ce serait idéal.
3361
M. GRIMARD:
Oui.
3362
LE PRÉSIDENT: Il n'y a pas
de question de principe là‑dedans.
C'est strictement une question problématique comment est‑ce qu'on va
réussir à * manager + ça pour un
potentiel de 12 millions de numéros de téléphone et deux millions à trois
millions de business.
3363
M. GRIMARD: Écoutez; c'est
vrai que ça peut être compliqué.
Par contre, l'informatique est capable de réaliser de grandes
choses.
3364
On est membre du sous‑comité du CDCI sur l'exploitation de cette liste‑là
et puis c'est une chose qu'on suit de près puis on pense que ce serait
vraiment... ce serait idéal de procéder comme ça pour que le consommateur soit,
comme je l'ai mentionné, soit maître des communications qui rentrent chez
lui.
3365
Je comprends qu'au niveau technique ça peut poser certains défis, mais
c'est peut‑être pas insurmontable, mais si c'est faisable, bien on souhaiterait
que le Conseil donne son consentement à ce que ça soit... ça soit réalisé par
l'exploitant de la liste.
3366
LE PRÉSIDENT: Bien alors,
mettons d'accord pour le fait que c'est un défi
technique...
3367
M. GRIMARD: Oui, j'en
conviens.
3368
LE PRÉSIDENT: ... avec
lequel au point de vue de principe et de philosophie il est difficile de
s'objecter, mais sur le plan pratique, il pourrait surgir un certain nombre de
problèmes.
3369
Sur le B. to B., je ne sais pas si vous avez d'autre chose à dire. Je ne pense pas qu'on a déjà assez
discuté ça. La seule phrase dans
votre présentation qui me fait arrêter un peu :
* Nos travaux
nous indiquent que ce n'était pas l'intention du Législateur d'inclure ce type
d'appel. +
3370
Mais c'est vrai qu'il y a deux sénateurs qui ont dit qu'ils n'étaient pas
d'accord, mais de là à dire que tous les parlementaires n'ont pas voulu couvrir
notre business c'est un peu un stretch, à moins que vous ayez d'autres
renseignements que je n'ai pas?
3371
M. GRIMARD: Bien, écoutez,
moi, j'ai beaucoup suivi les travaux autant du Sénat que les travaux de la
Chambre des Communes et puis ce n'est pas une préoccupation qui est ressortie de
la part ni des sénateurs ni des députés de la Chambre.
3372
Ce que j'ai toujours compris puis ce qui me semblait assez clair à la
lumière des travaux que j'ai pu faire là‑dessus, c'est que le Législateur, c'est
le consommateur chez lui qu'il veut protéger. Ce n'est pas l'entrepreneur au bureau le
mardi après‑midi.
C'est vraiment notre
perception de la situation.
3373
LE PRÉSIDENT: Oui et je ne
la contesterai pas, mais sauf que vous demandez un peu plus que ça. Vous nous demandez à ce que... à dire à
l'entrepreneur le mardi après‑midi, non, vous n'avez pas le droit même si vous
voulez, de vous inscrire.
3374
M. GRIMARD: Bien, écoutez,
j'ai compris hier que vous aviez des préoccupations et puis vous vous demandez
comment est‑ce qu'on va faire pour faire ça.
3375
Ce qui pourrait être une solution, ce serait que le Conseil édicte que
lorsque le télé‑vendeur est capable de démontrer qu'il y a eu une plainte sur un
numéro d'entreprise, bien que la plainte soit rejetée et ne puisse pas être
entendue.
3376
LE PRÉSIDENT: O.k. Je ne pense pas que j'aie d'autres
questions. Je ne sais pas si mes
collègues ont des questions?
3377
Commissioner Cram.
3378
COMMISSIONER CRAM:
Merci. Vous savez qu'il y
aura peut‑être les problèmes avec l'écoute du DNCL, the do not call list, parce
qu'il n'y a pas beaucoup de telemarketers au Canada.
3379
Vous avez dit ici que la liste, l'inscription pour les consommateurs doit
finir après trois ans, mais il y aura les... ça va augmenter les coûts peut‑être
trop pour la comptabilité de la liste.
3380
Est‑ce que les coûts, s'ils sont trop élevés, est‑ce que ça va changer
vos idées des trois ans parce que ça va vous coûter
plus?
3381
M. GRIMARD: Effectivement,
c'est probable que ça nous coûte
plus cher. Par contre,
l'esprit de notre demande, c'est qu'on a... on a l'impression que les lois, les
règlements actuels conjugués à la mise en place de la liste vont faire en sorte
de réconcilier les consommateurs avec la pratique du
télémarketing.
3382
On pense que dans trois ans, si les résultats sont positifs, si,
effectivement, les intrusions ont été limitées, mieux encadrées, on pense
qu'après trois ans il y a un bon nombre de personnes qui décideraient de ne pas
se réinscrire sur la liste puis ça, ça nous apparaît important dans la mesure où
on a lu dans les documents préparés par Canadian Marketing Association que le
télémarketing, c'est plus de 200 000 emplois et c'est autour de 15 milliards de
chiffres d'affaires au Canada.
Donc, c'est dans cet esprit‑là qu'on fait la
recommandation.
3383
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Puis ça
vaut le coût, peu importe combien?
3384
M. GRIMARD: Non, quand même,
pas à n'importe quel prix. C'est
certain qu'on ne pourrait pas faire ça à n'importe quel prix, mais on pense que
l'idée est bonne, l'idée mérite d'être analysée et puis, bien sûr, comme je le
mentionnais tout à l'heure, on travaille sur le sous‑comité du CDCI sur
l'exploitation, on devrait être en mesure d'avoir une meilleure idée de ce que
ça pourrait représenter comme coût au fil des ans puis on pourrait... on vous
reviendrait là‑dessus.
3385
Mais l'esprit, c'est qu'on pense que la liste, les règlements vont
réconcilier le consommateur avec le télémarketing puis qu'en bout de piste ça va
être bon pour tout le monde.
3386
COMMISSIONER CRAM:
Merci.
3387
THE CHAIRMAN:
Counsel.
3388
M. MILLINGTON: Merci,
monsieur le président. J'aurais une
petite question.
3389
Monsieur Grimard, pouvez‑vous nous fournir des documents que vous auriez
utilisés pour obtenir le consentement de vos clients? J'imagine qu'il y a plusieurs types de
documents qui sont utilisés?
3390
M. GRIMARD: Nous allons vous
fournir les documents utilisés dans les Caisses et nous allons vous expliciter
les autres façons dont nous obtenons le consentement de nos membres et clients,
certainement.
3391
M. MILLINGTON: O.k. Parfait. Merci.
3392
LE PRÉSIDENT: Madame la
Secrétaire a des demandes à faire?
Non? Pas d'undertaking? Non.
3393
Alors, monsieur Grimard, madame Cimon, maître Bombardier, merci
beaucoup. Vous avez été fort utiles
et votre présence est très appréciée.
3394
Nous allons prendre une pause pour le lunch.
3395
We'll see one other again
after lunch at two o'clock sharp, please.
3396
LA SECRÉTAIRE: Monsieur le
président?
3397
LE PRÉSIDENT: Madame la
Secrétaire; excusez‑moi.
3398
THE SECRETARY: Canadian Life
and Health Insurance agreed to change its place in the order of appearance in
order to accommodate RESP Dealers Association of Canada and Investment Dealers
Association of Canada. So, thank
you very much, Mr. Goldthorpe.
3399
LE PRÉSIDENT: Merci. À 2 h 00. Thank you; at two
o'clock.
‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 1242 /
Suspension à 1242
‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1400 /
Reprise à 1400
3400
THE CHAIRPERSON: Order,
please. À l'ordre, s'il vous
plaît.
Welcome.
3401
Madame la Secrétaire.
3402
LA SECRÉTAIRE: Merci,
monsieur le Président.
3403
Nous allons commencer avec RESP Dealers Association of Canada, Ms Robin
Morrissey.
PRESENTATION /
PRÉSENTATION
3404
MS MORRISSEY: Thank
you.
3405
My name is Robin Morrissey.
I am the Director of ‑‑
3406
THE CHAIRPERSON: You must
press the button.
3407
MS MORRISSEY: Thank you very
much. There we go. I can hear me now.
3408
Once again, my name is Robin Morrissey. I am the Director of Corporate Affairs
for USC Education Savings Plans Inc., and I am here representing the RESP
Dealers Association of Canada.
3409
The following comments are submitted on behalf of the Association in
response to your notice.
3410
The RESP Dealers Association represents four of Canada's established
registered education savings plans providers, and we do appreciate this
opportunity to consult with you today.
3411
The members of our Association which have participated in the development
of this submission include CST Consultants Inc., Children's Education Funds
Inc., Heritage Education Funds Inc. and USC Education Savings Plans
Inc.
3412
RESP members obtain telephone numbers of prospective purchasers by means
of various lead generation programs.
The vast majority of these programs include a specific opt‑in
consent.
3413
I would like to be specific here that this is an explicit opt‑in, not an
implicit one. They do have to
specifically tick a box that says "please have someone contact
me".
3414
Others, most notably referrals from family members and friends, do not
involve a specific opt‑in request from the individual and could be considered as
unsolicited telecommunications, which is why we are here.
3415
We understand the intent of the legislation is to permit the CRTC to
administer a national "do not call" list to regulate or prohibit unsolicited
telecommunications. For the
purposes of our comments with respect to this list, we include under the term
"unsolicited telecommunications" only those communications that are done by
telephone.
3416
While the RESP Dealers Association is quite supportive of the intent of
the "do not call" list, it wishes to ensure that the operation of the list is
properly established to permit member firms to simply and cost‑effectively
comply with the rules and that the rules pursuant to which the list operates are
clear and unambiguous.
3417
With respect to timely compliance of the regulations, it is the view of
the RESP Dealers Association that the most effective process to ensure timely
compliance with the requirements of your DNCL rules is to have the DNCL operator
make the list available to users, both persons and organizations, to enable them
to determine whether an individual may be contacted or not, and this as opposed
to an alternate which was put forth where we would submit lists to the operator
who would scrub them and then return it back to us.
3418
It is our opinion that the only information from the DNCL that need be
made available to persons or companies accessing the list is the telephone
number.
3419
RESP Dealer Association member firms distribute information to numerous
individuals within our respective organizations across Canada. We have a distribution structure that
involves a few levels.
3420
From our head offices information is sent to our branch offices across
Canada. From there there are sales
representatives that operate out of that branch office, that may be remote from
that branch office as well, that need to have this list in their hands. And in fact those people may indeed have
appointment makers or telemarketers who will need to have that list as
well.
3421
So there is a few people that it needs to get to from our respective head
offices and across Canada, in all provinces and all areas and
territories.
3422
These individuals may in turn send it to other people operating on their
behalf.
3423
Given this, the RESP Dealers Association is recommending a 60‑day grace
period be applied from the date that the individual registers to be included on
the list, during which calls to the individual would not be deemed to be in
violation.
3424
This would ensure that there is sufficient time to allow the list to be
disseminated to all levels of the organization in all regions of the
country.
3425
We would further like to recommend that should an individual on the list
cease to have a particular telephone number assigned to them that this number be
removed from the list. Since the
individual no longer owns or perhaps rents the number from the telephone
company, they shouldn't be issuing instructions with respect to
it.
3426
Following from this recommendation, if an individual who is on the list
moves or otherwise changes their telephone number, should they call to register
to put their new number on, the old number should be automatically removed from
the list as well, because it is not assigned to them any
longer.
3427
RESP Dealers Association is of the view that it is reasonable to require
all telemarketers to continue to maintain their own "do not call" lists and
companies to continue to maintain their "do not call" lists following the
establishment of a national "do not call" list.
3428
This is reflective of the fact that some consumers may not want to be on
a national list but would like to prevent contact from specific organizations if
they have made that request to that specific organization.
3429
The RESP Dealers Association is of the view that it is reasonable to
charge a fee to those firms that make use of the list. However, we are concerned that the fee
be structured to reflect both the scale of the organization and the actual usage
of the organization or the individual.
3430
We note that an exemption exists for existing business relationships,
which includes a relationship formed by a voluntary two‑way communication
between the person making the telecommunication and the person to whom that
telecommunication is being raised.
3431
We would like to see some clarity around the extent of the existing
business relationship. It is our
view that an individual who has provided express consent to be contacted through
an opt‑in method within the past six months should be deemed to fall within an
existing business relationship.
3432
We are supportive of the creation of a compliance continuum whereby
organizations will need to display a pattern of contravening the DNCL rules
before being subject to a full investigation. This will the CRTC to focus
investigations on those firms who have demonstrated a pattern of non‑compliance
with the rules as opposed to investigating every single incident that
occurs.
3433
These are the comments from the RESP Dealers Association at this point in
time. As further details on the
DNCL rules are established, we would like to perhaps make further comments at
that time.
3434
Again, thank you very much for the opportunity to
submit.
3435
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you,
Ms Morrissey. Admirably
concise and clear.
3436
Commissioner Duncan.
3437
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Good
afternoon.
3438
MS MORRISSEY: Good
afternoon.
3439
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: With
respect to the referrals by family, friends and acquaintances, because we have
had a lot of discussion around that issue over these two days, I am wondering if
it can't be ‑‑ we have obviously a reluctance to amend what Parliament has
given us with respect to the exemptions.
3440
I am wondering how you think that might work if we were to just apply it
in the rules, the guidelines.
3441
MS MORRISSEY: The current
guidelines, from our read, do not exempt referrals, regardless if it is a family
member. Distinct from calling a
family member, when you refer a third person, is what I am specifically speaking
of.
3442
It is not our opinion that it should be exempted.
3443
Is that your question?
3444
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I'm
just concerned. I thought you
wanted to have exempt family members, friends and
acquaintances.
3445
MS MORRISSEY: No. Our current position is that we
are ‑‑ certainly we would like to ‑‑ I'm speaking on behalf of the
Association.
3446
No, we don't necessarily need to see that exemption. We do believe that a referral in that
case is unsolicited by the party who you are calling.
3447
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: All
right. I appreciate
that.
3448
I think you would probably agree with me that if they are actually from
families, friends and acquaintances they are likely to result in a complaint, in
any event. Since the process is
complaint‑driven, it is probably not that big a deal.
3449
With regard to small telemarketers ‑‑ and I don't consider that the
companies you are representing would be considered small, the four companies you
said.
3450
MS MORRISSEY: Four
companies ‑‑
3451
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Or
dealers.
3452
MS MORRISSEY:
Yes.
3453
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: But
with respect to smaller‑sized operators, do you think they should be given
special consideration in the rate structure, for example, to accommodate them
and ensure their viability?
3454
MS MORRISSEY: Yes, I do.
Specifically, we as four
organizations, each organization is not a small organization but the
representatives who are contracted by those organizations, as sales
representatives for example, are small organizations.
3455
For instance, if they live in a remote area, they may not have access to
infrastructure for e‑mail, Web access, may not even have a computer, in some
cases working out of a home office.
3456
So within the design of the guidelines we have to take into account that
they are small organizations and they might be in very remote
locations.
3457
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: In that
instance, then, would those individual operators be paying the fee or would you
as a group? Or would the four
companies they represent, the savings plans?
3458
MS MORRISSEY: We would be
purchasing the list as the organization and disseminating that through our
affiliates.
3459
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: So in
that respect you would probably be paying based on a larger number then, if it
ends up being paid on a per‑access basis.
3460
MS MORRISSEY: Yes. We would be purchasing it at that level
and then disseminating it and collecting as we would.
3461
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: That's
all right. I think we have covered
that.
3462
With respect to the grace period and your suggestion of the 60 days, as
you know, the U.S. seemed to be satisfied with their 31‑day
turnaround.
3463
MS MORRISSEY:
M'hmm.
3464
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I am
wondering if you have considered transmitting your updated lists via e‑mail to
people and allowing them to have access on line to your lists, if that wouldn't
expedite the process and cut down that time.
3465
MS MORRISSEY: It absolutely
would and in many cases we would be able to accommodate that. And certainly in the majority of cases
that would be the method that we would be disseminating the
list.
3466
There are people who don't have that access who we do have to consider in
the process.
3467
We had 60 days from the date that the person registers onto the list,
assuming that there would be a period of time between that date and when we were
actually getting the list from the operator, which is going to be a function of
how the fee structure is set up and what the expectations are in terms of how
frequently one would purchase that list.
3468
So the 60 days was built in with an assumption on a worst case scenario,
if one obtained the list on a monthly basis, we would need a 30‑day period to
get that to the farthest corner of the countries.
3469
So it was 60 days from the date that you went on the
list.
3470
I think 31 days from the day that we get the list is not
unreasonable.
3471
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: All
right.
3472
That probably would be the U.S. scenario then, would it, the 31
days? That would probably be in
compliance with the U.S. situation?
3473
MS MORRISSEY: It might be
that, yes, it might be. That wasn't
a consideration in our coming up with the timeframe, but it might
well.
3474
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: So
actually the grace period you are recommending is 60 days from the date you get
the list ‑‑ 31 days; sorry.
3475
MS MORRISSEY: Yes. The other month is really built in
depending on how frequently one would access the
list.
3476
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Just to
make sure I understand it, then, if I am a consumer and I want to be registered
on the list, how long is it going to take?
3477
MS MORRISSEY: In a worst
case scenario, which is what we built in in our submission, you would put your
name on the list. If the promoter
was obtaining the list on, let's say a worst case scenario, a monthly basis, you
could be on the list for a month before the company actually purchased the list
from the operator, and then getting it out to all of the
representatives.
3478
From there it would probably really only take a week in most
circumstances because it is electronic and we can do it
quickly.
3479
But we have to build in for these other constituents in our organization
who aren't on line.
3480
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: So two
parts to my next question.
3481
If you were to do your updates every 20 days, that would allow you ten
days to disseminate it throughout your organization.
3482
For the people that are on line, that would definitely not be an
issue.
3483
So what percentage of your dealers would be not on
line?
3484
MS MORRISSEY: Oh, a very
small percent. Less than 5 percent
of the dealers would be not on line.
3485
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: So then
that probably could be managed as well through exceptions, just assessing
complaints on a case by case basis, because first there would have to be a
complaint.
3486
MS MORRISSEY:
Absolutely.
3487
Our intent is really just so those people don't get caught betwixt and
between while they are waiting for their lists. We know that they are going to be
operating in good faith. It is just
a matter of making sure that they aren't getting caught, fined and not realizing
that they are in violation.
3488
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Thank
you.
3489
There has also been a lot of discussion of this too, with respect to
consumer consent. You mentioned
that yours was an explicit opt‑in; that they would tick a
box.
3490
MS MORRISSEY:
Yes.
3491
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Are
they actually signing and dating or how ‑‑
3492
MS MORRISSEY: It varies by
campaign. The majority of them,
they tick a box. There are others
where they sign. There are still
others where it is a verbal consent to a hostess or someone who is standing in
front of them, and they say: "Would
you like this company to call you?
Yes. Okay, give me your name
and telephone number."
3493
And without them giving the name and telephone number, you wouldn't have
that information to contact them.
3494
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Thank
you.
3495
So in your view that would be satisfactory if there was an
investigation?
3496
MS MORRISSEY: It is our
position that that type of two‑way communication falls under an existing
business relationship category where that person is making an explicit request
to be contacted.
3497
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:
Automatic dialling and announcing devices, I assume you are not involved
with those.
3498
At this point do you expect to be using a third party provider or do you
expect to be dealing directly with the DNCL operator
yourselves?
3499
MS MORRISSEY: We expect to
be dealing directly with the DNCL operator ourselves, the four
companies.
3500
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Do you
think that third party providers should be allowed to access the
list?
3501
MS MORRISSEY: I think my
answer to that question depends on what information is going to be contained in
the list and how it is going to be maintained and what kind of security there is
going to be around that.
3502
Without really being able to vision that, it is very difficult to answer
that question.
3503
But the proper safeguards.
3504
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:
Following along on that, I would expect, because everybody else is
paying, you would expect them to pay, if they were granted
access?
3505
MS MORRISSEY: Yes. I think yes, if you are granted access
to it, you should be expected to pay for it.
3506
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: That's
fine, Mr. Chairman; thank you.
3507
THE CHAIRPERSON:
Commissioner Langford.
3508
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: I
will be brief.
3509
As of this point, we do not have a national "do not call" list, but how
are your members dealing with requests that people they are contacting don't
want to be called any more?
3510
MS MORRISSEY: We maintain an
internal "do not call" list. If
someone calls to indicate their preference not to be contacted by us, we put
them on that list and that list is disseminated to our representatives as well
on a regular basis.
3511
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Take
me through what the pronoun "we" means.
3512
Does each member, each sales person have their own list or do you have
one list for all your members and share it?
3513
Or how do you work it?
3514
MS MORRISSEY: We have one
list for all members and share it.
3515
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Can
you give me any idea, just in general terms, how many names or numbers might be
on that list ‑‑ numbers, I suppose?
3516
MS MORRISSEY: No, I can't,
to be honest with you, Mr. Langford.
I haven't looked at it for quite some time. So I couldn't answer
that.
3517
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: How
do you break it up? By area code to
your members?
3518
MS MORRISSEY: That's
correct, yes.
3519
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: To
your recollection, have you had any complaints of people violating these things
up to now?
3520
MS MORRISSEY: Not as
yet.
3521
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Has
anybody complained and said:
"What's wrong? I wanted my
number on the list."
3522
MS MORRISSEY: No, not as of
yet. We haven't had any complaints
of that nature.
3523
Once your name is on the list, from the perspective of a representative,
there is not really a lot of value in calling you. You don't want to hear from us. We don't want to spend time irritating
you. There is really no value to
it.
3524
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:
No. But I have heard from
other witnesses that mistakes are sometimes made.
3525
MS MORRISSEY:
Indeed.
3526
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: You
can put the wrong number so someone's number doesn't come on the list. Then they get bothered and they say,
"Why are you bothering me?"
3527
MS MORRISSEY: Yes, I'm sure
that could occur. I haven't heard
any complaints of that sort yet.
3528
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: I
see. And do you have rules and
regulations for your members to follow?
Guidelines?
3529
MS MORRISSEY: Yes, we
do.
3530
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: And
you, I assume, have read some of the comments on the concept of due diligence in
here?
3531
MS MORRISSEY: Yes, I
did.
3532
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Do
you think the sort of rules and regulations you have are more or less in the
spirit of those sort of comments now?
3533
MS MORRISSEY: Absolutely,
yes. We do regular audits with
our ‑‑ our branch managers do regular audits and our provincial compliance
officers do regular audits. And, in
fact, we have provincial auditors that do regular audits for ensuring compliance
with conduct.
3534
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: When
a new dealers comes into your group, how do you kind of vet them, train them or
what do you do? What are your
processes for that?
3535
MS MORRISSEY: There is a
recruiting process. They have to go
through a series of interviews to establish suitability, both from their
perspective and from ours. There is
also credit checks, RCMP checks that are done as a result of having to get a
securities license. You need to
have a securities license to be a sales representative within our
organization.
3536
So once we've established that you are worthy, then we move forward into
the training process. There is an
industry exam that has to be passed with an 80 percent mark and then your
license goes in for consideration to the provincial securities
regulator.
3537
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Thank
goodness we didn't have to go through all that, right, folks? None of us would be sitting here. Well, that's good though, that is a good
thing.
3538
Well, thank you. Those are
my questions. I am taking note of
your notion on how, you know, there should be a compliance continuum and I think
that is probably, from the perspective of what you've described here today,
probably a pretty appropriate approach for the type of organization you have
got, so I don't think I have any questions on that. Thank you very
much.
3539
MS MORRISSEY: Thank
you. My
pleasure.
3540
THE CHAIRPERSON:
Commissioner Cram.
3541
COMMISSIONER CRAM: These
less than five percent of people who are not on
line ‑‑
3542
MS MORRISSEY:
Um‑hum.
3543
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Can you
tell me, sort of, where they are?
3544
MS MORRISSEY: More recently
I spoke to someone who is in a remote area of Alberta and we spoke about him
being on line and I talked to him a little bit about why not and he said, well,
I just don't have the infrastructure up there. The wireless is not very reliable, so it
is very difficult.
3545
I imagine there are ‑‑ I know that there are other representatives
who are not on line, not because of a physical geographical location, but they
just simply don't have a computer and aren't computer savvy and haven't gotten
there yet. They
might.
3546
We hadn't mandated it in our organization as of yet. So there is a combination between people
who just aren't there yet, who may have a computer but don't have it on line
yet, or who are in a physical location where it is difficult for them to get
access.
3547
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Okay,
thank you.
3548
THE CHAIRPERSON:
Commissioner Duncan.
3549
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Just
one more quick question.
3550
MS MORRISSEY:
Yes.
3551
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: How
long do you think that the name should stay on the list?
3552
MS MORRISSEY: Interesting
question. I was considering that
when you were asking it earlier today.
Forever seems a long time, I do agree with you. But it should be meaningful
enough.
3553
I think a year is short. I
would go ‑‑ and it becomes very arbitrary, but really I think from a
consumer's standpoint I would like to see it perhaps two or three years and then
maybe want to consider a re‑registration at that time.
3554
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Just to
give the consumer a chance for a second thought?
3555
MS MORRISSEY: Yeah. I mean they can at all times get their
name off of it, but are you really thinking about that? And maybe there are opportunities that
you are not getting that you might like to because you have
forgotten.
3556
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Thank
you very much. That is
great.
3557
THE CHAIRPERSON:
Commissioner Cugini.
3558
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Just a
quick question.
3559
MS MORRISSEY:
Sure.
3560
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Based
on your discussion earlier that you would access the ‑‑ your association
would access the list on behalf of your members. That's what you were ‑‑ that is
your position, right?
3561
MS MORRISSEY: The individual
companies within our association would access the list on behalf of their
representatives. There are a few
companies that are part of our RESB dealers association umbrella
group.
3562
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: And how
many companies would that be?
3563
MS MORRISSEY: Four right
now.
3564
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: So
those four companies would access the list on behalf of their
members?
3565
MS MORRISSEY:
Correct.
3566
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: And how
many members would each of those companies have?
3567
MS MORRISSEY: Hmm. Somewhere between five and
1500.
3568
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Would
you see that each of those companies would pay the same fee for accessing the
list, given the different sizes of membership?
3569
MS MORRISSEY: Yeah, I think
fee ‑‑ that is an interesting discussion as well. I think fee should really be a function
of usage and scale.
3570
I think, you know, companies that are going to be making phone calls on
the order of 5,000 calls a month versus somebody who is going to be making 500
calls a month should perhaps have a different fee
structure.
3571
I believe also that how frequently one accesses the list, is there going
to be an expectation that the list be accessed by individual companies or
individuals on a weekly basis, bi‑weekly, monthly? Is there going to be a cost for how
frequently one gets it?
3572
So I think the answer to your question is yes, I think it should vary by
the scale of the organization and frequency of access and
usage.
3573
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: On
average, how many telemarketing campaigns would those four companies run on a
yearly basis?
3574
MS MORRISSEY: That don't
involve an explicit opt in? On a
monthly basis we might as an organization across all four companies make 500
such phone calls, check about 500 such telephone numbers to verify that they
were not on the list.
3575
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: To
verify that they are not on the list?
3576
MS MORRISSEY: Yes, maybe 500
that fall under the referral category.
3577
COMMISSIONER CUGINI:
Right.
3578
MS MORRISSEY: That would be
what we would consider not explicit consent.
3579
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Thank
you very much. Thank
you.
3580
THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner
Duncan.
3581
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:
Sorry. Just to make sure
that I have got this clear. I
understood that the association would be scrubbing the list, not each individual
company.
3582
MS MORRISSEY: No, the
association would not scrub the list.
3583
MS. DEWAL: Each
individual ‑‑
3584
MS MORRISSEY: Individual
companies would be accessing the list, yes.
3585
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Okay,
thank you.
3586
THE CHAIRPERSON: Could you
provide us with the document that you use for the opt in to be
contacted?
3587
MS MORRISSEY:
Yes.
3588
THE CHAIRPERSON: Because you
explicitly pointed out to us that it was some kind of a voluntary act on the
part of the consumer. So if you
could just deposit that with us we would appreciate it. Counsel?
3589
MR. MILLINGTON: No, I
have nothing for this witness.
3590
THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms
Morrissey, thank you very much for your presence. It was concise, it was clear and much
appreciated.
3591
MS MORRISSEY: Thank you for
allowing us to be here.
3592
THE CHAIRPERSON: Madam la
secretaire.
3593
THE SECRETARY: We are
calling Ms. Susan Copeland, Investment Dealers Association of
Canada.
‑‑‑ Off‑the‑record
discussion.
3594
MS. COPELAND: Good
afternoon, my name is Susan Copeland and I am a director at the Investment
Dealers Association of Canada, the industry association. And we want to thank you for giving us
the opportunity to speak to the committee about the potential effects of Bill
C37 on the Canadian investment sector.
3595
The IDA supports the intent of the bill and is pleased to make
recommendations to help implement a cost efficient and clear, transparent and
fair sets of regulations. Effective
management of the implementation process is critical in order not to disrupt
service to the public or undermine the efficiency of the Canadian capital
markets.
3596
Before I begin my submissions I would just like to inform the committee
that the Investment Dealers Association has recently undertaken a change in its
structure since we made our written submissions.
3597
We've separated our dual mandate into two entities. There is now a securities regulator and
an industry association, an independent industry association. And I am speaking to you on behalf of
the industry association, not the regulator.
3598
The industry association represents the securities industry in Canada in
respect of regulatory and public policy matters relating to the savings and
investment process. One of our
primary objectives is to assist policy makers to create well ‑‑ efficient
and well functioning markets with a high standard of integrity, and that is why
I am here today.
3599
Our members include more than 200 investment dealers, who play an
essential role in the Canadian economy.
They help raise capital for governments and businesses and help
individual Canadians and institutions invest with confident in open and fair
capital markets. Our member firms
employ more than 37,000 people, in all provinces and abroad, and play a key role
in our national and provincial economies.
3600
The IDA's interest in Bill C37 stems from the fact that telephone
communication between investment advisors and their clients is a critical
component of the savings and investment process. And as you are aware, during its
consideration of Bill C37, Parliament was careful to establish the balance
between preventing undue inconvenience and nuisance to Canadians from
telemarketing and protecting the responsible use of the telephone for business
purposes.
3601
As a result it read the existing business relationship. And that is primarily ‑‑ that is
very important to the IDA members because that is where the primary telephone,
telecommunication takes place because the advisors have to advise their existing
clients of developments that affect their current or potential
investments.
3602
So rather than being inconvenienced by these calls, these individuals
really rely on and expect such calls from their advisors and, in fact, there is
a duty on the advisors to inform their clients and make such
calls.
3603
So having said that and having recognized that Parliament has put in that
exemption that is so very important, we just want to ensure that that balance is
maintained through the implementation of the rules that govern as the
legislation and that ‑‑ in the public notice it says the do not call rules
will not apply to those persons identified in the amended Act as being
exempt.
3604
The importance of that to us is that the member firms that are exempt
from the do not calls rules shouldn't be burdened to pay their required fees to
maintain the do not call registry or otherwise be made subject to burdensome
compliance or reporting rules because that would undermine the existing business
relationship exemption and be impractical and undermine Parliament's clear
intent.
3605
However, we do recognize that some of our members will ‑‑ may rely
on telephone calls to build new client relationships and, of course, they should
support the costs of the registry and pay fees proportionate to their
use.
3606
In terms of setting up due diligence processes, et cetera, those who are
exempt from the do not call rules, the Act requires them to maintain their own
internal do not call list to ensure that no telecommunication is made to a
person that has requested not to be called. Since the statutory definition of
existing business relationships are who time limited, the act also implicitly
requires business to keep track of the expiration of these business
relationships with their customers.
3607
The IDA is submitting that the enforcement of such requirements should be
done on a complaints basis rather than a resource intensive mandatory reporting
or filing obligation.
3608
Under the complaints driven approach, a business would be responsible for
implementing internal measures to ensure that it doesn't violate the act and the
company would be free to choose measures that are effective and practical in its
particular circumstances.
3609
We think the due diligence defence contained in the legislation is fair
and it is an effective compliance tool.
It provides incentive for organizations to create systems that enable
them to demonstrate the exercise of appropriate diligence to prevent
violations.
3610
If the systems are effective there will be few violations and the
Commission can then focus its efforts on businesses that don't have adequate
systems in place and are generating complaints as a result. It shouldn't, therefore, be necessary
for the Commission to develop specific rules that proscribe precise procedures
for maintenance of internal do not call lists.
3611
It is impractical to implement rigid, uniform rules across all sorts of
different sectors of the industry, since the nature of business relationships
between clients and businesses varies according to different
sectors.
3612
If, however, the Commission decides there is some need for broad
directions, which it may do to help out businesses ascertain whether they will
be complying or not, we recommend that they take the form of non‑binding
guidelines and best practises and, again, they should recognize the differences
in business practises and client relationships across
sectors.
3613
Turning to the issue of personal and family relationships and referrals
and calls between businesses, we support those exemptions to be added. We believe that the intent of the
legislation is to prevent Canadians from being subject to the inconvenience or
nuisance of telemarketing, but not intended to prohibit or regulate
communication between family members, friends and acquaintances or similarly
from individuals who have been referred by clients that have an existing
business relationship.
3614
The U.S. rules which have been discussed over the past couple of days do
exempt calls from personal relationship ‑‑ people with personal
relationships, members, friends, acquaintances and business to business calls
are exempted as they ‑‑ it is defined as ‑‑ it only applies to
residential subscribers.
3615
In summary, we urge that the Commission recognize the balance that
Parliament has struck between undue inconvenience and nuisance to Canadians and
protecting the responsible use of telecommunications for legitimate business
purposes. And we hope that this
exemption isn't frustrated by burdensome and costly implementation rules that
may disrupt services to the public and undermine the efficiency of the capital
markets.
3616
So we thank you for allowing us to participate in this proceeding and
assist you in developing a practical balance model for the do not call
regulatory framework. We won't be
making a closing statement and, as such, the contents of this presentation and
our written submission will stand as our position on this
issue.
3617
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you
very much, Ms. Copeland.
Commissioner Duncan?
3618
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I
understand from your brief and also from your comments today that you are
representing 200 investment dealers?
3619
MS MORRISSEY:
Um‑hum.
3620
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: And in
brief and again today you indicate that fees should reflect and be proportionate
to the actual use of the list. In
paragraph 9 you indicate, as you did here in your presentation too, that
advisors and firms that are exempt by virtue of their statutory exemption from
existing business relationships should not be required to pay the fees, not
unreasonable in either instance.
But I am just wondering what percent of the 200 members would be
exempt?
3621
MS. COPELAND: Well, for the
most part, in the investment ‑‑ in that process the businesses generated
by ‑‑ or the way that they would get into the act at all is the business
relationship. So most of them would
be exempt just by virtue of the fact that they have existing business
relationships.
3622
Some of the business is generated by referral, so to the extent that that
is ‑‑ is created by a new exemption, that might pull them out too, but
there may be some fences around it so you may need to have the ‑‑ they may
need to pay into it, depending on how that is resolved.
3623
Again, there are a few brokers that start out that may be cold calling or
using the phone. It's not a huge
amount. I don't have figures for
you, but it is generally not the way that business is
done.
3624
But to the extent that brokers and investment dealers would be calling,
not on the basis of a business ‑‑ an existing business relationship, we
believe, of course, that is a cost of doing business, and they should be
supporting the system by paying fees.
3625
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I guess
I am not ‑‑ is it ‑‑ it seems to be going to be a bit of a problem, a
little ambiguous, because sometimes you'll be making cold calls and sometimes
you won't and many may never. So
those ones would never be accessing the list.
3626
MS. COPELAND: There will be
some that would never access the list, and they would maintain their compliance
with the legislation by monitoring their existing business relationships very
closely by, you know, making sure that after 18 months of no communication that,
you know ‑‑ then if they do communicate then they will have to access the
list again. Access the
list.
3627
MS. DEWAL: So if business is
slow and you decide in this particular month to do some cold calling,
then ‑‑
3628
MS. COPELAND: Then they
would definitely have to access the list and pay the fees accordingly,
yes.
3629
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Just in
that particular month, and then the next month there may not be
any.
3630
MS. COPELAND:
Yes.
3631
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: That is
what you are envisioning. I just
wanted to be clear on that. What is
the form of consumer consent that you take, that you get from
people?
3632
MS. COPELAND: At this point
I don't believe that there is a consent.
3633
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: It's
not necessary ‑‑
3634
MS. COPELAND:
No.
3635
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: ‑‑ in that nature of the business. And on your do not call lists, how long
do you leave them on the list now?
3636
MS. COPELAND: On
the ‑‑
3637
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:
Internal lists. Do you take
them off?
3638
MS. COPELAND: Well, again,
it is based on existing business relationships, so to the extent that someone is
still your client, you have a responsibility and a duty to continue to call
them. So ...
3639
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Do you
have an internal do not call list, did you say?
3640
MS. COPELAND: As the
association ‑‑ I don't believe many ‑‑ I have ‑‑ I honestly don't
know. I can't speak for all of the
investment dealers and whether they maintain that. That's sort of cold calling that would
generate complaints that people don't want to be called.
3641
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: So the
rest of it is really ‑‑
3642
MS COPELAND: My expectation
is that it doesn't generate complaints that would require a "do not call" list,
but I would have to check that specifically.
3643
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Because
of the existing business relationship exemption, almost everybody will be
exempted from it.
3644
MS COPELAND: Except for the
referral situation.
3645
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: With
respect to the other telemarketing rules, are your members required to comply
with those at this point?
3646
MS COPELAND: In terms of the
timing, et cetera?
3647
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:
Yes.
3648
MS COPELAND: Yes, they would
be complying with that.
3649
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Those
rules also require an internal list, but maybe it is not that significant,
so ‑‑
3650
MS COPELAND: Again, that
cold calling situation just doesn't happen very much.
3651
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: All
right.
3652
Those are my questions for now, Mr.
Chairman.
3653
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you,
Commissioner Duncan.
3654
Commissioner Langford.
3655
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: I am
hoping that you will be able to help me with something that came up here
yesterday, which I simply didn't have a high enough IQ to get around. I couldn't figure it
out.
3656
MS COPELAND: I hope that I
can help you.
3657
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: I
need help.
3658
I don't understand ‑‑ though the lady from Atlanta was very patient,
and she did her best yesterday, and she tried to explain it to me, I went home
and I thought about it long and hard, and I don't understand why you would need
an exemption for friends, family and acquaintances. I can't get my head around
it.
3659
I mean, your mother is not going to rat you out for trying to sell her
some investments, is she?
3660
MS COPELAND: To the extent
that is true, I agree.
3661
I guess we were looking at the U.S. legislation, and it was put in
there. It was deemed
necessary.
3662
Sometimes these things don't become apparent until you test drive
them.
3663
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: We
questioned her and I couldn't ‑‑
3664
She just seemed to think she needed it, that it was
necessary.
3665
Is it something to do ‑‑ and I am fishing here ‑‑ with due
diligence, that you want to give one course to everybody and it will cover
everything?
3666
Either you know that your brother‑in‑law hates you or you don't. If he hates you, you are probably better
not to call him, because ‑‑
3667
MS COPELAND: From a
practical perspective, it may not be necessary perhaps. It is just a means of covering the
waterfront.
3668
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Do
you think you could live without it?
3669
MS COPELAND: The only time,
I think, that it may come into effect is as we are getting back to the referral
situation.
3670
For instance, if your brother refers someone to call
you.
3671
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Yes,
but we are moving to a second level here.
3672
MS COPELAND: Yes. He tells his broker, "Phone my
brother‑in‑law ‑‑ "
3673
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Let's
leave that one aside for a moment.
What about just phoning family?
3674
Any problem there?
3675
MS COPELAND: I tend to
agree.
3676
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: All
right.
3677
Now friends. Either they are
a friend, or you are pushing the envelope and you deserve a slap on the
wrist.
3678
That is my approach. I know
who my friends are.
3679
I don't have as many as most people, but with a job like this they are
hard to hang onto.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
3680
MS COPELAND: Well, maybe I
can't get my head around it either, but ‑‑
3681
Personally, I am not certain, but the bigger brains in the U.S. have
deemed it ‑‑ they thought that there were circumstances where it was
necessary to put it in their legislation, and their legislation seems to be
successful, so...
3682
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:
Bigger brains in the U.S. thought they had found weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq, too, so, you know...
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
3683
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: We
don't necessarily want to be guided by that size here.
3684
MS COPELAND: Fair
enough.
3685
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: All
right.
3686
Now we get to referrals.
Explain to me why a referral ‑‑
3687
You are going to have to help me here. Why is a referral for the person being
referred any different from a cold call?
3688
I guess you say, "Your friend Harry thought I should call
you."
3689
Is that the only difference?
3690
MS COPELAND: There is a
nexus between the person who is being called and someone with whom they have a
relationship. It is not somebody
just picking your name out of the phone book. Somebody has given some thought that you
might like to purchase a service, or that this broker, in my industry, could be
of assistance to you.
3691
It is not somebody random who you don't know picking your name out; there
has been some thought that you might benefit from the service, from someone who
knows you either through a business relationship or a personal
relationship.
3692
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Let's
say that you and I are at an art gallery opening, or something like that. We are all sitting around with the de
rigueur glass of bad plonk, and we are looking at the de rigueur bad abstracts,
and we are chatting. We talk, and
you are an investment dealer, and I'm not, but I have a brother. Somehow you elicit from me that I have a
brother, my good old brother John.
That's all you elicit from me.
3693
The next day you call my brother John and say, "Gee, I was talking to
Stuart at the opening. He was
saying how much he needs some professional advice, and I thought that you might
too."
3694
In other words, you colour the conversation
somewhat.
3695
I am using you only as an abstract notion here.
3696
My brother John makes a complaint.
What is your defence?
3697
MS COPELAND: I agree that
that type of situation could be a concern.
To that extent, I spoke earlier about how you may want to build fences
around the referral exemption for those types of situations, perhaps a consent
mechanism where the person referring needs to get express
consent.
3698
So you would have to get consent from your brother in order to
refer.
3699
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:
Wouldn't it be better, rather than us trying to build this narrow
exemption and build fences around it and build safeguards into it ‑‑
wouldn't it be better if your dealer simply found a different route to initiate
that sort of contact?
3700
Send a letter to the person referred and say, "You have been referred to
us. People thought you might enjoy
us. Call us. Here is my name. Here is my
number."
3701
Why would the onus be on us to try to tweak this system for something
that is quite nebulous?
3702
You may feel that what I have said to you ‑‑ you may honestly feel
that what I have said is a genuine invitation to call someone. The next person may not feel that at
all. It is so open to individual
interpretation that I see it leading to a lot of
problems.
3703
MS COPELAND: I don't believe
it does lead to a lot of problems.
That's how business is done, to a large degree, right now, through
referrals. I don't suspect that
brokers just get your brother's first name and go poring through the phone book
to call him without a bit more of a ‑‑ "Oh, you should call my brother," or
something more direct in the way of a referral.
3704
It hasn't arisen as an abuse in our industry.
3705
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: You
haven't had any complaints.
3706
MS COPELAND: No, not for
referral‑type calls.
3707
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Has
anyone ever phoned and said, "Look, I am on your personal "do not call" list and
one of your brokers called and said that my brother gave him the
information"?
3708
MS COPELAND: I couldn't say
that we have never ‑‑ I am not aware, but I couldn't say that we have
never, or that our member firms have not.
3709
It would probably be directed more at the member firms in the
IDA.
3710
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Yes,
that's true.
3711
All right. Those are my
questions.
3712
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
3713
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you,
Commissioner Langford.
3714
Commissioner Cram.
3715
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Doesn't
this concept of family, friends and acquaintances really come down to what the
called party would reasonably expect in the circumstances?
3716
MS COPELAND: I agree,
yes.
3717
COMMISSIONER CRAM: In the
sense that, if I am looking at the terrible art and somebody comes up to me and
talks to me and I give away the name of my brother, I find it very hard that my
brother would reasonably expect that somebody would phone him out of the
blue.
3718
MS COPELAND: To the extent
that you feel justified in giving your brother's name, that is where we rely on
the relationship between the callee and the personal ‑‑ whether it is a
personal or a client relationship that you have with them. That is what the nexus would
be.
3719
COMMISSIONER CRAM: If I had
set it up with my brother, and I told my brother that you were going to call,
and that sort of thing, he would reasonably expect it and wouldn't have a
problem.
3720
MS COPELAND: Right. That's what we would expect. We wouldn't expect that you would be
giving your brother's name out if you knew that he wouldn't enjoy being
called.
3721
COMMISSIONER CRAM: So then
he wouldn't make a complaint, would he?
3722
MS COPELAND: That's
right.
3723
COMMISSIONER CRAM: So then
there doesn't really seem to be a necessity to have this in. Because if it is
complaint‑driven ‑‑
3724
MS COPELAND: To a
degree. But, if it is
complaint‑driven, why have any of the processes there? Why not just deal with the
complaints? You don't need the
legislation.
3725
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Yes, I
would be happy without the legislation, because then there would be no existing
business relationship.
3726
MS COPELAND: Yes. But that is sort of the road ‑‑ if
you want to use that argument.
3727
COMMISSIONER CRAM: It sounds
to me like you are asking for comfort, but it is really a question of fact, in
the sense of what would be reasonably expected.
3728
MS COPELAND: That is true,
but it also involves costs. If you
are exempt, then you don't have to jump through as many due diligence procedures
as you would if you weren't exempt.
Then you would have to make sure that you had all of the procedures in
place so that you wouldn't violate the list.
3729
But if you know that you are operating either through an existing
business relationship, and you are tracking the time expiry, or you are
operating on a referral exemption, and you are operating within the bounds of
that, then ‑‑
3730
COMMISSIONER CRAM: So then
you mean to say that you think that family, friends and acquaintances doesn't
have the implicit qualifier on the basis that family, friends and acquaintances
would reasonably expect, given your relationship, that you would call
me?
3731
I mean that you could phone any family, friend or
acquaintance?
3732
You meet somebody in the street and you can phone them
tomorrow?
3733
MS COPELAND: You mean based
on a referral?
3734
COMMISSIONER CRAM:
Yes.
3735
MS COPELAND: Yes. You are not posting your brother's phone
number randomly or giving it out to strangers, you are only doing that if you
think that the service of the person you are speaking with is going to be of
use.
3736
COMMISSIONER CRAM: All
right. So you think that the U.S.
exemption defining family member, friend or acquaintance ‑‑ the
acquaintance includes referrals.
3737
MS COPELAND: No, I don't
know that that includes referrals.
I am saying that that exemption is helpful if referrals are added as an
exemption.
3738
I am not trying to use that category for the
referrals.
3739
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Oh. So we don't have to have a family
member, friend or acquaintance, we just have to use the word
"referrals".
3740
MS COPELAND: But in order to
have that operate effectively, you need a referral from someone who has a
relationship, like a family member, friend, acquaintance, or an existing
business relationship.
3741
It is the platform through which the referral can
come.
3742
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Have you
looked at the way the U.S. deals with that exemption?
3743
MS COPELAND: They don't have
a referral exemption.
3744
COMMISSIONER CRAM: No, but
the exemption of family, friends and acquaintances?
3745
MS COPELAND: Only to the
extent that I know it is family, friends and acquaintances. I don't know the details around the
specifics of it.
3746
COMMISSIONER CRAM: In your
"do not call" list, the one you keep internally, do you allow businesses to
register?
3747
MS COPELAND: We don't have a
"do not call" ‑‑ as the IDA.
3748
COMMISSIONER CRAM: All
right. So you don't know what your
member organizations do.
3749
MS COPELAND:
No.
3750
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Thank
you.
3751
THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms
Copeland, thank you very much. It
has been a pleasure.
3752
MS COPELAND: Thank
you.
3753
THE CHAIRPERSON: Madam
Secretary.
3754
THE SECRETARY: Thank you,
Mr. Chair.
3755
The next participant is the Canadian Life and Health Insurance
Association, Mr. Peter Goldthorpe.
PRESENTATION /
PRÉSENTATION
3756
MR. GOLDTHORPE: Good
afternoon. I am Peter Goldthorpe,
director of marketplace regulation issues for the Canadian Life and Health
Insurance Association.
3757
CLHIA is a trade association representing life and health insurance
companies in Canada.
3758
Earlier today I circulated prepared remarks. In the interests of the lateness of the
hour and those of you who have been sitting through this entire hearing, I think
I will dispense with those prepared remarks.
3759
I do, however, want to make a couple of brief
comments ‑‑
3760
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr.
Goldthorpe, I am not aware that those remarks have been distributed to
us.
3761
It doesn't matter whether you choose to recapitulate them in their
totality or in partiality, but the fact is, as far as I know, we don't have
them.
3762
I'm sorry, we don't have them.
3763
In any event, I just want you to be clear that the remarks from which you
are extracting are not, in full, available to us.
3764
MR. GOLDTHORPE: You are not
reading along on anything that I am not following,
so...
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
3765
THE CHAIRPERSON: Please feel
free to give all or part.
3766
MR. GOLDTHORPE: I will be
very brief, because I think there has been a lot of good discussion and I don't
have a great deal to add to a lot of the points. However, I want to make a couple of
specific points.
3767
We are very pleased to be participating both in this hearing and in the
subcommittee process that the CRTC has that is looking at operational issues
associated with a "do not call" list.
3768
Primerica, one of CLHIA's member companies, was here yesterday and spoke
to you, and there was considerable discussion yesterday, which continued today,
in the area of personal relationships.
This is a very important issue for our industry, and there is little that
I can add to what my colleagues at Primerica said
yesterday.
3769
Commissioner Cram noted yesterday that there is a considerable grey area
related to the matter of personal relationships and that it would be very
difficult to define what constitutes a personal relationship. We agree. I think the best approach is the
approach that my colleague from Primerica suggested yesterday, which is the
approach of reverse onus. If a
person who has been called has a complaint about the call, that individual can
say, "There was no personal relationship," and then the burden of proof would be
on the caller to demonstrate why there was a personal
relationship.
3770
If there is a complaint threshold ‑‑ and we believe strongly that
there should be a complaint threshold ‑‑ I think that it would not take
very long to uncover any evidence of a telemarketer abusing the personal
relationship status to conduct telemarketing calls, and that telemarketer could
be dealt with, I think, very quickly, once the evidence was apparent that the
personal relationship provision was being abused.
3771
In response to some of the discussion with the previous party on the need
for clarification of this, I think that the need does not so much lie with the
individuals who are doing the telemarketing. In our case, that would be the
advisors. Rather, the need lies
with the companies.
3772
Companies are increasingly concerned about reputational risk. They maintain detailed employee policy
manuals, and they maintain detailed supervisory and compliance systems. They are forced to respect the letter of
the law, not the spirit of the law.
3773
Absent any clarification about what the intent of these provisions is,
companies would have no choice but to, as my colleague from Primerica said
yesterday, tell their advisors that they are not entitled to call their mother
or their brother or their best friends.
3774
That is the reason for having to have some clarification on what, between
you and me, is obviously a common sense sort of situation.
3775
The CRTC has asked parties to comment on the need for guidelines, and the
rest of my comments today will focus on some of those guidelines and some of the
issues that could be addressed through guidelines.
3776
As I mentioned, we believe that it is important to have a complaint
threshold. It is necessary because
it is simply not cost effective to chase down each and every isolated
infringement. Rather, we should be
looking for what, I believe, has been called a pattern of abuse, and that is
where there is a trend of obvious evidence that a telemarketer is infringing on
an individual's privacy interests.
3777
That threshold should be established over a relatively short period of
time. It is interesting that in the
United States the FCC does not define the threshold.
3778
There are two reasons for setting a fairly brief threshold. The first is from a consumer
perspective. They obviously want to
have abuses ended as quickly as possible, so the shorter the threshold the
better from that perspective.
3779
From the telemarketer's perspective, it is very difficult to defend
against complaints that may have occurred six to eight months ago, or even two
years ago. So the quicker you are
aware of complaints and called upon to defend, the better your records will
be. The better your recollection
will be and more likely that you can accurately defend against the
complaint.
3780
So the threshold, whatever it is, should be fairly
brief.
3781
When the threshold is exceeded and there is a Notice of Violation issued,
we would respectfully submit that that notice should not be publicly posted
until the telemarketer has had a chance to make a
defence.
3782
The reason for that is there are a number of bona fide defences that are
not immediately transparent.
Existing business relationship defence is a good example of
that.
3783
So while the complaint may be valid insofar as the number was on the "do
not call" list and the grace period had expired, the telemarketer may have been
completely justified in making the call.
3784
Again, it would be exposing the telemarketer to significant reputational
risk if Notices of Violation for complaints that weren't technically violations
were made public knowledge.
3785
With respect to penalties, I suppose it is to state the obvious. But we do believe they should be
incremental.
3786
With respect to telemarketer records, the CRTC did ask a question about
this. We submit that there should
not be any mandatory requirements for telemarketers to maintain records. As a matter of fact, any prudent
telemarketer will understand that the only way they can defend themselves is to
keep records.
3787
So I think that in most instances telemarketers will, out of
self‑instincts of self‑preservation, keep records. They don't need to have it
mandated.
3788
We certainly don't want the absence of records to be yet another
violation.
3789
Finally, with respect to the 2004‑35 rules, yesterday you heard my
colleague from Primerica outline the rules that create a problem for small
businesses that are engaged in telemarketing. That is the unique confirmation number,
the requirement to have a live operator and the requirement to have a toll free
number.
3790
Those are the rules that we believe while they may have had an
appropriateness two years ago before there was a national "do not call" list, I
believe the objectives of the CRTC are going to be met and satisfied with the
establishment of a national "do not call" list, and those additional
enhancements to the internal "do not call" lists are not necessary at this point
in time.
3791
That concludes my remarks. I
would be happy to try to clarify any of those or any other issues that you may
want to ask questions about.
3792
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you
very much, Mr. Goldthorpe.
3793
Commissioner Duncan.
3794
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Good
afternoon.
3795
We did get your remarks, just a little late, that's
all.
3796
MR. GOLDTHORPE: Better late
than never.
3797
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: You got
our attention. We were focused on
what you were saying.
3798
MR. GOLDTHORPE:
Yes.
3799
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: With
regard to the registration period, The Companies, as you did yourself, suggest
that the number should remain on the list for three years.
3800
Actually, I think your recommendation is no more than three
years.
3801
MR. GOLDTHORPE: That's
right.
3802
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Given
the cost involved in maintaining it and the suggestion that consumers might be
annoyed or inconvenienced, confused, at having to re‑register, do you think
there is some merit in the U.K. approach where the numbers are registered
indefinitely?
3803
It is my understanding that the carriers will be able to automatically
delete disconnected and re‑assigned numbers.
3804
MR. GOLDTHORPE: I think the
provision for the carriers automatically deleting numbers provides substantial
mitigation to the concern that we have, but I don't think it entirely mitigates
that concern.
3805
In an earlier career I had some experience managing databases, and my
experience is that regardless of how straightforward the management of the
database appears, in practice it is incredibly complex and subject to all sorts
of errors.
3806
I quite frankly don't believe you can maintain a database for a long
period of time, extending decades, without having inevitable inaccuracies creep
in.
3807
I think the period of time ‑‑ and we did recommend no more than
three years. And that was based on
average tenure in households. It
may be as an empirical matter and cost‑benefit analysis you might be able to
justify a longer period, particularly in light of carriers automatically
removing numbers.
3808
I would submit that perhaps with the RFP process for the third party
administrator, that could be an issue that we could get some advice from the
people that are submitting proposals.
3809
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Thank
you.
3810
You recommend a 60‑day grace period.
3811
Given the discussion even yesterday with Primerica where apparently the
31‑day grace period in the U.S. is working fine, are you receptive to changing
your suggestion?
3812
MR. GOLDTHORPE: Yes, I
am.
3813
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Thank
you.
3814
With respect to consumer consent ‑‑ first of all, can I just back up
a bit and ask you something.
3815
On your 66 licensed life agents ‑‑
3816
MR. GOLDTHORPE: Pardon
me?
3817
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:
Sorry. You have 66,000
licensed agents. Is that
correct?
3818
MR. GOLDTHORPE: Yes,
approximately.
3819
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Many of
them operate as small businesses and some as individual
agents.
3820
MR. GOLDTHORPE: That is
correct.
3821
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: So they
would be all commission based. Is
that the idea?
3822
They would have their own little businesses?
3823
MR. GOLDTHORPE: I wouldn't
want to say all of them, but probably 99.9 percent.
3824
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Are
commission based?
3825
MR. GOLDTHORPE:
Yes.
3826
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: You
indicate many of them employ manual processes.
3827
Are you going to scrub the list for these people, or how is that going to
work?
3828
MR. GOLDTHORPE: I assume by
me, you mean CLHIA.
3829
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Your
association, yes.
3830
MR. GOLDTHORPE: No, we would
not do that. Our membership is the
life insurance companies and different life insurance companies have different
business models.
3831
A number of the life insurance companies maintain their own call centres,
and they would be having access to the list and scrubbing it for those employees
in their call centres.
3832
Other companies have what we call a career agency system. Primerica is an example of a company
with a career agency system.
3833
And by career agency, I mean the agents are exclusive agents for that
company.
3834
Those companies with career agents would likely scrub the lists and
circulate marketing telephone lists for their
agents.
3835
Other companies ‑‑ and I suspect. I don't suspect, I know it's the
majority of life agents are independent.
3836
Some of them work through what we call managing general agents, which is
sort of an entity that manages a bunch of independent agents. And others operate basically on their
own out of their houses.
3837
Some of the managing general agencies are very large and they might have
that facility. In other cases,
these independent agents would be initiating the telemarketing on the calls that
they are doing on their own and would be responsible for accessing the "do not
call" lists and making sure the numbers they were calling were okay to
call.
3838
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: So some
of those people would then be making the investment, for example, that Contact
New Brunswick was talking to this morning.
3839
MR. GOLDTHORPE: That is
correct.
3840
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I
suppose it is a hardship. It is a
cost but it is a cost of doing business.
3841
MR. GOLDTHORPE: Yes. I think part of the concern ‑‑ and
we have certainly had this discussion with the Operations Subcommittee ‑‑
is that there is a great deal of uncertainty right now. I am very pleased with some of the work
that is being undertaken now to understand the universe better and how many
telemarketers there are and how those potential costs will be shared, how many
people are likely to go on to the "do not call" list.
3842
So we have a better idea of what sort of costs are going to be out there
and how many people there are out there to share those
costs.
3843
In the absence of that kind of information, we are really sort of
speculating. And I guess human
nature is to speculate on worst case scenarios.
3844
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: When
you are referring to costs in that light, you are thinking of the whole
operation, are you?
3845
MR. GOLDTHORPE:
Yes.
3846
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I am
also thinking, because the Contact New Brunswick representative was talking
about an individual agency; that his own personal experience ‑‑ because he
had a telemarketing firm himself, although he was here representing an
agency ‑‑ was that the capital investment was in the area of
$25,000.
3847
MR. GOLDTHORPE: That is the
first time I have heard that number.
I have no reason to believe or disbelieve it.
3848
I am going to try to turn this down because it is distracting me. Thank you.
3849
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I will
get closer to the microphone.
3850
I am just wondering, $25,000 for an individual, I thought that would be
steep. And you haven't considered
the cost from that end.
3851
MR. GOLDTHORPE: Well,
certainly $25,000 for an independent life agent would be extremely steep. I would submit that if that is the
price, it would put them out of business.
3852
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:
Yes. This gentleman was a
telemarketing company. That was his
job, so his scenario might be different.
3853
Do you have some idea what it might cost your ‑‑ you said you
haven't given it any thought yet.
3854
MR. GOLDTHORPE: No, we
don't.
3855
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Do you
have any idea what the call blocker hardware costs?
3856
MR. GOLDTHORPE: No, I
don't.
3857
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: On the
issue of consumer consent, can you explain to us how your members would record
consumer consent, document it in the event that there was an investigation at
some point.
3858
MR. GOLDTHORPE: Generally
speaking, the life insurance companies encourage agents to maintain a client
file and provide written documentation.
3859
I know that yesterday Advocis made a presentation. Advocis has a best practices manual and
that is certainly one of the components of their best practices, is to maintain
written documentation of all of the discussion that goes on during the
transaction.
3860
I would think that there would be documentation in the client
files.
3861
I think one of the concerns is that in the area of consent, and
particularly for referrals, we don't have a concern with explicit consent. To go the next step and suggest that it
should be explicit written consent is where it becomes
problematic.
3862
I think the example that Commissioner Cram indicated yesterday about the
cocktail party, it is kind of awkward to obtain written consent during the
course of a casual conversation at a cocktail party, although it may be very
clear that the individual is quite prepared to entertain a telephone call from
the advisor within the next couple of days.
3863
So in that case the advisor might simply make a note in the file: "Met at a cocktail party; discussed X, Y
and Z and plan to call in the next two days", or something like
that.
3864
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Does
your Association provide rules and guidelines, best practices, for the
members? Or would that fall to the
career agents?
3865
MR. GOLDTHORPE: Our members
are life insurance companies, so we do have guidelines for life insurance
companies.
3866
It is up to the life insurance companies to establish contractual
relationships with their advisors and write the policy manuals that I was
talking about for their advisors.
We are not directly involved with the advisors that would be doing the
telemarketing.
3867
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Thank
you.
3868
That's it for my questions, right now at any rate; thank
you.
3869
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr.
Langford.
3870
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Thank
you.
3871
THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm sure
you are going to hit gold this time.
3872
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: I'm
going to try it one more time. This
could be my moment to say Eureka!
But I doubt it.
3873
I am looking for another way to assess why I tend to think this is being
made out ‑‑ it feels like it is being made out that the whole sense of
friends, acquaintances, family, it sounds to me like it is a bigger problem;
that it is being made to be a bigger problem than it could possibly
be.
3874
I want to call on you again ‑‑ third time lucky, I
hope ‑‑
3875
MR. GOLDTHORPE: Could I,
just before you ask your question?
3876
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:
Sure.
3877
MR. GOLDTHORPE: I am
entirely sympathetic with your sentiments.
3878
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Thank
you. That puts you at odds with the
rest of the people on this Panel.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
3879
MR. GOLDTHORPE: Maybe I will
retract that then ‑‑
3880
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: If
you want to go with the majority ‑‑
3881
MR. GOLDTHORPE: ‑‑ if things are going on a
vote.
3882
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: It
seems almost as though in dealing with your telephone relationships it's as
though there are no other possible relationships; that somehow we are so focused
on the telephone it's as though nothing else exists.
3883
I am trying to think of a simple scenario here.
3884
One of your agents calls a brother‑in‑law and he puts in a complaint
because he is on the "do not call" list and you don't want this to
happen.
3885
MR. GOLDTHORPE: That's
right.
3886
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Or
you don't want to run into some rules, practical rules in your business that are
so strict they wouldn't even allow you to call the
brother‑in‑law.
3887
But it seems to me that, first of all, the simple way around this would
be to just run your brother‑in‑law's phone number across your list. If he is not on the "do not call" list,
anyone can call him.
3888
So in that way, you're in.
Right?
3889
MR. GOLDTHORPE: That is
correct.
3890
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: If he
is on the "do not call" list, you go visit him or you pick up the phone and say,
"Hey, I notice you are on the do not call list. I was thinking of flogging you some
insurance. If you are interested,
call me."
3891
Or you phone your sister and say, "What's Joe thinking about
insurance?"
3892
I mean, it seems there have to be other ways around this other than to
create a new exemption.
3893
MR. GOLDTHORPE: I'm not sure
that you could make a telephone call saying you intend to call to solicit
tomorrow. That telephone call that
you have just made would, I think, be reasonably interpreted as a solicitation
call.
3894
I agree. And certainly in a
complaint‑based system that we are envisioning, the likelihood that we are
going ‑‑ I mean, if you are a telemarketer and you are calling your best
friend and they are complaining, you have more problems than the "do not call"
list.
3895
That's why I said I agree with your sentiment.
3896
The problem, as I said ‑‑ and I think that my colleague from
Primerica talked about this yesterday when she used the example of the
artificially low speed limits.
3897
If you set a standard that no one perceives as making sense, then you
either invite disregard for the whole system and certainly ill will, and that
sort of thing.
3898
The problem that life insurance companies face, it is a very strong,
heavily regulated. The marketing
and distribution of life insurance is very strongly regulated. Companies are required to maintain
policies and procedures to provide adequate supervision and adequate training in
the area of the marketing and distribution of insurance.
3899
They are required to maintain compliance systems.
3900
If you have a rule out there which says if the person is on the "do not
call" list you can't call them, then that is the rule that the companies have to
communicate to their advisors through their employee training programs and
policy manuals.
3901
In some urban centres there are probably ways to get around using the
telephone.
3902
If you are in a rural area in Saskatchewan and it's a 20 or 30 kilometre
drive to your circle of friends, the telephone becomes a much more important
means of cost‑effective communication.
3903
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Let's
take the person at the cocktail party, and your note to file, "Met at cocktail
party, okay to call."
3904
Surely you would be given a number to call or at least enough information
to get the number and once again you could run that by your list and see whether
it was on or off. If it is not on
you are fine.
3905
MR. GOLDTHORPE:
Yes.
3906
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: If it
is on, it seems to me still an inventive agent, an imaginative agent could find
a way to get around that, particularly, as you said, in an urban setting. You could arrange to meet at this
person's office. You could do it
personally or wherever, but it seems to me that is not
insurmountable.
3907
As for rural Saskatchewan, well, we've got the expert on that sitting
right beside me here so she could guide you, but it seems to me that if you had
a number of friends in one place and they were on the do not call list, it might
be worth making a drive up there.
You know, twenty or thirty kilometres is not the end of the world, even
at today's gas prices.
3908
I just ‑‑ the problem is you are talking about being a heavily
regulated industry, and though we are regulators, we are fairly heavily
regulated by Parliament, and Parliament has just freshly spoken here and it
seems that if there are alternatives, and not terribly difficult alternatives,
to try to change what's before us or to try to somehow massage it so that we can
extend it, you know, it is something we at least have to explore before we go
back to Parliament and say, you know what, we can't do this. We need a change. We haven't even started and we need a
change. It is a difficult hill to
climb.
3909
Parliament has its own agenda and there is no knowing when that change
might come through. And on the
other hand, if we try to massage some other procedural element of the enabling
legislation to sort of squeak in some sort of referral thing, you know, that may
fail as well.
3910
MR. GOLDTHORPE: Well,
with respect though, the senate did indicates in the commentary that they hoped
that we would be able to find a way of dealing with the situation that ‑‑
of personal relationships that we did raise with the
senate.
3911
So I agree that Parliament has spoken. We do have the letter of the law, but we
also have the commentary from the senate suggesting that we try to figure out a
way to handle this.
3912
As I said, the concern of the insurance companies is technical in nature
and admittedly narrow in nature, but I believe that it is a legitimate
concern.
3913
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: If we
didn't think it was legitimate, we wouldn't be spending this amount of time on
it.
3914
MR. GOLDTHORPE: I
understand that.
3915
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: We'd
just simply say Parliament has spoken, go away.
3916
MR. GOLDTHORPE: I
understand that.
3917
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: So we
are trying our best.
3918
MR. GOLDTHORPE: I
appreciate that.
3919
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: But
also looking at other ways. Those
are my questions, thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you,
sir.
3920
THE CHAIRPERSON:
Commissioner Cram.
3921
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Thank
you. I think I heard you say don't
make telemarketers keep records.
They would be stupid not to, but don't tell them to. And don't
make ‑‑‑
3922
MR. GOLDTHORPE: I think
I said imprudent. I hope I said
imprudent.
3923
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Yes. Yes, you probably did. I am paraphrasing.
3924
MR. GOLDTHORPE: That's
okay.
3925
COMMISSIONER CRAM: There is
NO such thing as a stupid telemarketer.
3926
MR. GOLDTHORPE: Or
anyone.
3927
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Anyone,
yes, strike that totally from the record.
Anyway, I thought I heard you say don't make them keep records and don't
make it a violation. And it's the
second part that I'm wondering about.
Why do you say not to make it a violation?
3928
MR. GOLDTHORPE: Don't
make the failure to keep a record a violation.
3929
COMMISSIONER CRAM: And why
would you think that?
3930
MR. GOLDTHORPE: In
other words, don't make record keeping mandatory. See, if record keeping is mandatory and
they don't have the records, then they have committed a
violation.
3931
COMMISSIONER CRAM:
Yes.
3932
MR. GOLDTHORPE: But if
the record keeping is not mandatory, then there is no
violation.
3933
COMMISSIONER CRAM: But it
would seem to me that ‑‑
3934
MR. GOLDTHORPE: A
violation of common sense, perhaps, but...
3935
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Yes. There would be ‑‑ but certainly not
stupidity. There would be other
uses to have those calling logs, and of course, you see, I am ‑‑ on the
broadcast side we log every scintilla of ‑‑ it would seem to me that if on
a particular day there were five complaints and we said let me see your logs, it
would be very easy for us to confirm or deny, but it would also be very easy for
us to see that those may not have been isolated incidents and we are looking at
a bigger incidents than ‑‑ and I know this is going to get into complaints
driven by, my lord, if my sister‑in‑law didn't complain and yet still was
telemarketed, you are going to say that is not a breach of the
rules.
3936
Is that where you are coming from?
I know I am putting words in your mouth. I am sorry.
3937
MR. GOLDTHORPE:
Yes. So let me take those
words out of my mouth and try some other words. What I am suggesting is if there were
five complaints in one day, the do not call list operator would have a record of
those five complaints coming in.
3938
So they would already have the evidence of a pattern of abuse. They don't need the telemarketer's
records to substantiate that. They
have had the complaints come in on that day, so they have got the record that
they need to establish that telephone calls are being made that are creating
problems for consumers.
3939
Whether or not the telemarketer keeps records of those calls is not a
problem for the consumer. It is a
problem for the telemarketer because the telemarketer is not going to be able to
defend him or herself if those complaints come in.
3940
The fact that the telemarketer has not kept any records, because that
doesn't create a problem for the consumer, it shouldn't be treated as a
violation.
3941
COMMISSIONER CRAM: And so
then the powers of the delegate to require any records, et cetera, if we didn't
require the keeping of a log we couldn't look at it at any
time.
3942
MR. GOLDTHORPE: That's
correct.
3943
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Because,
again it is complaint based ‑‑
3944
MR. GOLDTHORPE: There
would be nothing to look at.
3945
COMMISSIONER CRAM: And if we
saw a serious problem by looking at the logs ‑‑ so in other words,
ignorance is bliss, is that really where you are at?
3946
MR. GOLDTHORPE: With
respect, I don't understand that comment.
If the ‑‑ it seems to me that the CRTC's concern and the do not call
list operator's concern is whether complaints are coming from consumers about a
telemarketer.
3947
The complaints will be based on a call being placed and if there is a
complaint, the telemarketer ‑‑ or the do not call list operator and the
CRTC know that there is a complaint, they know that there is a cause of
concern. Whether or not the
telemarketer has a log seems to me totally irrelevant to whether consumers are
being bothered by the telemarketers.
3948
That should be the concern of the CRTC and the do not call list
operator.
3949
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Okay.
So the idea is that the onus is
totally on the consumer to complain?
3950
MR. GOLDTHORPE:
Right.
3951
COMMISSIONER CRAM: And that
the DNCL operator or us have no duty beyond dealing with the complaints
themselves?
3952
MR. GOLDTHORPE: I
certainly don't envision a system where the do not call list operator would be
going out and auditing telemarketers if there was never any complaints from the
consumers about telemarketers. I
don't see any need to do spot audits of telemarketers to see if they are
maintaining do not call lists.
3953
It would seem if you've got limited resources, your limited resources
should be dedicated to investigating the complaints that are coming from
consumers about calls that are reaching their houses, not auditing telemarketers
that are not generating any complaints from consumers.
3954
COMMISSIONER CRAM: And how
would a lack of logs impact on any due diligence? That would be the end of it? There would be no due diligence, I
guess, eh?
3955
MR. GOLDTHORPE: Well,
there'd certainly be very limited evidence of due
diligence.
3956
COMMISSIONER CRAM:
Um‑hum.
3957
MR. GOLDTHORPE: On the
telemarketer's part.
3958
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Yes,
thank you. Thank you,
Mr. Chair.
3959
THE CHAIRPERSON: Before I
let you go, I want to talk about this record keeping business as well. I've got the message on the prudent
telemarketer. I understand
that.
3960
In effect you are saying, you know, don't police common sense on the part
of the actors when you have ‑‑ when you are seized of a complaint and have
to deal with it. If the
telemarketer hasn't maintained its records, you just do what you have to
do. He's failed to provide a
defence for himself.
3961
MR. GOLDTHORPE:
Right.
3962
THE CHAIRPERSON: Do your
member companies or member agents operate company or agent specific do not call
lists?
3963
MR. GOLDTHORPE: I
haven't surveyed all of the member companies to know whether all of them
do. Some of them are not involved
in telemarketing, so obviously they don't.
3964
We heard from one of my member companies yesterday, Primerica maintains
one. I know that the ‑‑ a
number of the companies with call centres have indicated and talked about their
experiences maintaining do not call lists, so I think it is a widespread
practice, but I couldn't vouch for ‑‑ as I said, I haven't surveyed my
members on that issue.
3965
THE CHAIRPERSON: On the
hypothesis that the Commission were to retain the position expressed by the
number of parties, though not all parties, that it is appropriate that company
specific do not call lists should be maintained ‑‑
3966
MR. GOLDTHORPE:
Um‑hum.
3967
THE CHAIRPERSON: Would you
agree that it would be logical for the Commission to not only require that they
be maintained, but require that they be maintained in certain forms and certain
availability because this, after all, is a circumstance in which the company has
an incentive not to find its do not call list when someone complains about that
kind of a violation.
3968
MR. GOLDTHORPE: I'm not
sure I follow your question.
3969
THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, if a
customer says, "I registered with Primerica."
3970
MR. GOLDTHORPE:
Right.
3971
THE CHAIRPERSON: Because we
know they are good citizens and have a list. And Primerica ‑‑ so we follow up
with the complaint and say, gee, we don't have a list or we thought we had a
list, we don't have a list, we can't find the list, the customer's name's not on
the list.
3972
Wouldn't it ‑‑ and under your scenario if we had made no particular
requirements except a general one to have a do not call list, how would we
police that? You understand that in
this case it is not in the interest of the telemarketer to maintain lists in a
systematic and effective way.
3973
Wouldn't it be reasonable for us to make specific requirements of what
that list would be and how it would be accessible and how rapidly it should be
produced, et cetera, et cetera, in case of ‑‑ due to the complaints of that
nature?
3974
MR. GOLDTHORPE: I
see. And I think perhaps in the
guidelines on defence you could outline the sort of documentation that you would
expect to see that would be used to address ‑‑ address complaints and be
used in an investigation.
3975
All I am suggesting is that we don't go the extra step and make the
failure to keep that documentation ‑‑
3976
THE CHAIRPERSON: Ipso
facto ‑‑‑
3977
MR. GOLDTHORPE: Yes,
another defence, that's correct.
3978
THE CHAIRPERSON:
Understood. Just exactly on
that question of ‑‑ I am sorry.
You just evoked a circumstance where ‑‑ sorry, tell me again what
you just said to me.
‑‑‑
Laughter.
3979
THE CHAIRPERSON: My
colleagues are really enjoying this.
3980
MR. GOLDTHORPE: You
know, it is three‑thirty in the afternoon.
3981
THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, it is
for both of us, I agree. But try to
help me.
3982
MR. GOLDTHORPE:
Yes. I think I said that if
the Commission ‑‑ if the CRTC wanted to prepare a guidelines on
defences.
3983
THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh, thank
you.
3984
MR. GOLDTHORPE: It
would. That was
easy.
3985
THE CHAIRPERSON: Would a
specification of a defence that said the caller had reasonable and appropriate
grounds to think that he was getting ‑‑ he was calling a reference ‑‑
making ‑‑ he was calling a party to whom he had been referred by a friend
or family member, would that constitute the kind of reassurance that your
lawyers would need to instruct your people to train intelligently as opposed to
against all common sense in the framework ‑‑ and I don't mean it is just
yours, it is all large companies operating that way.
3986
MR. GOLDTHORPE: I am
sorry, could you run that past me again?
3987
THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You have, in effect ‑‑ one option
is that we could say to Parliament, well, you missed two or three things so we
are going to exempt B to B, and we are going to exempt personal
relationships.
3988
MR. GOLDTHORPE:
Okay.
3989
THE CHAIRPERSON: That is one
way of doing it, which would make the requirements that a number of people have
asked us. Another ‑‑ in the
case of personal relationships, because of the sort of ambiguity that we've all
been struggling with, and I think you can perceive us as honestly struggling
with it, as many of you are, would it ‑‑ would a solution be that it would
be a defence or part of a defence that the calling party had, on the basis
of ‑‑ had a reasonable expectation on the basis of ascertainable fact that
he was, in fact, calling a friend or family member of a person who had provided
the reference?
3990
MR. GOLDTHORPE:
Absolutely. And I
would ‑‑ there would be a guideline on ‑‑ I think that this whole
matter could be addressed through the guideline on
defence.
3991
THE CHAIRPERSON: That would
capture for me ‑‑
3992
MR. GOLDTHORPE: Or the
guideline on notices of violation, one or the other, but either of the ‑‑
either of those guidelines.
3993
THE CHAIRPERSON: Somewhere
in the set of guidelines would provide a sufficient list ‑‑ because after
all, the real issue we have here is not that there is going to be thousands of
complaints, we all admit there won't be thousands of
complaints.
3994
The real issue we have is to convince the lawyers, who are advising the
trainers, to do something sensible in relation to guidance to your agents. That is fundamentally what we are
talking about.
3995
MR. GOLDTHORPE:
Absolutely.
3996
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank
you. Counsel?
3997
MR. MILLINGTON: I have
nothing.
3998
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you
very much, Mr. Goldthorpe.
3999
MR. GOLDTHORPE: My
pleasure.
4000
THE CHAIRPERSON: Much
appreciated. We will rise and see
you again at ten minutes to four please.
‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 1535 /
Suspension à 1535
‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1550 /
Reprise à 1550
4001
THE CHAIRPERSON: Order
please. Alors, sil vous plait. Well, Mr. Watt, you are here and we
are here and I am sure my CRTC staff will be available to us at some point, but
we will start without them. Please
begin.
PRESENTATION /
PRÉSENTATION
4002
MR. WATT: I will. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, CRTC
staff and interested parties, my name is David Watt and I am vice‑president,
regulatory economics with Rogers Communications, a large national
telemarketer.
4003
I am pleased to have with me today on my right, Mike Redalaar, senior
director of national direct sales for Rogers. Mike has eighteen years of telemarketing
industry experience and has been actively involved in the telemarketing
evolution from the pre‑computer infancy to the current high tech
maturity.
4004
On my left I have Howard Slawner, director of regulatory. Howard is also serving as the chair of
the CISC DNCL operations working group.
And to Howard's left is Tiffany Shell, manager of
economics.
4005
I am going to deviate from the written text that is before you. I am going to shorten up the first half
quite substantially. Given the
discussion of the last two days, it seems to us that we could be of most use if
we were to go through in some detail how telemarketing operates within
Rogers. To that end we have Michael
here to go through that.
4006
So I will quickly zip through parts of the first and then we will move on
to the heart of the matter.
4007
Dealing first with costs.
The telemarketer or Rogers should assume its fair portion of the costs of
a do not call list, however we do not believe that we should assume additional
costs by virtue of being a telecommunications carrier.
4008
Implementation of a do not call list is a telemarketing consumer affairs
issue, it is not a telecommunications carrier issue. If the costs of the DNCL were to be
recovered through an increase in CRTC telecom fees or through an increase, as
some parties have suggested, to telecommunications service rates charged to the
customers, carriers and customers would be subsidizing the activities of
telemarketers. In our view this
would be wrong.
4009
With regard to a mandatory consumer opt‑in requirement, we believe it
must be mandatory for the consumer to register themselves directly on the do not
call list. There must be safeguards
in place to ensure the phone number being registered does belong to the consumer
or is one associated with the consumer.
I take your point the telephone companies own the
numbers.
4010
An example of this type of safeguard might be when a consumer calls a
toll free number to register. They
must place the call from the phone number to be registered. Similar safeguards could be put in place
for internet registrations. It is
imperative that the onus resides on the consumer to register and not on the
telemarketer placing the call.
4011
With regard to voice casting, retrieving deposit of voice casting
messages from wireless voice mail accounts results in economic consequences to
the subscribers that don't exist for wire line customers.
4012
When they retrieve these messages they incur costs, sometimes substantial
costs in terms of roaming and long distance charges, so aside from being a
nuisance, there is an economic penalty.
Rogers is applying to the Commission for a prohibition of cellular voice
casting in hopes the Commission will agree. However, Rogers believes that including
wireless phone numbers on the DNCL list would be an additional level of
protection available to Canadian wireless
customers.
4013
Now, turning to telemarketing, we heard some discussion this morning
about a button, a DNCL button that could be pushed to have subscribers
immediately eliminated from calling lists.
We want to quite slowly go through our operations today to clearly
explain that such a button doesn't currently exist at Rogers and that in the
context of our complex marketing operations to implement that type of
arrangement for both our internal do not call list and an external do not call
list would be a very complex, expensive and time consuming
proposition.
4014
We have ‑‑ we have currently been constructing a CRM, customer
relationship management system now for slightly over five years and we think we
are approaching the implementation of that on an integrated basis across our
subscriber base. That is an
indication as to how complex some of these systems are.
4015
Rogers is one of Canada's largest telemarketers and has a very complex
operation. In any given month, we
will have approximately 40 cold calling lists in the field being handled by ten
different suppliers, one of them being our own internal operations, operating in
14 physical locations spread across eight different locations in
Canada.
4016
We fine tune our resources to this allocation to the extent that we
eliminate people in seats to the tune of one per day, it is that finely
tuned. If we don't have the calls
for that person for a day, they are not in the seat that day. Do I minimize this so that people have
steady employment over the time frame, but it is a very tightly tuned
operation.
4017
With that I am going to turn you over to Mike now. In preparation for that, you might want
to detach the last page from our written remarks to see if ‑‑ sort of a
graphical time scale as to what Mike is talking about.
4018
MR. REDELAAR: Thank
you. As David indicated, today
Rogers operates one of Canada's largest and most complex telemarketing
operations. As you are very aware,
the key operational activity relating to implementing a do not call list is the
scrubbing of this list against our monthly lead
allocation.
4019
So as I said, the key operational activity relating to implementing a do
not call list is the scrubbing of the list against our monthly lead
allocation. This ensures that a
consumer is not contacted.
4020
Currently we contract a third party company to compete in many components
of our list processing. This
includes, but is not limited to, scrubbing against our do not call list from
Rogers Wireless, Rogers Cable, Rogers Telecom and Fido, as well as the CMA do
not call list.
4021
We then distribute these lists to both our internal and third party
contracted call centres to the extent that David indicated, several locations
and several lists throughout the country.
The reason Rogers has requested a 60 day grace period is based on the
following processes we adhere to today and that is detailed on the list to make
it a little easier this late in the day.
4022
I will illustrate these processes using August as the calling month, and
keep in mind that day one of this four stage process begins mid month of the
month prior to calling, as you'll see a July date on the list in front of
you.
4023
Stage 1 from July 15th to July 26th, our contracted supplier ‑‑ by
the way, we use a company called Cornerstone to take all of this off our hands
so I have one point of contact to do all our scrubbing, less room for error,
much easier process.
4024
Our contracted supplier will obtain a list from brokers and scrub them
against the multiple do not call lists previously mentioned. From stage 2, from July 27th to July
31st, lists are divided and sent to our internal and external telemarketing
suppliers. Stage 3 the lists become
active, so on August 1st to August 31st these lists are active and then pulled from
production at the end of the month.
Stage 4, from September 1st to September 7th, scheduled callbacks may
continue.
4025
Based on the operational model I have just described, please note the
time line to respect a do not call request can range from a minimum of one day,
so if it was actually received on the 14th, the day before we do the scrub,
we've caught it, it is out of the August list, to literally if the request comes
just afterwards, we are now right up September 7th because it has made it into
the August call list. So our range
would be anywhere from 1 to 56 days to respect it in our current operating
model.
4026
It is common practice for telemarketers, as in the case for Rogers, to
initiate monthly calling based on calling campaigns starting on the first of the
month. So there are lots of players
out there who stick to this model.
4027
Keep in mind, however, that we require up to 17 days prior to the start
of the campaign to prepare and up to seven days following a campaign to allow
for callbacks. In order to maintain
the telemarketing industry practice of utilizing monthly cycles, Rogers believes
that you need to land on a thirty day or sixty day grace
period.
4028
We've shown that a thirty day grace period is not possible from the
perspective of a large national telemarketer, a sixty day grace period is the
only viable alternative.
4029
The Canadian Marketing Association has shown support for this position in
their comments, and I also believe the Bankers' Association yesterday is under
the same model, although I missed the session.
4030
To force a thirty day period would force telemarketers into bi‑monthly
operating cycles rather than the existing monthly cycles, which would
substantially increase supplier costs.
These costs will be in excess of what telemarketers are already expected
to bear to implement the government's do not call
initiative.
4031
To place excessive turnaround times on the multiple parties involved in
Rogers telemarketing operations will increase the risk for error. This is why Roger believes the sixty day
grace period should be implemented from the start. It is the most balanced decision for all
parties involved that results in an efficient and cost effective method of
respecting do not call requests from consumers.
4032
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, CRTC staff and interested parties, I
would like to thank you for your time today on behalf of the team and we are
happy to answer any questions.
4033
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you,
Mr. Redelaar, thank you, Mr. Watt. Commissioner Cugini,
please.
4034
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Good
afternoon and thank you for this chart, because I do have to say that it has
helped to answer quite a few of the questions that I had on the issue of the
grace period. So we will definitely
take it under advisement.
4035
It is quite clear as to why you believed the 60 day grace period is
necessary. And just to that, I see
your mike is on, if you have any final comments that you would like to make with
regard to the 60 days please.
4036
MR. REDELAAR: It may be
in anticipation of the question coming elsewhere. I think the question is going to be,
what would be the impact of doing it in a less time or a more restrictive time
restraint.
4037
I think the best way to answer that, it is very clear that I would have
to find some way to scrub the lists while they are active. Once they are active I now have to
involve numerous companies, numerous junior programmers. The cost would be exorbitant and, quite
frankly, the room for error would be very much there.
4038
A perfect example I use is you have a junior programmer who is working on
list 9, decides to go for a coffee.
Now where was I, list nine or list 11? That is exactly how this will be
implemented once it is out in the field.
4039
So for me it is absolutely critical that I get all that done in one point
of control. So I hope I made that
clear in the initiative we put forward.
4040
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: The
third party call centres that you refer to, are all they all in
Canada?
4041
MR. REDELAAR: They
are.
4042
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: I am
sorry, did you say you use just one?
4043
MR. REDELAAR: I use
numerous.
4044
COMMISSIONER CUGINI:
Numerous, and they are all in Canada?
4045
MR. REDELAAR: I use
actually my existing infrastructure at Rogers and I use several Canadian‑based
organizations for now.
4046
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: For
now. So do you anticipate that some
of them might be in the United States?
4047
MR. REDELAAR: I would
suggest the current stress or the current financial model is pushing it to a
more ‑‑ to a further destination.
As an example, I get calls constantly to bring in
overseas.
4048
COMMISSIONER CUGINI:
Okay. So therefore you don't
find it necessary to have symmetry with the current U.S. do not call list rules
with regard to the grace period?
4049
MR. REDELAAR:
Correct. Out of ‑‑ out
of our internal preference of being Canadian based, I don't have any
international ties at this point in time.
4050
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Do your
thirty party call centres, do you anticipate that there would be a need for them
to access the national do not call list?
4051
MR. REDELAAR: The
individual ones I farm the leads out to?
4052
COMMISSIONER CUGINI:
Yes.
4053
MR. REDELAAR: I pray
no. That is why I would like to
keep it out of their hands. I would
like the onus to be on either my organization or my one subcontracted to
supplier to do all the scrub work, so that the onus on calling the right
customers is taken out of the hands of my third party suppliers. That is my model
today.
4054
MR. WATT: If I could
just interject there, there might be some confusion between the multiple third
party entities that are placing calls as opposed to the one entity which
actually scrubs the lists which are then passed to the multiple
entities.
4055
And Michael has argued strongly when I probed him on this to ‑‑ I
like using multiple people to place the calls, but I only want one entity to
scrub the list so that I have quality control over that
list.
4056
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: And
that is your subcontractor?
4057
MR. WATT:
Correct.
4058
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Would
that subcontractor scrub the list for all of the Rogers
companies?
4059
MR. REDELAAR:
Absolutely.
4060
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: You
said that there are ‑‑ there could be as many as forty calling ‑‑ call
lists in any given month. Again, is
that an aggregate number for all of the Rogers companies?
4061
MR. REDELAAR: Actually
that was a bit of a mistake. There
is 40 ongoing lists, but many of them would be excluded because many are
existing customer lists. But there
are on as much as 21 different cold calling lists spread amongst the entities
that we subcontract.
4062
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Do you
have any idea how many names or numbers would be on those
lists?
4063
MR. REDELAAR: Less and
less every month to my stress, but I would say we are still ‑‑ it
depends. As we introduce new
products throughout the country that would open up a base that may not have been
there when we have it, so it is ‑‑ I guess the best way to establish that
is based on our customer base.
4064
So there are ‑‑ I assume ‑‑ not off the top of my head, maybe
20, 22 million households. I assume
somebody knows that better than me.
And we have five million customers.
4065
So take the remaining 17 million customers, slice them into 90 day
cycles, you are looking at a potential of 6 million lead pool, slice and dice
those the way you want, I would say we could potentially have 2.5 million leads
out per month.
4066
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: We are
just trying to get a sense of the magnitude.
4067
MR. REDELAAR: I
understand.
4068
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: To
couple that with what it would take to scrub a list. What it would take to manage such a list
and then to scrub it.
4069
MR. REDELAAR:
Right.
4070
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: So that
is why I was just asking for that kind of information.
4071
MR. REDELAAR:
Understood.
4072
MR. WATT: Mike, you
were telling me earlier today, I think you know this number. The number of dialing or calling hours
that you have in a given month.
4073
MR. REDELAAR:
Sure. So within the Rogers
Wireless cable, Fido entity and Rogers Telecom, cold calling and existing list
calling, so up‑selling and cross selling, we would be in the entity of about 160
to 170,000 hours a month.
4074
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Across
all the entities?
4075
MR. REDELAAR: Across
the entities of outbound calling.
4076
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Do you
place telemarketing calls to cell phone users?
4077
MR. REDELAAR:
Absolutely not. Unless they
have put it in the data base as their contact number.
4078
COMMISSIONER CUGINI:
Okay.
4079
MR. REDELAAR: So it
lies within the Rogers infrastructure as their main contact number as the world
is going to potentially maybe get away from home phones and your cell phone is
your only phone. If they put that
in our database then yes, it would pop up to our existing customer calling on
occasion. Not in the cold calling
acquisition gathering list.
4080
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: So
given your current structure, both with the group of companies, your
subcontractor and your call centres, what is your preferred method of
establishing a fee structure for the access of the do not call
list?
4081
If I heard you correctly, what you said is that it could be Rogers or it
could be the subcontractor that would access the list on behalf of the Rogers
group of companies or a Rogers company who is conducting a telemarketing
campaign at that time.
4082
MR. REDELAAR:
Right.
4083
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: So what
is your preference? Should it be
based on number of campaigns run annually, monthly, weekly? Should it be based on the number
of ‑‑ numbers that you would be contacting during the campaign? Give us your guidance on what you
believe would be the best method.
4084
MR. WILKS: I am going
to ask Howard Slawner to answer this from the Rogers perspective, and he has the
broader perspective of the discussions within the CISC
group.
4085
MR. SLAWNER: Yes, thank
you. This is actually one of the
issues we are addressing in the CISC operations group. I think different telemarketers are
going to have different needs.
4086
I think some telemarketers will be able to take an annual subscription
and be able to just pay an annual or monthly fee for basically an all you can
eat kind of system. I think others
would prefer having more of a usage based system where they just will get
charged based upon how much they used.
4087
But these are some of the more operational issues that we need to
address. We don't really currently
have all the information, especially the number of telemarketers are going to
use the list and how much usage there will be to kind of set fees yet. That is kind of the work that we are
trying to plough through right now and it is some slow ploughing too, I am
afraid. But I think
our ‑‑
4088
MR. WATT: That is why
we are here.
4089
MR. SLAWNER: Yes, that
is why we are here. So I think
there are a couple of alternatives.
I think we are trying to pursue them from an operations standpoint, get
to the nuts and bolts of it and hopefully we will be able to have some
recommendations for the panel and for the consortium, if there is one, or
whoever runs the ‑‑ or ministers the do not call
list.
4090
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Did you
want to add to that?
4091
MR. REDELAAR: I can
just tell you how it works with today with the CMA do not solicit list, which is
the ‑‑ Cornerstone are again our contracted list processor pays the
appropriate fees and of course it is billed back to the user, being me,
therefore Rogers. So that is how it
works today.
4092
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: And
your current do not call list, you talked about safeguards for
registration. How do you manage the
Rogers do not call list now?
4093
MR. REDELAAR: The
internal ‑‑
4094
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: The
internal list.
4095
MR. REDELAAR: At all
touch points they go back into our internal databases. Those databases are pulled and sent to
Cornerstone again on a monthly basis so that they are updated, so that is part
of the entire Cornerstone scrub before they get allocated and sent out to the
suppliers.
4096
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: And do
your customers or consumers receive verification that you have included them on
your do not call list?
4097
MR. REDELAAR: No, it is
just a confirmation ‑‑ we give them a verbal couple of lines that indicate
what the next steps are. So we tell
them what will happen.
4098
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Do you
think that it should be a requirement?
In other words, should we build that into the do not call list rules that
there should be verification? Some
have made suggestions.
4099
MR. SLAWNER: I'll take
this. Again, I just think it is a
bit of an operations issue because in the CISC committees when we look at how
feasible that is, what the cost is of doing that, I mean people propose things
from mailing, like regular mail, Canada Post, all these are going to have costs,
all these are going to require more people. And I think ‑‑ we don't even
understand really the cost of having to do that.
4100
I believe in the States right now you can either go on line or call a
1‑800 number to discover whether or not you are, in fact, on the list. If you ask for confirmations, what's
going to have to happen is we are going to need their names and addresses, there
is more information we are collecting.
You need their e‑mail addresses.
4101
So you have these privacy concerns and you have this confirmation concern
and they are going to butt heads a little bit and, again, these are some things
we are going to try to work out, but there is a give and take here between how
much information do you want to collect from the person registering and whether
or not you want a valid, feasible confirmation system.
4102
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: And
what information do you collect now for your internal
list?
4103
MR. REDELAAR: We
actually have them flagged within our ‑‑ so we will actually capture the
record and then that record will go within our care organization and a team data
enters it and flags it as a Rogers do not solicit. So it actually lies there so that if
marketing pulls a list they immediately scrub it and then we ‑‑ like we
said, we update it for that last check point.
4104
So it is really a field within our infrastructure that says do not
contact them on behalf of Rogers.
4105
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Is that
from both your existing customers and cold calls?
4106
MR. REDELAAR: Cold
calling goes through the CMA do not solicit list. So Cornerstone secures the CMA do not
solicit list prior to the July 15th scrub and wipes them out there, because
obviously we don't have a database of cold calling.
4107
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: But if
I am an existing Rogers customer and I get a telemarketing call from Rogers
because there is a deal on high definition boxes, for example, and I say to you,
look, I am a Rogers customer, I am a happy Rogers customer, if I want more from
you I'll call you, put me on your do not call list.
4108
MR. REDELAAR:
Right.
4109
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Do you
have that capability?
4110
MR. REDELAAR: Yes,
so ‑‑ sorry, I missed your question the first time. You're right. If they absolutely call and say I don't
want to hear from Rogers again, it goes to our database and to Cornerstone and
all lists are scrubbed against it.
4111
I believe that answers that specific question. And then Cornerstone would make sure
that the CMA ‑‑ so if they don't want to be contacted by anybody is out, is
eliminated, and the internal do not solicit lists are all gathered and scrubbed
so we don't contact them from a Rogers.
4112
So a lead cannot go to a supplier unless it is absolutely scrubbed
against our do not solicit, aka Rogers or the CMA.
4113
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: So let
me take it a step further and I say to you, and by the way, put me on every
other Rogers do not call list.
4114
MR. REDELAAR: When on
one, on all.
4115
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: When on
one, on all?
4116
MR. REDELAAR:
Yes.
4117
COMMISSIONER CUGINI:
Okay. Then can I say except
for Rogers Wireless?
4118
MR. REDELAAR:
No.
‑‑‑
laughter.
4119
MR. REDELAAR: We don't
actually have it. If you put on the
Rogers do not call list, it extends to all the Rogers
companies.
4120
MR. SLAWNER: I don't
think I ever heard ‑‑ and I do take a lot of customer complaints personally
because I fill out support and I hear them.
4121
COMMISSIONER CUGINI:
Yes.
4122
MR. SLAWNER: I have
never heard anybody say take me off your list, but don't take me off this. They either dislike Ted or don't ‑‑
or are a fan of Ted.
4123
MR. WATT: The one
exception is you are not taken off the Blue Jay list.
‑‑‑
Laughter.
4124
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: How
long do the names stay on the list?
4125
MR. REDELAAR: Within
our existing infrastructure at Rogers, they stay on there indefinitely today,
although it is in debate.
4126
COMMISSIONER CUGINI:
Okay. So you are going to
anticipate my next question I am sure, because I believe in your March
submission you said that they should stay on for three years with a requirement
for consumers to re‑register at that point.
4127
First part of that question is, of course, what do you see as the
pitfalls of requiring a list to stay on indefinitely, similar to the UK
model?
4128
MR. REDELAAR: Am I
allowed to answer this? I guess
not. I think the pitfalls again are
that customers will forget that they are on the list. Numbers do get recycled. The person who registered will move and
then their child will keep the number.
4129
I think that a periodic renewal period is logical. It gives ‑‑ people will cancel
their phone numbers and I think that three year period just about is around the
average time that a number will be used.
4130
So I think it is ‑‑ it is a very viable, logical, fair time
frame.
4131
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: How
often do people change numbers?
I've had my same phone numbers for as long as I can
remember.
4132
MR. SLAWNER: I myself
have had at least six or seven, so...
4133
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: How
will a customer be reminded or how should a customer be reminded that your three
year expiry date is coming up, if you want to re‑register. In other
words ‑‑
4134
MR. SLAWNER: It's
something that we can definitely raise in the operations group as to whether or
not we should build in a reminder system.
Again a reminder system would be like a confirmation system. You'll ‑‑ you can either call or
you'll need to mail or e‑mail and therefore you need to collect more
information.
4135
I am not convinced yet that we actually need to have a reminder
system. I guess what would happen,
after three years they would get one call and they would re‑register, or you
make it very clear when they registered in the first place that it does have a
three year expiry.
4136
I don't think ‑‑ I mean it is something we can discuss in the
operations group, but again, there is going to be cost issues, feasibility
issues and we have to address them.
4137
MR. WATT: Just to add
to that, I mean optimal would be to obviously find a way to remind them,
otherwise they are going to call the complaints line, register a complaint, and
it is going to drive up costs, but what is the optimal way of doing that when we
are struggling to, A, find a definition and, B, find somebody to pay for this
entire entity?
4138
So wonderful concept to remind them. How do we build it, how do we pay for
it? And that is a
struggle.
4139
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Do you
currently use ADADs for your telemarketing campaigns?
4140
MR. REDELAAR: I do
not.
4141
MR. WATT: Howard does,
so he can ‑‑ so he can explain.
4142
MR. SLAWNER: We use
ADADs, but we do not use ADADs for solicitation purposes.
4143
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: For
what, I am sorry?
4144
MR. SLAWNER:
Solicitation to market. We
only use ADADs as permitted by the CRTC's rules on ADADs. The overwhelming majority of ADAD calls
are actually collections. They are
just automatic reminders that you are X days past due, please make a payment as
soon as possible.
4145
The only other real time we ever use an ADAD is for prepaid phones. If your minutes are about to expire we
will send the message, just a reminder to use them, and those are the only two
circumstances that we will do it.
4146
We don't send promotional campaigns or here's a new phone deal for
you. It is basically ‑‑ the
overwhelming majority are for collections, just past due
reminders.
4147
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: And
voice casting?
4148
MR. SLAWNER: No, we do
not voice cast.
4149
COMMISSIONER CUGINI: As a
telemarketer you do not use voice casting on either wireless or wire line
in?
4150
MR. SLAWNER: No, I
don't believe so. No, I am pretty
sure.
4151
COMMISSIONER CUGINI:
Okay. Mr. Chairman,
those are all my questions. Thank
you.
4152
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank
you. I just have a couple of
questions and then Commissioner Cram has questions and there may be others. Mr. Slawner, you are the chairman
of the operations subcommittee.
4153
MR. SLAWNER: Yes, I
am.
4154
THE CHAIRPERSON: I get very
nervous when I hear someone in that very eminent position speaking as if ‑‑
the period of time that a name is going to be on the list has some relationship
to the rapidity with which phone companies circulate
numbers.
4155
It seems to me very clear that by the time you are finished, the telcos,
including your own, are going to be making periodic 30, 60 day submissions to
the database saying these numbers are no longer
active.
4156
MR. SLAWNER: We will
definitely look into that. I mean
that's going to be one of the topics of discussion to say whether or not
carriers can, in fact, supply lists of disconnected phone numbers and we will
definitely look into it, absolutely.
4157
THE CHAIRPERSON: Yeah. I mean I guess my question about how
long a name should be on the list is premised on the idea that modern technology
might somehow be capable of doing that.
I mean if we have the whole discussion on the amount of time people are
going to be based on the list on the assumptions the telephone companies can't
tell us when companies ‑‑ when numbers are circulating out, I think we do
indeed have a serious discussion to have.
4158
But it doesn't seem to me that is a reasonable basis on which to have the
discussion.
4159
MR. SLAWNER: No, it is
a very reasonable position and it is definitely one of the things we will
tackle.
4160
We will take a look into how do we as carriers provide that information
and look into the possibility of it.
It is just ‑‑ again, it is one of those nuts and bolts issues that
we have to look into.
4161
THE CHAIRPERSON:
Mr. Redelaar, how will I explain to the Canadian public that the
Canadian Bankers Association and the Canadian Marketing Association and Rogers
in its vast and various incarnations cannot meet a grace period that has been
operating in the United States for four years with hundreds and hundreds of
telemarketers?
4162
MR. REDELAAR: It is a
great question we debated with it as well.
Wonderful. I am going to
answer that twofold. The one is
I've made a career out of signing up for something I can accomplish and I am
concerned that if we put aggressive time lines, as I suggested and, based on
technology today, I have to put the onus in a junior programmer mid‑month to do
a scrub, I am setting myself up for failure.
4163
So if I am overriding marketing ‑‑ and I can see you are not buying
it ‑‑ philosophy, it would be under‑promise, over‑deliver. From a ‑‑
4164
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:
That's the way he looks when he is enthusiastic.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
4165
MR. REDELAAR: Then I pity
his wife.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
4166
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: We
all do.
4167
MR. REDELAAR: "That was not
a Rogers' statement," he is going to say.
4168
MR. WATT: As you can see, we
didn't bring our professional witnesses.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
4169
MR. REDELAAR: The real
answer is, I would love to have a real‑time virtual system that linked the "do
not call" list to my databases that linked directly to my telemarketing
suppliers' diallers so that I could knock it out in real
time.
4170
I would love to. It doesn't
exist. I think it is something we
would all like to move to in the future.
People speak to it, but it is not financially feasible, and, excuse my
ignorance, but I don't even know if it exists today.
4171
Second, there is one major point that a lot of people have not
addressed ‑‑ and I was not here yesterday. In the first zero to, let's say, six
months, we anticipate that there will be a lot of people putting their name on
the "do not solicit" list.
Agreed.
4172
My process is, take the leads, subdivide them, allocate resources, and
put those leads out to a supplier.
If all of a sudden 50 percent of those leads are wiped out throughout the
month, I now do not have enough leads to support the resources I allocated. I am now laying people off. And, in our industry, they are going
home without pay.
4173
So that upfront scrub process, which we haven't found a way to fix today,
is actually driving the resources to support those leads as I lie them out. If those resources dry out mid‑month,
those people don't have work.
4174
That is the huge inhibitor for us right now to adhering to the 30
days.
4175
THE CHAIRPERSON: So there
are two answers. The first is, you
don't know what I will say to the public on the general question of why the
Americans can do it more quickly than you can. But you do have a policy for the first
six months, which is that we should be reasonable.
4176
That's what you are saying.
I am not trying to put you in a corner, but, fundamentally, that is what
you said to me.
4177
MR. REDELAAR: I agree that
it is a very difficult positioning statement. I would love to have a better solution
out there, so that I could ensure I get it right.
4178
My bigger fear, to reiterate ‑‑ and it is not going to help your
cause ‑‑ is that, at least, I will get it done
correctly.
4179
So I will be committing to a timeline that I will adhere to, and I
promise you, with one source of scrubbing, I will get it
right.
4180
MR. WATT: The only thing
that I would add is ‑‑ and it does not speak directly to the question, but
it is related closely enough ‑‑ that is, when you reduce from 60 days to 30
days, as Mike has already said, it adds immensely to the
cost.
4181
You might think that you are going to scrub twice a month instead of once
a month, so you will double the cost.
No, it has to then go out into the field, and the cost will be more than
doubled.
4182
Someone might say, "That's okay.
A doubling of costs is a fairly good trade‑off to get a list that is in
half the timeframe," but that is not really the benefit you are getting. You are getting the benefit of reducing
the time from 60 days to 30 days for the incremental people added in that
month. The vast proportion of
the ‑‑ whatever ‑‑ say there are 2 million numbers on the list, they
will be on that list and they will be benefiting, but the cost will have doubled
on an overall basis to improve the situation for the incremental customers
coming in in that month, cutting their time in half.
4183
So it is, maybe, not as good an economic trade‑off as it might seem at
first.
4184
When we spoke about it earlier today ‑‑ Mike has not spoken directly
with the large American operations to know precisely how they do their
telemarketing and what they had to modify in order to accommodate the 30
days. That might be something in
the intervening time period that we could do. We could see if we could contact some of
the companies that we have dealt with in the States to see if they would be
willing to share some of that information with us.
4185
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you
for the information about the first six months, because I think it is relevant
and something that we should be cognizant of.
4186
For the rest, it is sort of ‑‑ the Americans can do it, but we
can't. That is what you are telling
me.
4187
I suggest to you, respectfully, that it is going to be a very hard
sell. You must understand that it
is going to be extremely difficult for the CRTC to shoulder that particular
explanatory burden, unless I have something a little more concrete than what I
have heard.
4188
It is very, very simple. You
are saying that notwithstanding ‑‑ and not just you, but the CBA and
CMA ‑‑ notwithstanding the relatively satisfactory functioning of an
American piece of legislation, with 30 days, it takes us 60 days. That is a real hard
sell.
4189
MR. WATT: I certainly
understand your predicament.
4190
The other issue that we would raise ‑‑ and, frankly, I don't think
that this should be the determining consideration, but it is a
consideration ‑‑ that is, there was a substantial sum of money paid by the
U.S. government to enable the establishment of the list.
4191
I think you would probably say, "That was establishing the list ‑‑
"
4192
THE CHAIRPERSON: That is
what I would say, yes.
4193
MR. WATT: It seems to me
that the issue is that your internal operations have to change, and that would
be your cost consideration.
4194
I would presume that there was some efficient sharing of the connection
cost between the DNC list and the companies. We don't know the ins and outs of that,
but it certainly would be a consideration.
4195
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Watt,
are you seriously saying that you think part of the first appropriation by the
FTC was used to finance the connection costs between the various telemarketer
databases and the DNCL?
4196
MR. WATT: No, I am not
saying that specifically. I assume
that the first allocation went to, obviously, the design and the fundamental
building of it.
4197
However, there are significant costs in order to connect to that system,
and I am assuming that that system was designed in such a fashion, and
constructed, and, in part, paid for by the government in order to make it the
most economical ‑‑
4198
THE CHAIRPERSON: I am
terribly tempted to call one of the people, who is not intending to appear, so
that she could tell us the facts on that.
4199
It seems to me a vanishingly small likelihood that the FTC was financing
private sector compliance with the list, but we will leave it
there.
4200
Commissioner Cram.
COMMISSIONER
CRAM: Thank
you.
4201
I want to clarify one thing.
In your initial March brief you wanted, it seems to me, us both to
prohibit telemarketing calls to wireless and to allow them to go on the
list. At least, that is the way I
read what you wrote.
4202
But now, I heard you today, Mr. Watt, say: Just allow them to go on the "do not
call" list.
4203
MR. WATT: No, we still
wanted the application that we filed earlier to be
approved ‑‑
4204
COMMISSIONER CRAM: But
that's voicecasting.
4205
MR. WATT: Voicecasting,
yes.
4206
COMMISSIONER CRAM: I am
talking about any telemarketing.
4207
If I understood you correctly, in your March brief ‑‑ maybe I
misread it. There is always that
possibility.
4208
No, you just want it prohibitive of voicecasting, and then registering on
the DNCL. All
right.
4209
On voicecasting, you will recall the last decision we made on the
expedited file, with Infolink, I think, in Bell. In that case, the evidence at the
expedited hearing was that, to date, to that time, Infolink could only access
the platform of Bell.
4210
It appears that the voicecaster can now get to your
platform.
4211
Is that correct?
4212
MR. SLAWNER: Yes, that is
correct.
4213
We have received several complaints from customers who have received
voicecasting.
4214
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Are you
aware of any other platforms that they may have been able to
access?
4215
MR. SLAWNER: No, I haven't
researched that. I just understand
that they have been able to access our voicemail system, and I would assume that
they could access others.
4216
Most of the voicemail systems are pretty similar.
4217
COMMISSIONER CRAM: All
right.
4218
I want to go back to the 30 days.
Is this your present process?
4219
MR. REDELAAR:
Correct.
4220
COMMISSIONER CRAM: I am
looking at the present rules, which are the old rules, the pre‑2004 decision,
and the rules seem to say that, on internal "do not call" lists, names and
numbers must be entered on the "do not call" list within 30 days of a
request.
4221
MR. REDELAAR: Yes. What happens is, we do not send to our
own customers two months in a row.
4222
If you are on a telemarketing calling list in January, you will not be on
the February list. That way we
always comply with that 30‑day rule.
4223
COMMISSIONER CRAM: That's
how you do it. All
right.
4224
Do I understand that ‑‑ and I am looking at this ‑‑ every
month, or every second month now, you scrub the list ‑‑ which, in my mind,
means the added CMA numbers and the added Rogers numbers.
4225
Is that what scrubbing really means?
4226
MR. REDELAAR: Every
month ‑‑ you were correct the first time, because we do this on the 15th of
every month for the following month's list; and, yes, every month we scrub it
against the most updated "do not solicit" list from the
CMA.
4227
COMMISSIONER CRAM: But you
don't have to go through the list in its entirety, you just have to go through
the additions, don't you?
4228
MR. REDELAAR: I wish it was
that simplistic, but, actually ‑‑ and I think this comes back to the
Chairperson's point ‑‑ you are looking for a reason why we cannot
facilitate this.
4229
Sitting through Howard's and the CISC group's ‑‑ and this is not
meant to be an aggressive statement, but you are asking me to adhere to a
process that hasn't been defined yet.
4230
Maybe there is technology or there are processes out there so that I can
go directly to my suppliers and do the monthly scrubs. That does not exist today, certainly
within the CMA guidelines, or their list.
What we do is, we actually get an updated list every month. So we are starting from scratch every
month.
4231
COMMISSIONER CRAM: So you
compare to see if Abigail Andrew is still on the list, or whatever, the
number ‑‑
4232
MR. REDELAAR: We would take
the list ‑‑ and I am speaking a little bit out of my scope of expertise
here, because it is such a natural process for us that I haven't addressed it in
many years.
4233
We would take the entire entity on a monthly basis, which is, again, why
I leave that cornerstone, so I don't have to have that entire entity going to
all of my suppliers.
4234
They would take that entire entity, and every list that comes in, through
the purchase list, or even our internal "do not solicit" list, we would then
start from scratch and take all of the lists that we plan to use this month and
scrub it between the 15th and the 26th.
4235
It is a constant ‑‑ it is numerous ‑‑ take all of the
individual lists and scrub them against the external and the internal "do not
call" lists.
4236
So we are starting from scratch every month.
4237
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Every
month.
4238
MR. REDELAAR:
Yes.
4239
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Surely
there has to be something more efficient than that.
4240
MR. REDELAAR: I sure hope
so.
4241
But, as we say that, the discussions in the committee group are that they
don't even want to give us access to the lists.
4242
So are we now going to have to send them in and have them
scrubbed?
4243
MR. SLAWNER: No. That was the suggestion of some of the
parties on the call. That was not
the decision.
4244
MR. REDELAAR: All
right. I thought we were here to
address all of the suggestions.
4245
THE CHAIRPERSON: At this
stage it is Mr. Slawner who is responsible. You know that.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
4246
MR. REDELAAR: We don't sit
closely together at the office.
4247
COMMISSIONER CRAM: I take it
that you didn't take the opportunity to have a little talk with Mr. DesBrisay
after he was here?
4248
MR. REDELAAR:
No.
4249
COMMISSIONER CRAM: And I
take it that you haven't taken the opportunity, before coming here suggesting 60
days, to talk to any of your American counterparts to find out how they do
comply.
4250
MR. REDELAAR: Unfortunately,
as we stated earlier ‑‑ and as much as I feel like I am taking a beating
here ‑‑ you are correct.
4251
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Yes, you
are taking a beating all right.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
4252
COMMISSIONER CRAM: On your
internal "do not call" list, do you include business? Do you allow businesses to
register?
4253
MR. REDELAAR: We actually do
allow businesses to register on our Rogers "do not solicit"
list.
4254
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Has that
impacted your business in a material way?
4255
MR. REDELAAR: It has
not.
4256
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Thank
you.
4257
Those are my questions.
4258
THE CHAIRPERSON:
Commissioner Duncan.
4259
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I would
like to pick up on Mr. Watt's point that perhaps you could contact a company or
companies in the U.S. that are your equivalent size, to have some preliminary
discussion, as you mentioned, and maybe undertake to give us back that
information, to see how it might influence your thoughts.
4260
We have been asking for undertakings to be submitted within the next
eight to ten days.
4261
Would that be reasonable to ask of you?
4262
MR. REDELAAR: I believe we
had the same recommendation in the working groups, to actually find
out.
4263
Howard?
4264
MR. SLAWNER: We will
undertake within ten days to provide you with an answer. We will speak with some of our American
counterparts to see if we can determine that.
4265
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: At
least some idea, because there is no point in wasting all kinds of time on 60 if
we can meet the 31 and it is practical to do so.
4266
MR. SLAWNER: Yes, we will
definitely take that undertaking, speak with them and get back to
you.
4267
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I was
just trying to understand, on the Rogers list, as Commissioner Cugini was asking
you, if I asked to be put on a "do not call" list, how does that work with
getting the list scrubbed once a month?
4268
I don't quite understand how that goes together.
4269
MR. REDELAAR: Your question
is, it adheres to the same process, so, therefore, we must be missing the
window.
4270
How we actually don't miss the window is, we never call the same customer
two months in a row.
4271
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:
Actually, you are giving me more credit than I probably
deserve.
4272
The list that you are going to get from ‑‑ of course, you don't have
that at this point.
4273
The list you are scrubbing against ‑‑
4274
MR. REDELAAR: I am going to
call two lists. I am going to call
our existing customers and I am going to call
cold‑callers.
4275
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: And you
are scrubbing your internal Rogers list against those proposed
lists.
4276
Do I have it right?
4277
MR. REDELAAR:
Exactly.
4278
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: That's
fine. Thank
you.
4279
THE CHAIRPERSON:
Commissioner Langford.
4280
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: I
might as well kick you while you are down.
4281
I'm just getting Woodhead ready for tomorrow.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
4282
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: I
want to ask, first of all, a question on your understanding of what the future
might look like.
4283
Right now you have your own internal Rogers list, but you are also
scrubbing the CMA, as dictated by the CMA list.
4284
Once there is a national "do not call" list, can you drop the CMA
list?
4285
MR. REDELAAR: That's a good
question. It is the first time it
has been posed.
4286
Absolutely. I mean, are they
not ‑‑
4287
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: I
don't see the point of it.
4288
MR. REDELAAR: They are fully
redundant.
4289
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: All
right. So now we have saved you
some time.
4290
MR. REDELAAR: Can I retract
my answer?
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
4291
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: You
can, but I will treat it with a certain amount of
scepticism.
4292
I would like to push Commissioner Duncan's ‑‑ or attempt to get you
to agree to have me push Commissioner Duncan's request for an undertaking a bit
further.
4293
In light of the ground we have been able to cover today ‑‑ and I
have huge sympathy. You have come
here as the good Samaritans, but there is a lot of precedent going back to
Biblical times of what happens to good Samaritans. It doesn't always work out for
them.
4294
You have come here to instruct us and to give us your processes and the
best understanding you can, and we are trying to perhaps push you a little. But I think what we are actually trying
to do is push our own understanding.
4295
I think, as Chairman French said yesterday, it is now or never for
us. This is the process and we have
to understand it.
4296
I don't want you to agree to this if there is some real problem to it,
but maybe we could work on something of what I am looking at, and you can add to
it.
4297
Could we take the kind of general undertaking you have already given to
study the American process and see what you can do with it a step further and
ask you to recreate something like this, if possible?
4298
Even if you can't do it.
Even if the end is: This is
what we would have to do to do it in 31 days, and we can't for the following
reasons.
4299
Or: This is what we would
have to do. We can do it, but it
would mean a 40 percent increase in our costs, or
something.
4300
Something that would give us a really hard understanding,
finally.
4301
I guess that basically what I am coming down to is, the more clearly you
can recreate this on a 31‑day basis, the better. Even if it needs the proviso built on
what one of you said, and I forget, saying: Maybe the first six months will be a
horror show. We can't do it then,
but we can click in. We can have
some milestones, or something like that.
4302
That's good too.
4303
We are looking for some practical advice, because we have people who have
come before us ‑‑ for example, the Consumers' Association ‑‑ and they
have studied this to the best of their ability, and their first notion was: seven days.
4304
Looking at it harder, trying to put some water in their wine, they have
moved to 30 or 31, and they can live with it for awhile. They would still prefer seven, because
it mirrors our fax regulations.
4305
I think that what I have heard here over two days is a lot of struggling
over this.
4306
You have been the good Samaritans.
You have come here and you have given us something that we can analyze
and study and come to grips with.
4307
Would it be fair to ask you to go back and see what you can do with the
Americans?
4308
I know it would be some work for you to look at it, but it may pay
dividends somewhere down the line as a new matrix
somewhere.
4309
Would that be a fair thing to ask you to undertake to do in the next ten
days or two weeks?
4310
MR. WATT: I will take the
first shot at it, and then I will pass you to Mike.
4311
We are certainly willing to give it our best effort. Having said that, we have to find an
American company that wants to share the details of their operation with
us. I don't know whether we know
one of those.
4312
We used to have a close relationship with one of them, an ownership
position, but they subsequently have been bought by another
party.
4313
So we are somewhat ‑‑ notwithstanding my earlier undertaking, we are
groping a little bit in the dark.
We hope we can find a company that would do that.
4314
If we do find a company that would do that, we would certainly be willing
to compare what they do to what we do and try to determine what the incremental
costs would be.
4315
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: The
man sitting in sartorial splendour right behind you has some contacts in the
United States through the insurance industry. He might be able to put you onto
somebody, if I could suggest that.
4316
MR. WATT: We could certainly
speak to him afterwards.
4317
I can't see whether he is nodding or vigorously shaking his head at the
current time.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
4318
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: He
hasn't left the room. Put it that
way.
4319
MR. WATT: I think that is
pretty much what we could commit to today.
4320
MR. REDELAAR: I would like
to reiterate a couple of points.
4321
I know you said that I wasn't allowed to retract my answer, but you asked
that if the CMA goes away, and this one comes in, would it save me
time.
4322
I erroneously answered yes.
It is not a saving of time, it is just a change of one task to
another.
4323
So I am retracting my statement.
It was made in mistake.
4324
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: But
you are not adding a third list, you are still with two.
4325
MR. REDELAAR:
Exactly.
4326
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: One
may be a bit bigger than the other one used to be, but
still...
4327
MR. REDELAAR: Exactly. It will be. There is no
question.
4328
Then, the second point is, to define a 31‑day process really
comes ‑‑ and, again, our mistake for not really taking the time to
understand the U.S. model. I am not
sure how we will approach that, but we will approach
it.
4329
But until we have a pure definition of what is going to be provided, it
really does come down ‑‑ and I can't emphasize it enough ‑‑ it comes
down to taking the onus from my one subcontractor supplier that does database
management for a living, and moving it into a bunch of suppliers that do call
centre telemarketing for a living.
4330
That is the true stress of moving from a 60 to a 30. That is what I would need to understand
in the American model.
4331
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: We
hear you, and we are not asking for this research to be done in affidavit form
or anything like that. But if you
can get back to us with something, I think it could only be helpful,
particularly in light of the confusion that we are facing, the sort of
comprehension barrier we are facing, simply with a doubling of time here on the
north side of the 49th.
4332
Those are my questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
4333
Thank you, gentlemen and ma'am.
4334
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you,
Commissioner Langford.
4335
Commissioner Duncan.
4336
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I have
a few more questions on this.
4337
You are doing 40 lists at one time, approximately.
4338
I am sure that you have probably looked at this, but I am wondering,
looking at the lists, if they were broken into ‑‑ just for
discussion ‑‑ 10 lists at a time, how many days could you save from each
step?
4339
Then, if you backed up your callback activity into the last week of the
month, would that be a reasonable thought?
4340
MR. REDELAAR: I also looked
at opportunities to shorten the window.
The struggle with the upfront list processing is that they are very
mutually exclusive events.
4341
First you need to get the lists in.
Then you need to scrub them from the "do not call" list. Then you need to scrub them from the
Rogers list. Then, once you have
your base, your real analytics begin in our enormous
world.
4342
Then you are really saying:
Okay, this is our entity.
That entity now has to be ‑‑ there is usually some kind of
predictive modelling or something in place to bring it down to useable
works.
4343
Then, once it is a final entity, it is: Okay, how do we align the resources of
the major players out there and say, "Okay, take 110,000 of these. Put them here. Take this and
this."
4344
So even though it looks like ‑‑ it is a long timeframe, and it
really is a lot of work to take a list, scrub it, and
then ‑‑
4345
The one point I missed is, now we also have to scrub it against everybody
we called in the last month, because we don't call two months
concurrent.
4346
Sometimes we don't call within a 60‑day period, based on the aggressive
nature of the call, if it is more cold calling.
4347
So all of those rules, unfortunately, really do restrict us,
unless ‑‑ if we can get the CRM database in, it will allow us to do many of
the logic points here in one flash, instead of scrubbing against scrubbing
against scrubbing.
4348
That is where we want to go to.
So there is certainly a potential to shorten that window, and we would
love to, because it handicaps even my world by not doing
it.
4349
Everything we can do to handicap ‑‑ but unfortunately those
timelines are needed today.
4350
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Which
database was it that you were referring to getting in that would influence
it?
4351
MR. REDELAAR: We are
creating an internal ‑‑
4352
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Oh,
your new ‑‑
4353
MR. REDELAAR: Yes, that will
literally allow you to do a set of queries at once, as opposed to one query at a
time. That will certainly shorten
that upfront cycle.
4354
That is where we need to be.
4355
Unfortunately, not to knock our IT team, we have been working on it for
five and a half years.
4356
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Do you
think, in the next six to twelve months, that might be available to you? Or is that the wrong
department?
4357
MR. REDELAAR: Are you asking
me about the project ‑‑
4358
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: We have
noted that answer.
4359
MR. REDELAAR: Yes. Is it the project plan, or is it my
comfort level in the project plan being adhered to?
4360
Yes, we are making strides, there is no question.
4361
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Thank
you.
4362
THE CHAIRPERSON:
Counsel.
4363
MR. MILLINGTON: Thank
you.
4364
The bad news is that I have a bunch of questions, but the good news is
that none of them have to do with the implementation period of 30 days or 60
days.
4365
First of all, you indicated in your remarks this afternoon that you do
put businesses on your own internal "do not call" list.
4366
Is that correct?
4367
MR. SLAWNER: Yes, we
do.
4368
MR. MILLINGTON: And yet, in
your paper of March 27th, you advocate that businesses not be subject to the "do
not call" list.
4369
I am wondering why you would put them on your own list, and how you would
reconcile the inconsistency?
4370
MR. SLAWNER: I don't think
that it is actually inconsistent.
Businesses are very different from consumers. I think that the outcry for a national
"do not call" list which basically is a prohibition on contacting businesses has
never been made.
4371
I think that it is ill‑advisable to create a "do not call" list for
businesses, but I think that it is actually complementary ‑‑ that our
internal list is complementary to the national list.
4372
So if a company really does not wish Rogers to contact them, if they are
cancelled on our internal list, I still don't believe that they should go on a
national "do not call" list.
4373
One, I don't think that businesses have been calling for this, and I
think the impact would be far different than it is when you contact the consumer
at home during dinner.
4374
MR. REDELAAR: I could
actually make that more simplistic for you.
4375
At the end of the day, if somebody calls you and says, "Please don't have
anybody from Rogers call me," it is your natural instinct to take them off the
list. It is goodwill. Why wouldn't you want to do
that.
4376
That is a very different process than allowing people to literally remove
themselves from all calling by just saying, "I heard this piece of advertising,
and I am just going to remove myself."
4377
The ramifications of both of those entities are very
different.
4378
MR. MILLINGTON: But aren't
you assuming that the business owner who says, "I want to go on the national "do
not call" list," is somehow not aware of the fact that they are opting out
entirely from telemarketing?
4379
Because I think what you are saying is, when you specifically say, "I
don't want to go on your "do not call" list," you have identified a specific
organization and you say, "I am happy to be telemarketed by everybody, save and
except for Rogers," or whomever you have contacted.
4380
But couldn't the business owner say, just as easily, "I don't want to be
telemarketed, period, and I want to go on the national "do not call" list. I don't care if it is Rogers or Bell or
Joe's Dry Cleaning, I don't want to be there. I don't want to be
telemarketed."
4381
MR. REDELAAR:
Yes.
4382
MR. MILLINGTON: Why isn't
that as valid a decision as it is in respect of your own individual
organization?
4383
MR. WATT: When they have
spoken to us, we will take them off.
We think that is the appropriate thing to
do.
4384
For many of the reasons that other people have expressed today, we don't
think that a national "do not call" list for businesses is necessary or
desirable. There would be
tremendous implications, we think, for the development of commerce. We do not believe that it is as
intrusive to a business as it is to a consumer. They are being phoned in their place of
business, they are not being phoned at dinnertime, et
cetera.
4385
We believe that if businesses are that disrupted by the telemarketing
they receive, they will place themselves on the individual "do not call" lists
of the business organizations that are phoning them.
4386
MR. REDELAAR: To add, I
think we would be creating an issue that just doesn't exist. We are literally suggesting to the
business community that this is a problem, and from somebody who personally
handles a lot of customer issues, they are not business issues. And I have been doing it for 18
years.
4387
MR. MILLINGTON: But the fact
that some businesses have contacted you and asked to be put on your "do not
call" list is proof that, in fact, it is an issue for some
businesses.
4388
MR. REDELAAR: I
disagree. That is a Rogers
issue. They now have a Rogers
discomfort. That is not a
telemarketing discomfort.
4389
They have some kind of relationship stress with Rogers and have asked to
be removed from Rogers calling.
4390
To me, that is a separate entity.
4391
MR. MILLINGTON: So you are
going to parse out that the guy who goes on the Rogers "do not call" list is all
about Rogers and not about telemarketing.
4392
MR. REDELAAR: In the few
experiences that I have had with businesses, it is frustration with Rogers in
some way, not receiving phone calls.
4393
MR. MILLINGTON: All
right.
4394
Has Rogers ever put itself on a "do not call" list for any other
company?
4395
MR. WATT: No one on this
panel would be aware of that.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
4396
MR. WATT: Whether our
purchasing department has done that, I don't know.
4397
MR. MILLINGTON: Could you
undertake to get back to us on that?
4398
MR. WATT: Certainly we can
do that.
4399
MR. MILLINGTON: As a
follow‑up to the business telemarketing, your products, at least on the cellular
side, are some of the few products that are marketed to both businesses and
consumers.
4400
We were, in the last couple of days, talking about ‑‑ if we were to
entertain a carve‑out for business‑to‑business and elaborate on some guidelines
around business‑to‑business telemarketing, and we wanted to look at that, we
were trying to figure out ‑‑ there are, clearly, some products and services
which are consumer oriented and would be easily identifiable, and there would be
some at the other end that would be very business‑oriented products. I am thinking of tires for Caterpillar
vehicles. That is not a consumer
item.
4401
But your product line, particularly on the cellular side, and your mobile
products, fits into both camps quite clearly, and you have big customer bases on
both sides.
4402
Do you have anything that you could offer up to us in terms of guidelines
with respect to telemarketing to businesses, if we were to develop those
guidelines, that would somehow help us in framing how we would treat those two
constituencies differently?
4403
If you were suggesting to us that we should carve out businesses, how do
we deal with the size of the business, and what kind of rules, and so on, would
be applicable to businesses in telemarketing that would differentiate them from
consumer telemarketing?
4404
You don't have to have them this moment. If you want to get back to us on
that ‑‑
4405
MR. SLAWNER: I'm sorry, I am
not quite clear on what we are supposed to provide you.
4406
MR. MILLINGTON: If,
theoretically, we wanted to come up with a regime that would
allow ‑‑
4407
At this point in time we are saying that telemarketing is available to
businesses. If you want to say that
the "do not call" lists, and certain provisions under the Act, apply to
telemarketing to businesses ‑‑ and you are not in favour of
that.
4408
So if we were to go down that road and somehow develop a set of
guidelines that would remove businesses from the prohibition, what would those
guidelines be?
4409
MR. WATT: Frankly, we don't
think that we are a particularly qualified entity to give you any further advice
on that.
4410
In light of the other undertaking that we have provided, we think that we
might be biting off more than we could chew.
4411
MR. MILLINGTON: All
right.
4412
Also in your March document you indicated that only the telemarketing
organizations should be held accountable for the DNCL rules, and that the
companies that retain the telemarketing companies should not be, and you make
reference to the fact that many of the contract telemarketers are large,
sophisticated enterprises and they should bear the responsibility for compliance
with the rules.
4413
Could you give us a bit more depth as to why you think that the companies
that actually contract with those telemarketers should not also be
liable?
4414
In the case, for example, where a telemarketing organization flaunts the
rules, and our end perhaps is not a particularly substantial organization, and
sort of can rise in many forms and variations, and can basically
avoid ‑‑
4415
It would be hard for us to sanction, because they don't really ‑‑
they are not in the environment long enough for us to really
regulate.
4416
Some companies could avoid discipline, let's say, or sanctions, simply by
using these kinds of telemarketing organizations that are not really
viable.
4417
MR. SLAWNER: I think that
any liability or responsibility for breaching a rule or making a violation
should lie with who was responsible for the violation.
4418
For example, we like to keep our list central to us. So if we made a mistake when we did the
creation of a list in scrubbing, then I can understand how the responsibility
would lie with the seller, if we provided the list.
4419
However, I am sure that in many cases there would be a telemarketer who
would say to another organization, "We will telemarket for you," and they would
break all the rules, and they wouldn't follow DNCL, and the seller would be
ignorant of these facts.
4420
I think that a lot of these telemarketers do have the sophistication to
take responsibility if they go ahead and break the rules.
4421
I think it is very hard to start blaming a seller who is unaware of the
activities of a third party that they hire, especially when that third party
probably has more experience in telemarketing than they
do.
4422
MR. MILLINGTON: But perhaps
the seller is seeking out telemarketers who they know will break the
rules.
4423
Maybe there are telemarketers out there that are going to play fast and
loose, and there are sellers out there who want to use that specific type of
telemarketer.
4424
If there is no ability to reach through the telemarketer to the selling
organization, then does that not remove a significant form of sanction from the
whole regime?
4425
MR. SLAWNER: There will
always be unscrupulous organizations and people out there. I still find it very hard to hold an
organization responsible that takes all of the steps to comply with the rules,
and unfortunately, for whatever reason, a third party that they contracted with
decided that they wanted to save money and would not comply with the "do not
call" list.
4426
To look at the worst case scenario of somebody who is trying to avoid the
rules by hiring intentionally a shady organization, I don't think it would
reflect on the industry very well.
4427
MR. MILLINGTON: All
right.
4428
I want some clarification on the point with respect to the inclusion of
wireless phone numbers on the Canadian DNCL.
4429
Are you suggesting that, de facto, right out of the gate, all wireless
numbers go in there?
4430
MR. SLAWNER: No, not at
all. If someone wants to register
their wireless phone number on the DNCL, it should be accepted. It should not be
excluded.
4431
MR. MILLINGTON: All
right. Thank
you.
4432
Those are my questions.
4433
THE CHAIRPERSON: I think
that concludes ‑‑ are there any more undertakings you wish to raise with
Rogers, madame le secrétaire, s'il vous plaît?
4434
THE SECRETARY:
No.
4435
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Watt,
and fellow panel members, thank you very much. It's been very helpful. We appreciate your coming here and
responding so frankly and weathering the storm so
elegantly.
4436
Thank you.
4437
MR. WATT: Thank you very
much.
4438
THE CHAIRPERSON: Do we have
Mr. Obermeyer or Mr. Gahan here?
4439
Right. I think we will
proceed to hear which of the two, first or second, Mr. Obermeyer or
Mr. Gahan?
4440
Great, Mr. Obermeyer, we will hear
you next.
‑‑‑
Pause
4441
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr.
Obermeyer, as you may have noticed, the normal course of proceedings is that you
would take up to 10 minutes to make a preliminary statement, and then we will
ask you questions and try to explore with you the issues that concern
you.
4442
If that suits you, please, feel free to go ahead.
4443
MR. OBERMEYER: Sounds good
to me. I was expecting maybe a
whistle or a dropping of a button or something.
‑‑‑
Laughter
4444
THE CHAIRPERSON: No. Well, Commissioner Langford does some
good imitations, but we won't subject you to them.
4445
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: If
you will allow me, though, I could do an imitation of an adviser. It won't come out of your
time.
4446
This looks very much like what we have already got in written form, just
quickly glancing at it, and if it is, I just want you to know it doesn't stop
you from reading it again, but it's already on the record. What we have is already on the record,
so if you want to read it again, that's fine, we will have it on the record
twice. But if you want to just go
through it and emphasize and work with it as a kind of a presentation plan, that
can be effective, as well.
4447
MR. OBERMEYER: I would like
to do so.
4448
I might ask, before we start the official record of this proceeding, that
my personal name not appear in relation to these comments.
4449
I have made that request on several occasions on the past, and my reason
for doing so is not that I wish to remain anonymous, not that I wish not to be
associated with these comments by this Commission, but that I wish to remain
protected from retribution, which has, in fact, already
begun.
4450
THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, Mr.
Obermeyer, I guess I will have to ask counsel, cause I don't think there's
anyone on this panel who's in a position to advise you in that regard. It seems to me unlikely that we can give
such a guarantee.
4451
MR. MILLINGTON: Well, I
think that it's kind of the water is already under that bridge. You are here, your name is out, it's on
the public record, and I don't see how anyone can come before a public
proceeding of this type and make a presentation, in fact ‑‑ either in
writing prior to this ‑‑ without having your name being associated with the
presentation.
PRESENTATION /
PRÉSENTATION
4452
MR. OBERMEYER: I suppose
that is your answer. Okay, I will
begin.
4453
I'm not going to read my little introduction, which talks about why I am
here and who I claim to be representing. I think everyone's quite familiar with
that piece. I would like to state
why I'm taking the trouble to be here.
4454
We are participating in this proceeding in the hope that the CRTC will
build an effective system to curtail unwanted telemarketing as quickly and
inexpensively as possible, as directed by Bill C‑37. We hope that the result will be
self‑sustaining and not require funding from the people of Canada, through the
federal government, or any other level of government.
4455
Let's take a second to establish some facts for the record. All those who enjoy receiving
telemarketing calls who are present in this room, please, raise your hands
now?
4456
Let the record show that there were two hands raised, one in
jest.
4457
Of those who have raised their hands, how many undertake to reveal their
home and cell phone numbers by legibly writing them on a piece of paper and
delivering them to me within the next five minutes to be read into the public
record?
4458
Let the record show that out of 48 people in the room, zero hands remain
raised.
4459
Let's talk about the success criteria for this endeavour. Our definition ‑‑ oh, by the way, I
assume that means I'm now speaking for everyone in this room. Congratulations, and welcome to the 97
percent.
4460
Our definition of a successful DNCL is one which would enable any
Canadian citizen to permanently stop all unwanted telemarketing calls to their
home with less than five minutes of effort at no cost to the subscriber and with
no possibility of retribution by the telemarketing
industry.
4461
Every single telephone subscriber in Canada must be given the choice of
being protected by the DNCL. Every
single Canadian must be able to register for the protection of the DNCL without
risk of their confidential information being revealed by the CRTC or their
agent.
4462
Why the DNCL shall never be downloaded to a telemarketer. Bill C‑37 states that the Commission
shall be permitted to prevent undue inconvenience from nuisance, giving due
regard to freedom of expression.
4463
Our freedom to express our wishes with regard to the undue convenience or
nuisance of unwanted telemarketing must not be limited by the technical or
procedural implementation of the DNCL.
A subscriber's telephone number is confidential
information.
4464
Obvious examples include unlisted numbers, cell phone numbers, emergency
telephone numbers, health facilities.
The numbers of the people in this room are considered personal and
confidential by every member who is present in this room, bar none. They have all
agreed.
4465
If a subscriber must reveal confidential information, including their
telephone number, to the CRTC or its agent to enable that subscriber to
participate in the protection of the DNCL, then this confidential information
must never be revealed to anyone.
In particular, a registered subscriber's telephone number must never be
provided to any telemarketer by the DNCL
operator.
4466
Now, I'm using some fairly strong words there, words like "shall" and
"must", because I truly believe that to comply with Bill C‑37 that's the only
way to do it. You have got to keep
our numbers secret.
4467
Cost‑recovery implications of a downloadable DNCL. Once downloaded, a copy of the DNCL
could be easily shared amongst unscrupulous telemarketers, much as a downloaded
MP3 file or files have been shared in the past through programs such
as Napster.
4468
Telemarketers can easily share the downloaded DNCL files, and this would
remove their incentive to pay for the use of the DNCL. Telemarketers could easily aggregate
their use of the DNCL and avoid paying their fair share of the costs. We have reason to believe that some
unscrupulous organizations may then offer a grey or, if the CRTC chooses to
regulate it, a black market in DNCL aggregation services.
4469
How many registered users of the USA's FTC DNCL actually pay for their
usage and how many telemarketers are actually using the FTC DNC
information?
4470
We suggest that the definitive answer to the first of these two questions
should be easily obtainable from the FTC DNC registry operator, and we request
that the answer be provided to the DOWG and entered into the official
record.
4471
We would hope that the number of telemarketers who actually use the FTC
DNC registry information would be equal to the number of non‑exempt
telemarketers in the USA. We
suspect, however, that this is not the case. We note that the USA's FTC DNC registry
reported large financial losses in its first year of
operation.
4472
Why numbers registered on the DNCL shall never expire. The stated intent of Bill C‑37 is to
prevent undue inconvenience or nuisance.
We respectfully submit that the undue inconvenience and nuisance
Bill C‑37 refers to is the inconvenience and nuisance experienced by
telephone subscribers when they receive unwanted marketing
calls.
4473
Just a clarification of the way we read Bill C‑37. If registrations are allowed to expire
and the DNCL is provided as a downloadable file of any kind, including the
proprietary, highly proprietary, commercial format suggested by some parties, it
would be a trivial matter for anyone with access to a computer to automatically
compare successive copies of the DNCL file and extract lists of expired
numbers.
4474
This would put the CRTC into the embarrassing position of having provided
the telemarketers with convenient and uncontrolled access to a list of numbers
which may be called. Again, we
respectfully submit that the intent of Bill C‑37 is that the CRTC create a "do
not call" list.
4475
Demanding that we comply with a piece of legislation should not really
even be necessary. We demand that a
telemarketing industry lobbyist not be allowed to pervert ‑‑ not subvert,
but pervert ‑‑ in our words, the DNCL into a "do call" list. If the CRTC allows this to happen, it
would be exactly the opposite of what the Bill C‑37
intends.
4476
What happens if the CRTC proceeds with the downloadable‑file approach to
the DNCL? We have contributed to
the DOWG a detailed calculation of hidden mandatory costs to telemarketers. The hidden cost of every business in
Canada being required to obtain a computer, sufficient proprietary software and
internet connection is initially $4 billion, based on about 2,500 bucks per
business ‑‑ I have heard a $25,000 figure today, so I'm off by a factor of
10. Make it $4 billion,
whatever ‑‑ with ongoing annual costs of $500 million. And, of course, that would scale
appropriately based on new information.
4477
No dispute of these figures has yet been made at DOWG meetings ‑‑
well, I will strike that last bit, there is better information now. It's $25,000 per business times 2
million businesses. Do the
math.
4478
Telemarketers will have every incentive to defray these costs by avoiding
proper payment to the DNCL operator.
Canadian's confidential information will be leaked to telemarketers by
the CRTC. Enforcement will become
very problematic.
4479
How to do it once and do it right, please? Telemarketing industry lobbyists
typically defend telemarketing as freedom of speech. We submit that their right to punch
stops exactly where our noses begin.
Telemarketers have no right whatsoever to use any equipment which
subscribers own, in other words, our telephones or telephone service that a
subscriber pays for, to intrude into the subscriber's home against the
subscriber's wishes.
4480
THE SECRETARY: Mr.
Obermeyer, you have one minute left.
4481
MR. OBERMEYER: We are more
adamant in this assertion if we have explicitly directed them to refrain from
doing so. There is an exceptionally
straightforward solution to balancing the peace and privacy of the subscriber
with the freedom of expression of the telemarketer. The DNCL shall be offered as a national
DNCL service. The DNCL should
accept small lists of numbers from telemarketers, and then indicate which ones
are permitted for that telemarketer to call, and for what purpose and period of
time that permission is given.
4482
The national DNCL service may be readily constructed using
non‑proprietary technologies and delivered through IVR for low‑volume, web
browser for medium volume or web service for high‑volume,
automated usage.
4483
Telemarketing is possibly defensible, but only to willing
subscribers. Unwanted telemarketing
is completely indefensible. It does
not create meaningful employment, but instead diminishes the value of our lives,
as well as the lives of those who are paid to place the unwanted telemarketing
calls.
4484
If you were to add up all the time Canadians spend each year fielding
these intrusive useless sales pitches, it's about 87 entire human lifetimes per
year. The effects are defused over
our population, but that makes it no less
disgusting.
4485
Please do not stand by again while the telemarketing industry lobbyists
run amuck, defining the rules for the CRTC and turning the legislation inside
out. The CRTC does not report to
the corporations.
4486
We would ask now that you picture a mother or father holding their baby
and trying to prepare something to eat after a long day of work, picture another
baby sleeping peacefully, et cetera, et cetera, then the phone rings. Bedlam.
4487
I would ask now for a moment of silence, in respect of those 87 Canadian
lifetimes, entire lifetimes, birth to death, on average, about 73 years, 87 of
them, per year, being wasted on an ongoing basis.
4488
Moment of silence done.
Thank you for listening.
4489
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you,
Mr. Obermeyer, for taking the trouble to be with us and to raise these
issues.
4490
Commissioner Cram.
4491
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Thank
you, Mr. Obermeyer. Thank you for
coming.
4492
I have been in this business for a good number of years and I know there
are a lot of acronyms in telecom, but what is DOWG, I'm
sorry?
4493
MR. OBERMEYER: Oh, that's
the DNCL, which is the "do not call"
list ‑‑
4494
COMMISSIONER CRAM:
Yeah.
4495
MR. OBERMEYER: ‑‑ Operations Working Group.
4496
THE CHAIRPERSON:
CISC.
4497
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Oh,
CISC. Okay.
4498
MR. OBERMEYER:
Okay.
4499
COMMISSIONER CRAM: That's
the acronym we use. You know, we
have got 900 acronyms and, you know...
4500
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:
That's the way you spell "dog", isn't it?
4501
COMMISSIONER CRAM:
Yeah.
4502
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: You
see, I use the TLAs, three‑letter acronyms. These four‑letter ones are tough to get
my head around.
4503
COMMISSIONER CRAM:
Okay.
4504
So I start with your paragraph 13, and your idea is that ‑‑ and I
will call them the DNC operator ‑‑ starts with all of the phone numbers in
Canada, right, and you want the whole thing reversed. Is that where we are coming from, that
if you don't want your number released, the DNC operator would block, and if you
have given explicit written confirmation, the DNC operator would give "do call"
lists to people? Is that the
structure you are looking at?
4505
MR. OBERMEYER: No. And I think, actually, that's a line of
thinking which has been maybe perpetrated on us by previous implementations by
other countries.
4506
I'm not proposing that all the telephone numbers in Canada, at least in
this specific contribution, start off as being "do not call". What I'm proposing is that, if I choose
to put my unlisted telephone number into the "do not call" list, a place where I
would think an unlisted telephone number has every right to appear, that the
CRTC should not then turn around and deliver my unlisted telephone number to a
telemarketer as a number not to call.
4507
It's kinda like, "Here it is.
Here it is. Don't call
it. Don't call it". Does that
make sense?
4508
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Yes, I
see. And the same with cell phones
that aren't in directories?
4509
MR. OBERMEYER:
Absolutely. And the same
with the personal telephone numbers of every person in this room. We all seem to agree that a telephone
number, in some context, can represent a piece of confidential private
information, depending on the other information that it's associated with. That determines the
context.
4510
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Okay, so
let's take that a little step further.
Say I have a cell phone ‑‑ or you have a cell phone, and you file
the number of the cell phone with the "do not call" list, and it's not a ported
number so we don't have to worry about it having originally been in a wireline,
how do we then ensure that it won't be called if it's not released to the
telemarketers?
4511
MR. OBERMEYER: That's an
excellent question, and it really points out the difference in what I would
describe as archaic legacy systems, which are built using old technology that
rely on many synchronized databases, versus a modern implementation of a
database system, a transactional database system.
4512
So what I would propose as a method of operation is that the list itself
would contain the phone numbers, the list is kept inside the DNCL operator
database as proprietary and secret information, and we sell ‑‑ or the DNCL
operator sells to telemarketers approval or disapproval to call a particular
number that the telemarketer submits.
4513
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Oh, so
Rogers would then say, "Here's my list" and, essentially, the "do not call"
operator would scrub it for them, is that what you are really coming down
to?
4514
MR. OBERMEYER: I don't like
the term "lists". I prefer to think
of it as number by number, the telemarketer asking permission of the DNCL
operator as to whether they can call that number.
4515
If they choose to do that in an automated way that gets them answers on
multiple numbers in a single transaction, and if the DNCL operator is instructed
to provide that, that sounds like a convenient way to run a
business.
4516
In fact, I would point out that I heard in a previous line of questioning
that the FTC DNC registry actually provides that kind of automated service to
telemarketers already, as something called a
web service.
4517
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Oh,
okay.
4518
MR. OBERMEYER: They provide
that to the larger operators. Their
implementation might be slightly different from what I'm
proposing.
4519
COMMISSIONER CRAM: All
right, they provide it to the larger operators, that's
right ‑‑
4520
MR. OBERMEYER: Yeah, that's
right, that's right.
4521
COMMISSIONER CRAM: ‑‑ and there was a fair cost to it, wasn't
there? I think they said
something ‑‑
4522
MR. OBERMEYER: I'm not an
expert on the FTC's ‑‑
4523
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Yeah,
somebody said there was a fair cost.
4524
MR. OBERMEYER: ‑‑ implementation.
4525
COMMISSIONER CRAM:
Yeah. M'hm. Yeah.
4526
Okay.
Now ‑‑
4527
MR. OBERMEYER: If I might, I
would point ‑‑ if you don't mind the interruption?
4528
COMMISSIONER CRAM: No, no,
go ahead.
4529
MR. OBERMEYER: I would like
to clarify the cost question.
4530
I'm proposing ‑‑ or rather we are proposing at least three ways to
make that DNCL service available.
The one we have discussed so far is a highly automated, bulk‑number
approval, which could be a machine‑to‑machine transaction, so there's not even a
human involved.
4531
A second way might be through a simple website. So anybody in this room could open up
their laptop computer, go to the CRTC website, key in a single telephone number,
and a get a red light or a green light, "Can I call that number of
not?".
4532
If they would like to receive from the DNCL operator a confirmation code,
which would allow the telemarketer to prove that they have permission to call
that number, that would be a service that they should be willing to pay
for.
4533
And note that in one stroke now we have taken care of a couple of
different problems, one problem being giving the telemarketer permission or
denying that permission to call a number, the second problem being the consumer
finding out whether or not their number's on the list. Okay?
4534
So we have now got a web service, highly automated, bulk transactions,
lots of numbers going back and forth, machine‑to‑machine communication and real
time, we have got a web paper that a telemarketer could go to, and the third way
would be an integrated voice response system. The cost of that should be quite
minimal, actually, because, presumably, it's not too much to ask that a
telemarketer have access to a telephone.
4535
COMMISSIONER CRAM: And you
get a "yes" or a "no".
4536
MR. OBERMEYER: You get a
"yes" or a "no". You call up
1‑800‑CRTC DNCL ‑‑ too many digits, but that's okay ‑‑ you key in the
number that you would like to call, and it says either "yea" or "nay", you can
do it okay or you can't.
If ‑‑
4537
COMMISSIONER CRAM: You could
probably get a verification number the same way.
4538
MR. OBERMEYER: Through an
IVR system? I would suspect that
with the combined might of all the interested parties at this proceeding and all
of the corporate resources they have to draw on, I'm sure we could figure out a
way to work out a billing system for that and also provide a confirmation number
directly through an IVR system, absolutely.
4539
So what that does is it levels the playing field and ensures that, no
matter how large or small a telemarketer is, they would all have equal access to
the list.
4540
And if they don't really need to depend on having a confirmation number,
say, people who do low‑volume transactions or people who already comply with the
intent of the rules and don't expect complaints, maybe they could just use it
for free, using the same mechanism that an individual subscriber would use to
check their number: just go on a
web page, key in the number, 10 digits, boom, "yes" or "no", on the list or
not.
Done.
4541
If they have a confirmation number, think about the defence that
represents for a telemarketer.
Think about the effect that would have on the number of complaints that
you would have in a given year.
4542
Do you think a subscriber is going to complain if a telemarketer calls up
and the subscribers says, "Hey, why are you calling me?", and the telemarketer
says, "Well, I have confirmation number 2006‑123456789 from the DNCL operator
that says I can call you. If you
would like to fight it, I will provide this information to the
CRTC".
4543
They will absolutely be able to investigate your complaint because they
will already have the facts recorded in the audit trail of the transactional
database system that doled out that confirmation number to begin
with.
4544
The CRTC or the DNCL operator will already know the name of the
telemarketer, the name of the party they are calling on behalf of, the account
number of the telemarketer, billing information for the telemarketer, the time
of the approval for the call, the calling number, the call‑ed number, et
cetera.
4545
That will form something called a confirmation record, which is easily
retrievable if you have the confirmation number. That's what databases do. They are very good at
it.
4546
The information actually transmitted to the telemarketer, then, think
about it, think about Martha's Window Washing, okay? It may be a little company that wants to
place 10 calls, the minimum required of them to participate in a system. That requires them to download the
DNCL.
4547
I have heard some people say, "Yeah, let's make it an area code". Okay, anybody ever seen the Toronto
telephone book? It's more or less
the 416 area code. So now Martha's
Window Cleaning, I will say a two‑person operation, has to obtain a computer,
get regular internet access, because they will be required to look at that list
ever 30 days, download, I would guess, in the neighbourhood of 135 megabytes of
information through their internet connection ‑‑ I don't know if there's
any technical people in the room here, but they had better have a pretty good
internet connection to be able to download an area code worth of numbers, or say
if there's only half of the people subscribe to the DNCL half an area code
worth, okay, that's a lot of numbers,
that's a lot of information.
4548
That information that's been proposed by some of the members of the DOWG
working group ‑‑ sorry for the redundancy ‑‑ that information would
arrive in the form of what? A
commercial proprietary spreadsheet, has been suggested. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.
Strike that from the record.
4549
Why on earth would we require Martha to go out and buy a computer, a
high‑speed internet connection, to be able to get, in a practical way, to that
large mass of information, proprietary software to open the file, some kind of
software to be able to scrub that file against her own list of 10 numbers she
wants to call?
4550
I don't understand how they could possibly comply with a methodology like
that without incurring some form of cost.
Multiply that cost by, I heard the number today, 2 million business
entities in Canada. Let's say, I
will give you a break, a thousand bucks times 2 million is $2 billion of hidden
costs, if you insist that the DNCL be a downloadable file.
4551
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Moving
on ‑‑ and I do see your concerns in paragraph 14 and 15 ‑‑ what I'm
trying to figure out is the black market in paragraph 16. What do you mean "if regulated a black
market"?
4552
MR. OBERMEYER: Okay. An example would be satellite
transmissions of television programs.
There is something called a grey market in
that ‑‑
4553
COMMISSIONER CRAM:
Yeah.
4554
MR. OBERMEYER: ‑‑ because there's an absence of regulation and some
people have chosen to put satellite dishes on their homes and pull in signals
from satellites that they have not paid for. In the absence of regulation, that's
called a grey market.
4555
If you put regulations on that market and someone still transgresses and,
potentially, maybe retransmits those programs to somebody else for money, then
that would be defined as a black market, at least in our
opinion.
4556
COMMISSIONER CRAM:
Okay.
M'hm.
4557
And you do realize that the U.S. ‑‑ and I think it's been proposed
by several parties here ‑‑ are talking about some of your concerns being
addressed as violations of the rules.
This bit about sharing, because, of course, the viability of the whole
"do not call" list would be gone if there was an allowance to share, and some of
the other issues you were talking about, they would, in all probability, be
considered as violations of the rules, and then subject to the administrative
monetary policies.
4558
MR. OBERMEYER: Exactly. And I agree fully that you could, in
fact, try to regulate it. If you
choose to do so, I wish you luck, and I would rate your chances of success as
roughly equal to the chances of the music industry controlling in any effective
way the sharing of MP3 files.
4559
Once that list is downloaded to somebody's computer, there is no
technical barrier, no reasonable technical barrier, to that person making an
illicit copy and passing it along to someone else for free or for money, or
money's worth.
4560
COMMISSIONER CRAM:
M'hm. And that's why, then,
you are suggesting the reverse, the yes/no concept?
4561
MR. OBERMEYER: That's only
one reason that I'm suggesting the yes/no concept. Other reasons include making the
investigation of any particular complaint a trivial matter if the telemarketer
has followed the rules.
4562
The FTC DNC registry, I have heard a number quoted of 90,000 complaints
per month. I would define that as
an abject failure to implement a system.
The cost of investigating 90,000 complaints per month, how much would it
cost to investigate one complaint?
I would guess on the order of maybe $100. That's $9 million a month they are
spending investigating complaints.
4563
Wow, that's more than the cost of providing a robust system that would
allow the complaints to be dismissed out‑of‑hand, if the telemarketer has, in
fact, followed the rules and has a confirmation number to prove it. Okay?
4564
So let's get back to Martha and her window‑cleaning service. Instead of downloading the Toronto
telephone directory, or half of it ‑‑ let's rip it in half, we are all
strong people, we can do that ‑‑downloading half of that telephone
directory, instead she downloads, how many digits, 14 digits, 2006‑123456789,
that's 20 bytes of information, as opposed to 135 megabytes as the minimum to
make her first call.
4565
That's an extraordinary difference.
I don't know if you are familiar with bytes and megabytes and all that, I
would imagine some people have a passing familiarity with them, but if we were
to stack up the amount of information as, say, pennies on this desk, one
telephone number or one byte of information being a penny, and put it there, I
would invite anyone to calculate out the height of a stack of pennies 135
megabytes tall, or say 70, to take half of that number. On the other hand, put two cents on the
desk. That's what Martha wants to
download, two‑cents worth of information, not something that reaches probably to
the stratosphere.
4566
COMMISSIONER CRAM: Thank you
very much, Mr. Obermeyer. Thank
you.
4567
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you
very much, Mr. Obermeyer.
4568
Commissioner Langford.
4569
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: I
just have a question on one other line of your submission, your original
submission, and that's on penalties.
4570
I'm wondering about zero‑tolerance, and I'm kind of wondering about the
Marthas of the world, but we heard yesterday, I don't think you were here, but
we did hear yesterday from some representatives of charities who are concerned
about the reach of the whole "do not call" kind of violation problem, two
reasonably naive but well‑intended soccer moms, summer camp people, people who
are freely giving of their time in the neighbourhood to help their children or
some cause, and inadvertently, completely inadvertently, discover they are
telemarketers in some way.
4571
Do you really want to go to a zero‑tolerance model when you kind of
consider that aspect of it? We are
not talking about Rogers, that we just listened to here, we are talking about,
you know, somebody from Cornerbrooke, Newfoundland, I think was the example we
got yesterday.
4572
MR. OBERMEYER: Yeah. I have a lot of sympathy for charities,
a lot of sympathy. The
telemarketing, the commercial telemarketing industry has soured the milk because
they have abused the current rules so flagrantly for so long and with so little
enforcement to cause them to reconsider, charities have now been lumped in with
them and forced to defend themselves from this, I can't think of a better word
than "madness".
4573
What has commercial telemarketing done to the good will of our
communities? Think about that. What has it done to the good will of the
people who are trying to cook their dinner and may have been willing at some
point in time to make a donation to a charity, but they have been so badgered by
giant corporations, by professional telemarketers, that they just are out
of patience?
4574
I can point to at least one example which has developed an immunity to
charities calling on the telephone, and I'm right here. That's my one example. I'm sure there are
others.
4575
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: But
in terms of just a penalty situation, you know, a financial penalty, we have
never had in Canada before the power to levy monetary penalties. Parliament has finally almost given that
to us. We have to wait for the
rules to be proclaimed, but they are there.
4576
Wouldn't it make sense to have some sort of time to allow that to sort of
work through the system and see if it has any salutary effects before we create
a situation where some reasonably naive but well‑intended group, who may make a
hundred neighbourhood calls, gets nailed?
4577
MR. OBERMEYER: Absolutely,
and I would not criticize any efforts to do so. I have softened my position considerably
on the zero‑tolerance thing. I can
see the need for using some commonsense here. And commonsense appears to be something
that has been sorely lacking this entire
endeavour.
4578
I have made a personal project to stop ‑‑ or to try to stop one
single telephone from ringing off the hook at dinnertime. One telephone. Over the past 10 years, I have
recorded ‑‑ well, adding in today, over 400 hours of effort for one
subscriber to stop commercial telemarketing to one telephone. I have not yet been
successful.
4579
I'm sure you could imagine that I might be a little bit frustrated. I'm sure you could imagine that, in the
attempt to stop one telephone from ringing, I have had several unpleasant
communications with some of the large corporations in this country, some
unapologetic large corporations which have continued to place calls, and, in
fact, in some cases have stepped up the number of calls that they place to my
number because they have found a loophole, an exemption, that they can place
those calls under. So, yeah, I'm a
little frustrated.
4580
Yes, I am softening my stance on the zero‑tolerance and I think if the
people in this room were to set aside their roles, set aside the organizations
they represent, and stop and think honestly to themselves, wouldn't it be better
if we could all just talk about this over a beer, as a bunch of responsible
rationale people, and come to some middle ground with a robust, simple system
that can be implemented with readily available technologies that are
non‑proprietary and do not demand a huge investment on the part of a
telemarketer to participate. That's
what we are after.
4581
COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Thank
you very much.
4582
That's my question, Mr. Chair.
4583
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr.
Obermeyer, thank you very much. We
appreciate the effort you have made and the clarity of your position, and it
will certainly remain in our minds.
4584
Thank you.
4585
We will start again tomorrow at 9 o'clock with the
companies.
4586
Madame le secrétaire?
4587
THE SECRETARY: I was just
wondering if Mr. Gahan was in the room, but...
4588
THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh, is Mr.
Gahan in the room? He didn't
indicate he was before. I presume
he hasn't arrived since.
4589
THE SECRETARY:
Okay.
4590
THE CHAIRPERSON:
No.
4591
Thank you very much. Nine
o'clock tomorrow.
‑‑‑ Whereupon the hearing
adjourned at 1740, to resume
on Thursday, May 4, 2006 at
0900 / L'audience
est ajournée à 1740, pour
reprendre le jeudi
4 mai 2006 à
0900
REPORTERS
_____________________
_____________________
Marc Bolduc
Lynda Johansson
_____________________
_____________________
Sue Villeneuve
Fiona Potvin
_____________________
_____________________
Madeleine Matte
Sandy Kelloway