---------- Original message ----------
From: Dawn Regan
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:46:05 +0000
Subject: RE: RE My Calls about a call I got today on behalf MADD from an unlisted number 902 780 0917 and hustler named "Lucas"
To: David Amos
Your name and telephone number has been removed from our call list and you have been added to our do not call list for future.
Thank you for your email.
Dawn Regan
Chief Operating Officer/Chef des opérations
MADD Canada
2010 Winston Park Drive, Suite 500
Oakville, ON L6H 5R7
Tel: 1-800-665-6233/905-829-8805, ext 223
Fax: 905-829-8860
Email: dregan@madd.ca
website: www.madd.ca
Canadian Charitable Registration Number: 13907 2060 RR0001
Join us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/maddcanada.ca
Support MADD Canada by making your donation today at www.madd.ca.
MADD Canada is educating youth about the dangers of impaired driving. Learn more about our School Assembly Program!
MADD Canada sensibilise les jeunes aux dangers de la conduite avec facultés affaiblies. Pour en apprendre plus sur notre Programme scolaire!
---------- Original message ----------
From: Susan MacAskill
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 19:44:03 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: RE My Calls about a call I got today on behalf MADD from an unlisted number 902 780 0917 and hustler named "Lucas"
To: David Amos
I will be out of the office until Monday Sept. 26th attending the National Leadsrship Conference.I will reply to your email when I return.
---------- Original message ----------
From: OIG
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:43:54 -0400
Subject: Out of Office: RE My Calls about a call I got today on behalf MADD from an unlisted number 902 780 0917 and hustler named "Lucas"
To: David Amos
This is an automated response from the FTC Office of Inspector General (OIG). Thank you for your e-mail correspondence.
The OIG has jurisdiction over fraud, waste, abuse and misconduct affecting the programs and operations of the FTC. Information within OIG jurisdiction will be reviewed by FTC OIG staff and you will be notified if the OIG will address your complaint.
Consumer related inquiries and consumer complaints fall within the jurisdiction of the FTC's Consumer Response Center (CRC). If you have a consumer related question, a complaint against a company or individual, or if you are the victim of identity theft please contact the FTC CRC directly via the web or by telephone as indicated below:
CONTACT CRC VIA THE WEB: https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/?OrgCode=09
CONTACT CRC VIA THE TELEPHONE: 1-877-382-4357 Monday -Friday, 9 a.m.- 8 p.m. EST.
CONTACT CRC REGARDING IDENTITY THEFT: 1-877-438-4338 Monday -Friday, 9 a.m. - 8 p.m. EST.
For all other questions regarding the FTC, you may call the FTC business number at 202-326-2222.
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Gallant, Premier Brian (PO/CPM)"
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 19:44:16 +0000
Subject: RE: RE My Calls about a call I got today on behalf MADD from an unlisted number 902 780 0917 and hustler named "Lucas"
To: David Amos
Thank you for writing to the Premier of New Brunswick.
Please be assured that your email has been received, will be reviewed, and a response will be forthcoming.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to write.
Merci d'avoir communiqué avec le premier ministre du Nouveau-Brunswick.
Soyez assuré que votre courriel a bien été reçu, qu'il sera examiné et qu'une réponse vous sera acheminée.
Merci encore d'avoir pris de temps de nous écrire.
Sincerely, / Sincèrement,
Mallory Fowler
Correspondence Manager / Gestionnaire de la correspondance
Office of the Premier / Cabinet du premier ministre
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Joly, Mélanie (PCH)"
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 19:44:10 +0000
Subject: Accusé de réception / Acknowledge Receipt
To: David Amos
Merci d'avoir écrit à l'honorable Mélanie Joly, ministre du Patrimoine canadien.
En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de la correspondance adressée à la ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Nous tenons à vous assurer que votre message sera lu avec soin.
*********
Thank you for writing to the Honourable Mélanie Joly, Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed.
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:43:56 -0400
Subject: RE My Calls about a call I got today on behalf MADD from an unlisted number 902 780 0917 and hustler named "Lucas"
To: amurie@madd.ca, dregan@madd.ca, ssullivan@madd.ca, atlantic@madd.ca, "Gilles.Blinn"
Cc: David Amos
Hey
I must say the call I got today on behalf of MADD took the cake or was
it the straw that broke the camel's back. Or did it simply make me
MAD? The call came in through my computer while I was listening to CBC
yapping about some nasty assistants of Prime Minister Trudeau The
Younger" giving some money back to the taxpayers. Now surprise there
after they were caught with their fingers in the cookie jar the day
before. The news about Yahoo being hacked years ago and that Rogers
uses their services was far more interesting to Mean Old Me. The
obvious question was why was this a secret for so long? What about all
our passwords to bank accounts etc that are soemtimes stored or at
least sent to our email accounts?. I bet the shit is gonna hit the fan
of that news or my name aint "Just Dave" EH?
It seems that I bagged CBC checking my work from 10 years ago. Perhaps
Mean Mikey Cabana and his latest boss of the RCMP should review it
too. Methinks they already did byway all the cloaked visits but I
recognized alot the IP addresses at a glance anyway.
Just Dave
By Location Visit Detail
Visit 24,119
Domain Name cbc.ca ? (Canada)
IP Address 159.33.10.# (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation)
ISP Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Location
Continent : North America
Country : Canada (Facts)
State/Region : Ontario
City : Toronto
Lat/Long : 43.6667, -79.4167 (Map)
Language English (U.K.) en-gb
Operating System Macintosh WinNT
Browser Safari 1.3
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like
Gecko) Chrome/53.0.2785.116 Safari/537.36
Javascript version 1.5
Monitor
Resolution : 1366 x 768
Color Depth : 24 bits
Time of Visit Sep 20 2016 11:08:58 am
Last Page View Sep 20 2016 11:08:58 am
Visit Length 0 seconds
Page Views 1
Referring URL https://www.google.ca/
Visit Entry Page http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/
Visit Exit Page http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/
Out Click
Time Zone UTC-4:00
Visitor's Time Sep 20 2016 11:08:58 am
Visit Number 24,119
In response to MADD's malicious call almost immediately afterwards I
called many numbers in MADD's listing for its head office. Not one
soul picked up the phone not even the receptionist. Seems that they
are all attending an event in Toronto of some sort. However a phone
hustler is still working hard on their behalf today EH?
MADD's Executive Director Andrew Murie's, voicemail did request this
email So ENJOY. Please have your lawyers read the ENTIRE email and
listen closely to the hearings in Federal Court within the links I
provide and have them call me on Monday will ya? Perhaps MADD's
lawyers should take two asprins daily over the weekend to stave off
any possible heart trouble as they wrestle with whatever conscience
they have left as purportedly ethical officers of the court. Methinks
the folks within MADD are gonna learn that I am not mad as a hatter
but i do have very legitmate reasons to be mad as donald trump
pretends to be N'esy Pas Jacques Poitras of CBC?.
Anyway as soon as he started his spiel I asked "Lucas" the MADD phone
hustler if he knew who I was calling and how he got my phone
number?.He said he couldn't answer that. In respnse I told him who i
was and that I considered the call to harrassment and that I would be
contacting the RCMP. Perhaps they can figure it out for "Lucas'.
Obviously I did as I promised to "Lucas" EH Commissioner Bobby
Paulson? I bet your latest questionable overseer and lawyer Minister
Rotten Ralphy Goodale is still recovering from want went down within
the CBC website yesterday and not there is this and Mean Mike Caban's
malicous actions to defend as well EH?
Well the lawyer Rotten Ralphy can cry me a river I have not forgotten
his cover up of Securities Fraud in 2004 and neither has he and the
RCMP.
For the PUBLIC RECORD I will say that that my number is NOT recorded
in any phone book that I am aware of . However the RCMP are well aware
that my contact number is on many legal documents on file in the
Docket of the Federal Court in Fredericton. Correct?
Furthermore it is a fact that the company that charges me for the use
of my MagicJack and its number is now based in Israel. The Fredericton
Police Force investigated these same facts in 2012 after Det Rodney
Wadden falsely accused me of harrassing the boss of another NGO
Bullying Canada while refusing to investigate the evidence of far more
serious crimes that I provided the Fredericton Police Force since
2004. That was when they first atttacked me on behalf of the CROWN
while I was running in the election of the 38th Parliament. Bullying
Canada's lawyers Leanne Murray, her law firm partners and the evil ex
MP Brian Murphy were made aware of my concerns about Det Rodney Wadden
false allegations immediately and have acted as dumb as posts ever
since. That is a fact as well.
In fact I have talked to Leanne Murray personally and asked if she has
read any of the emails I have been sending her since she was a local
president of the Liebrano Party. She proudly declared that she would
not read my emails even though the dummy had admitted recieving them
At least her compurter does not lie. The RCMP knows that I have many
of such responses like the on found below from many interesting
people. Stevey Boy Harper was at the top of the list just before the
Yankees falsely imprisoned me under the charges of "Other" in 2004.
This is fun one to point out because Harper did have Ms Blais
apppointed to the bench after she lost an election in NB just like
another NB AG Brad Green Correct?
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Murray, Leanne"
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 23:32:35 -0300
Subject: Out of Office: Yo Chucky howcome your buddy the Attorney
General Ms Blais and her Deputy Ms Keating worry more about the money
in McCorkill's estate that they do about the sexual abuse of women and
children?
To: David Amos
I will be out of the office on vacation from August 5 to 20, 2013,
inclusive, and will have limited access to email during this time
period.
For immediate assistance from August 5 to 9, 2013, please contact Lynn
Davidson at 453-0929 or by email at lynn.davidson@mcinnescooper.com.
For immediate assistance from August 12 to 16, 2013, please contact
Margie Loisel at 458-1034 or by email at
margie.loisel@mcinnescooper.com; otherwise, I will get back to you as
soon as possible upon my return.
To continue on the topic of my Voice Over IP computer phone number, in
2014 I became aware that people were bragging that they had in fact
hacked my MagicJack account and published within Youtube my true
password for Magic Jack and my Yahoo email account as well. At about
the same point in time CBC published the fact that there have Freedom
of Information requests to them about the aforesaid incident involving
Bullying Canada in 2012. However to date I have received no response
from CBC or any of you CORRECT Gilles Blinn of the RCMP/GRC and Det
Rodney Wadden of the Fat Fred City Finest? However you smiling
bastards do not mind teasing me about your theft of my Harley or the
fact that Service NB lost all records of it . We did talk personally
about this recently N'esy Pas Deputy Chief Martin Gaudet? Furthermore
I also called and emailed your lawyers right after you pissed me of
Correct Frenchy?
http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2016/06/attn-steven-d-christie-re-federal-court.html
I must ask again who are the bullies if not the cops? After all you
cannot deny that it was YOU Gilles Blinn who falsely arrested me in
2008. There were many witnesses that day CORRECT? I don't care that
you smiling bastards continue to deny that it ever happened YOU know I
secured the proof that it happened long ago and the the statute of
limitations on certain crimes the RCMP has been covering up never
comes into play EH?
However if this recent nonsense on the Internet supported by the RCMP
isn't bullying I don't what is.
http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=9892
https://encyclopediadramatica.se/index.php?title=David_Raymond_Amos&oldid=916302
The amazing part to me is why can't Prime Minister Trudeau "The
Younger" his friends in the NDP, the Mayor and the Edmonton Cops and
legions of others defend their own reputations from Mr Baconfat's
libel of them under Section 300? These latest blogs of his are truly a
circus particulrly in light of the fact that I have had two of Barry
Winter's most evil blogs deleted thus far.
The Baconfat Papers
http://sunrayzulu.blogspot.ca/
The Baconfat Chronicles
http://eateshite.blogspot.ca/
Has the RCMP or anybody else ever heard of Section 300 of the Canadian
Criminal Code YET? I know one Newfy that has. His name is Byron Prior.
He got locked up under the aforesaid charge after the CROWN'S use of
Section 301 FAILED BIGTIME. You must remember him Mr Baconfat aka
Barry Winters you blogged about him many times year ago CORRECT? Your
cohort in Alberta Dean Roger Ray aka Dirty Dicky Dean reminded many
people of Byron Prior.and his troubles many times recently CORRECT
Gilles Blinn of the RCMP/GRC ?
In this harassment video of me do you hear Barry Winters and his buddy
Paddy Baby Doran whining about me sending the pizzas etc? YEA RIGHT.
The Mad Shangi Show "The Roast of David Raymond Amos: Cyberstalker"
Streamed live on Apr 23, 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu8z4ouinY0
Now lets go back to the topic of my phone number and the reason for
this email. As I was writng this I got a call back from a lady in Nova
Scotia on behalf of MADD (902 561 6233) She claimed that I called her
yesterday but either she is mistaken or that is how MADD got my
number. Hard telling not knot for sure. For the record I did not call
MADD yesterday or ever before that I can recall. I had no reason to.
However Susan MacAskill was one of the people I left a message with
today after I got a call from someone claiming to be acting on MADD's
behalf
The RCMP and many other cops know that I still get calls night and day
from people trying to deliver pizzas etc in Alberta to Mr Baconfat and
his buddies and the police never do nothing aout it. I also get calls
from phone numbers of friends and family who are in fact not calling
me at all and in return they are getting false calls from me and still
the police never cared. Hell in 2015 I even got a call from the RCMP
in BC who had in fact not called me at all and STILL the RCMP did not
care. The cop told me don't worry about it. Yea Right what would he do
if the shoe was on the other foot? Why do cops have anonymus numbers
if in fact they do not wish to be harassed. You cliamed to have a
right to your privacy while you and your cohorts called me many times
on POLICE BUSINESS EH Cst Paul Lynch?
WELL ENOUGH WAS ENOUGH LAST YEAR WHEN I FILED MY FIRST LAWSUIT AGAINST
THE CROWN WHILE RUNNING FOR A SEAT IN THE 42 PARLIAMENT EH?
Now that the phone hustlers have begun what should I do? Sue somebody
else or just the CROWN AGAIN? What say you MADD are you as MAD as Mean
Old Me today? Or do you want to meet me in court?
Veritas Vincit
David Raymond Amos
902 800 0369
P.S. These are some of the nasty bastards I have been dealing with all week.
The Torture Files - the fifth estate
the fifth estate
Published on Sep 22, 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHnlfGUYZx8
Cleary this video about the malicious actions of the corrupt Crown
Corp commonly known as the RCMP/GRC. These are the fancy dudes in Red
Serge that the Prima Donnas Sgt at Arms Danny Boy Bussieres and Kevin
Vickers used to work for when Bussieres and possibly Vikers were
traveling with Queen Dizzy Lizzy II in 1982.
Everybody knows that Prime Minister Tudeau "The Elder" conned the
Queen into making New Brunswick Canada's only bilingual province for
the benefit of his fellow Quebecers who did not agree with his
cherished Charter.Go Figure if it is truly in effect.EH?
The fact that the documentry is made by another very corrupt CROWN
Corp commonly knows and CBC/radio Canada overseen by a corrupt lawyer
from Quebc just published in Youtube is incredibly comical and
agravating to Mean Old Me at the same time
I believe the really big show is being aired tonight but Mindless
Mansbridge and his CBC cohorts have been yapping about it all week
anyway No doubt Prime Minister Trufeau "The Younger" is pissed off
N'esy Pas?
http://madd.ca/pages/about-us/who-we-are/national-staff/
http://no-more-calls.com/902-780-0917/
902-780-0917 Please Stop Calling Us | 5 Reports Filed
by | 4/7/16 | Area Code (902), Calls From Other, Spam is Unknown
902-780-0917 Called?
Ready to take Action to Prevent More Calls from 902-780-0917?
Based on the 5+ complaints, it’s probably a scam. Learn how you can
protect yourself from calls like 902-780-0917.
There are several resources on our website that can help you reduce
the number of telemarketing calls you receive. In general, the best
course of action is to:
1.Read about other people’s experiences with calls from 902-780-0917 (below).
2.Tell us how annoyed you are (on a scale of 1 to 5) and tell our
other readers about your call (below).
3.If the call was from a US company, learn How to Sue a Telemarketer.
4.If it was a robo-call, learn How to Block Telemarketing Calls.
5.Learn What to Do Next Time a Telemarketer Calls.
6.Learn How to Report This Number to the FTC.
7.Our Favorite! Waste Their Valuable Time!
We hope these tips and tricks help reduce these annoying phone calls.
There are other ways to reduce telemarketing calls, so please take a
few minutes to read about how deal with these calls, including
petitioning congress to take action against robocalls.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Complaints for 902-780-0917:
Over 5 Complaints!!!
Originating Call’s Location:
City: Nova Scotia
State: Other
>>>> Click Here to Learn How to Report This Number to the FTC
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 09:44:38 -0400
Subject: RE Abdullah Almalki and the CBC versus the RCMP
To: almalkicontact@gmail.com, "bill.pentney"
Nazim.Baksh@cbc.ca, "hon.melanie.joly"
"ht.lacroix"
"steve.murphy"
Cc: David Amos
atlanticnews@bellmedia.ca, w5
"Katie.Telford"
"bob.paulson"
http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2016/09/perhaps-abdullah-almalki-and-cbc-should.html
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 09:13:09 -0400
Subject: Perhaps Abdullah Almalki and CBC should listen closely to
Judge Richard Bell and I talking on Dec 14th EH Mikey Cabana and Ms
Bossenmaier?
To: almalkicontact@gmail.com, "bill.pentney"
Nazim.Baksh@cbc.ca, "hon.melanie.joly"
"ht.lacroix"
"steve.murphy"
Cc: David Amos
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/terrorism-torture-syria-canadians-1.3669425
CBC Investigates
Documents show CSIS and RCMP's role in post-9/11 torture of 3 Canadians in Syria
Canadian officials supplied Syrian authorities with interrogation questions
By Nazim Baksh, Terence McKenna, CBC News Posted: Sep 19, 2016 5:00 AM ET
Nazim Baksh CBC TV producer 416-276-9515.
These are the missing decisions Scoll down and you call listen to
hearings from the links I provide below
https://www.scribd.com/document/323631925/5-Decisions-That-Federal-Court-and-CanLII-Failed-to-Publish
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Póstur FOR
>> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 22:05:47 +0000
>> Subject: Re: Hey Premier Gallant please inform the questionable
>> parliamentarian Birigtta Jonsdottir that although NB is a small "Have
>> Not" province at least we have twice the population of Iceland and
>> that not all of us are as dumb as she and her Prime Minister pretends
>> to be..
>> To: David Amos
>>
>> Erindi þitt hefur verið móttekið / Your request has been received
>>
>> Kveðja / Best regards
>> Forsætisráðuneytið / Prime Minister's Office
>>
>>
>> This is the docket
>>
>> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-1557-15&select_court=T
>>
>> These are digital recordings of the last two hearings
>>
>> Dec 14th https://archive.org/details/BahHumbug
>>
>> Jan 11th https://archive.org/details/Jan11th2015
>>
>> This me running for a seat in Parliament again while CBC denies it again
>>
>> Fundy Royal, New Brunswick Debate – Federal Elections 2015 - The Local
>> Campaign, Rogers TV
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cFOKT6TlSE
>>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/fundy-royal-riding-profile-1.3274276
>>
>> Veritas Vincit
>> David Raymond Amos
>> 902 800 0369
>>
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Murphy, Steve"
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:13:48 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Perhaps Abdullah Almalki and CBC should
listen closely to Judge Richard Bell and I talking on Dec 14th EH
Mikey Cabana and Ms Bossenmaier?
To: David Amos
Steve Murphy is away from the newsroom until September 26, 2016. If
you need to reach CTV News please e-mail atlanticnews@bellmedia.ca or
call (902) 454-3200.
Thanks.
---------- Original message ----------
From: Póstur FOR
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:17:50 +0000
Subject: Re: Perhaps Abdullah Almalki and CBC should listen closely to
Judge Richard Bell and I talking on Dec 14th EH Mikey Cabana and Ms
Bossenmaier?
To: David Amos
Erindi þitt hefur verið móttekið / Your request has been received
Kveðja / Best regards
Forsætisráðuneytið / Prime Minister's Office
---------- Original message ----------
From: Póstur IRR
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:17:51 +0000
Subject: Re: Perhaps Abdullah Almalki and CBC should listen closely to
Judge Richard Bell and I talking on Dec 14th EH Mikey Cabana and Ms
Bossenmaier?
To: David Amos
Erindi þitt hefur verið móttekið. / Your request has been received.
Kveðja / Best regards
Innanríkisráðuneytið / Ministry of the Interior
From: Dean Ray
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 07:40:25 +0000
Subject: RE: RE My Calls about a call I got today on behalf MADD from an unlisted number 902 780 0917 and hustler named "Lucas"
To: David Amos
Cc: David Amos
David Raymond Amos Your writing is on topic well connected today, first you chatted it up about Madd then went on to talk about issues with the government. First off Mr. Amos the government is very ill and dying very slowly. If the government were a patient freemasonry would be hypothetically aids. You would be the infection that develops when the immune system is compromised, Hypothetically speaking of course. No proper government would ever need a rodeo clown to buffer relations between the people and law enforcement or need thugs like yourself to protest the protesters, hypothetically speaking. The CBC hypothetically speaking is the voodoo doctor who gives hope to the failing government but has already lost touch with the people and the worse off the patient gets the more money is poured in to cure the dying patient. I do understand d your frustration David Raymond Amos, you see money pouring in from all these places and you would like a little bit of that corruption to trickle in your pocket for all the hard work you have done. Destroying bloggers can not be easy work, you literally put your heart and soul in your work. You started on me when I talk to Byron Prior who had his sister raped in a masonic lodge. I was investigating to see if Byron Prior was legit, kind of like taking the pulse and doing tests to find out how bad things are. If it was bad when you first met me when you were Byron Prior’s friend desperately trying to discredit him. You certainly did not write with the clarity you do here, when you complain about what bothers you. When I first met you many years ago I saw that the government was gravely ill. What we see now is the time when the very scared corruption starts to saw away the dead flesh and desperately tries to reinvent itself. To keep people off balance the Hegelian dialectic works in overtime dividing liberals and conservatives into opposing camps. Freemasonry works on both sides of everything, as a member of Hells Angels and also some sort of RCMP undercover officer you work as a bridge to keep the communications active as the camps go further and further apart. Freemasonry links the mafia and the RCMP and there probably is some Italian guy who represents both sides as well. You talk about Madd bothering you on your voice over the internet phone. You do know that freemasonry also owns all Internet services and that means somewhere higher up you have an insane clown making sure you stay in line and do as your freemason bosses tell you. I heard one of the higher ups of Madd actually got drunk and drove and got arrested, so not a good idea to push money into that movement. The Hegelian dialectic between drunk drivers and Madd most likely orchestrated as well. One man did undo the Hegelian dialectic which we can call the cancer caused by freemasonry and he was Mahatma Ghandi. Everybody was dependent on salt and they made it illegal to make your own salt from the ocean in India. Mahatma Ghandi broke the law or politically correct crowd and the freemasons had no chance but to leave the Country as people became dependent on themselves. Jesus Christ broke Rome and caused such a strong rebellion, they had to become his religion to beat the Christians and that is how the holy roman empire was created. In the United States, Donald trump will break the chains and magically make the left disappear and march for the right. What we are forgetting is the left has total control of Canada and first there will be massive left coming over across the border. David Raymond Amos there is no opposition to the leftist liberals in Canada, the conservatives died and gone underground. Freemasons promised they would make a North American union either by consent or by force. This explains Donald trump close ties to Russia and his removal of troops all around the world, which will happen if he takes power. This also explains the wall he will build in Mexico as the same as they did in Germany. This also explains Hillary Clinton half dead and why every liberal or lefty is propping her up even to go as far as weekend at Bernies. David Raymond Amos if your wondering why you no longer have the respect of your masonic colleagues you might want to check where they are ctting off the rotten flesh hypothetically speaking of course. If you are wondering if there is a Isreal connection, I would say of course there is. Now do not go rushing to Werner Bock saying I believe the same lies he is told. The Country of Isreal is a Hegelian dialectic to keep Jewish people under control it was created by Albert Pike founder of the KKK and the reason a southern General has a statue in Washington. Jewish people are a part of isreal but so is England and all her colonies including the United States. This is why the Queen has the stone of David under her throne and she is the head of freemasonry. If you read your bible you would see that God put a curse on King David due to his infidelity with a soldiers wife and the family would become very evil in the end days. Ezekiel 38:11 would be true of course. The muslims are also simetic or related to Abraham and they get his promise too, but have been severely corrupted by the Holy Roman Empire. So David Raymond Amos when you walk down the street and wonder what happened to it just remember you are one of a lot of people who brought us here. Jeremiah 10 and I believe Corinthians 15 pretty much knock out all the false religions out of the ball park. I am not just a blogger I am a real believer in Christianity and you had the bad luck of meeting me. Oh and look at numbers 18 and you can see how the inner workings of Christianity function. https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From:
David Amos
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 12:44 PM
To: amurie@madd.ca; dregan@madd.ca; ssullivan@madd.ca; atlantic@madd.ca; Gilles.Blinn; martin.gaudet; rodney.wadden; Leanne.Fitch; leanne.murray; Mike.Cabana; bob.paulson; goodale; ralph.goodale; jus.minister; justmin; Kathleen.Ganley; ministryofjustice; Paul.Lynch; geoff.crowe; sunrayzulu; radical; oldmaison; gopublic; Jacques.Poitras; newsroom; Katie.Telford; Gerald.Butts; pm; premier; news; marc.giroux; Baumberg, Andrew; mcu; jan.jensen; david; david.hansen; bill.pentney; harry.forestell; Dean Ray; lois; loissheplawy; paul; Brian Ruhe; Monika Schaefer; jake.stewart; BrianThomasMacdonald; briangallant10; hugh.flemming; mnorton; blaine.higgs; jody.carr
Cc: David Amos; oig; hon.melanie.joly; jean-pierre.blais
Subject: RE My Calls about a call I got today on behalf MADD from an unlisted number 902 780 0917 and hustler named "Lucas"
https://openparliament.ca/bills/38-1/C-37/?singlepage=1
nt, 1st Session Bill C-37 (Historical)
Bill C-37 (Historical)
An Act to amend the Telecommunications Act
This bill was last introduced in the 38th Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in November 2005
This enactment amends the Telecommunications Act to permit the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to administer databases for the purpose of its power under section 41, namely the power to 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 that the Commission considers it necessary to prevent undue inconvenience or nuisance, giving due regard to freedom of expression.
The enactment also establishes an administrative monetary penalty for the contravention of prohibitions or requirements of the Commission under that section.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=1789837&Language=E&Mode=2#Int-1240754
The Chair: Thank you very much, all of you, as you've been very helpful.
We invite to the table Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Canadian Association of Optometrists, and the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association. We are going to proceed to the second part of this meeting, as we continue our study of Bill C-37.
If our witnesses were here at the beginning when Mr. Pickard gave an outline of the amendments being proposed, you should certainly feel free to raise any of the concerns you may have with respect to those issues, but you might want to temper your remarks around the changes being proposed.
So with that, we'll start with Dawn Regan of MADD.
º +-(1615)
Ms. Dawn Regan (Director, Finance and Fundraising, Mothers Against Drunk Driving): Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of MADD Canada today about the potential impact of Bill C-37.
I want to share with you that the telemarketing activities of Mothers Against Drunk Driving are extremely important for our organization. Telemarketing for MADD Canada is about more than fundraising. It's public education, awareness, and, most importantly, an outreach effort to Canadians who can benefit from our services and programs. Not only would Bill C-37 have a devastating financial impact on MADD Canada, it would cripple our ability to effectively serve Canadians.
MADD Canada and its 80-plus local chapters have been providing service and education relating to impaired driving to the Canadian public since 1990. Our organization has over 7,500 active volunteers and over 700,000 financial supporters annually. We are Canada's largest grassroots organization on the issue of impaired driving and supporting victims of this violent crime.
MADD Canada serves over 20,000 victims, family members, and the general public. We help to rebuild lives after people suffer tragic losses. Our organization also communicates with literally millions of Canadians each year. In fact, there are about 69,000 men, women, and children who are impacted by impaired driving annually. We have public awareness campaigns, educational programs, victim services, youth outreach, and legal education, as well as fundraising efforts. The vast majority of these activities occur by using the telephone as our primary communication tool. We have no doubt that if MADD Canada and its supporters would have to participate in a national do not call list, it would destroy the ability of our organization to be effective and to meet the mission of MADD Canada.
Let me share with you a number of real stories on the potential impact of a do not call list on our organization.
First, there's the financial impact. Over 90% of our revenues each year come from the donations of ordinary Canadians. MADD Canada uses an integrated system of fundraising with our donors, and donor acquisition is an important aspect of our fundraising. Organizations like MADD Canada can experience a 35% reduction in our active donor base in as little as one year. So to maintain our organization's programs and services, we need the ability to acquire new donors, and the telephone is the key tool to do so.
I cannot overemphasize enough the fact that we use the telephone a lot. In the past four years, MADD Canada has raised over $30 million in donations over the phone. In fact, 40% of all the revenues raised in the last five years have come from a relationship with people with whom we didn't have a relationship in the past two years, so it's beyond the two-year model that you were suggesting earlier.
These donations are, in part, a result of cold calls, as I mentioned, and the reactivation of lapsed donors. Last year, our telemarketing efforts made 775,000 cold calls for MADD Canada, and the number of complaints received by Canadians on those 775,000 cold calls was less than 0.5%. Our calling is professional, respectful, and we keep our own do not call list to ensure that those Canadians who don't want to hear from us don't.
We believe our telemarketing success is defined by two indicators: the funds raised, and that figure of less than 0.5% who are annoyed by our calls. Bill C-37, without a full exemption for charities, would have a devastating impact on our ability to acquire new donors and raise funds. Initiating two registries, as has been suggested today, would appear at first glance not to be very helpful.
Our calculations indicate that MADD Canada's gross revenues will decrease by approximately 35% in the first year of the do not call list, and eventually by more than 50% over the next three years. Furthermore, our 83 community chapters would be devastated with the implementation of this list. The impact on the communities where a local chapter is active would be severe. Allow me to surmise that there would be a cut in our youth multimedia show, which targets 500,000 high school and elementary students each year, sobriety checkpoints with police enforcement agencies, death notification training, victim support, and materials for schools, poster, and essay campaigns, as well as public awareness campaigns like Project Red Ribbon.
Likely, after three to five years, as the full impact of a do not call list were to be felt, we would be forced to shut down the vast majority of our chapters, but aside from the considerable financial blow, it would also impact our outreach and service to victims of impaired driving. As mentioned earlier, MADD Canada provides, on an annual basis, victim services to over 20,000 Canadians. A number of these referrals come from our telemarketing efforts. The telemarketing vendor and his personnel are trained that when they call an individual who has been injured himself or herself or has lost a loved one due to a drinking and driving crash, they refer that individual back to MADD Canada to provide victim support and services. A do not call list will significantly decrease the number of victims and their families served by MADD Canada.
º +-(1620)
As part of our victim services, we provide support to individuals who have had a family member, peer, or neighbour who is drinking and driving. MADD Canada provides them with support and education on how to refer this type of individual to community resources to get the support they need. I can't tell you how many times we've received calls back from our supporters to thank us for saving their, or someone else's, life from drinking and driving.
By not giving charities an exemption, you will be putting more drinking drivers on our roadways, because MADD Canada will have less interaction with Canadians who want to assist someone to stop drinking and driving. Perhaps the greatest service of our telemarketing campaign is the ongoing public education and awareness programs we integrate into our fundraising efforts. I'd be happy to share those with you in our question and answer period.
It is estimated that drug- and alcohol-related crashes cost Canadians approximately $10.8 billion a year. Impaired driving is Canada's number one criminal cause of death, accounting for slightly less than four people a day, each and every day. MADD Canada has been and still is one of the most influential organizations in changing the social behaviours related to drinking and driving. Limiting our ability through a do not call list to raise funds, contact our supporters, and offer general information to the public about impaired driving would be a severe problem for us. It would be devastating.
We do not believe this was the intent of the parliamentarians. With respect to Bill C-37, there are a few recommendations we would like to conclude with.
First, this committee has heard that in the United States the do not call list has been hugely successful. We read in the committee's hearings that over 90% of Americans are satisfied with their new system. Let's underline the fact that the American government has made an exception for charities, and Americans are satisfied with the results. If our government officials are emulating the success of our neighbours in implementing this do not call list, then make the necessary exceptions to allow charities to continue their good work on behalf of Canadians and for better communities.
Secondly, non-profit organizations are often lifelines to Canadians who need help. The work our country's charities do on the streets, in homes, with people in need is immeasurable. MADD Canada supporters serve with their hearts, many mustering their energy and commitment from their own personal experience. Our supporters urge parliamentarians to legislate a charity exemption and not to sidestep the issue by letting the CRTC decide the issue. Please ensure the proper legislative framework is in place so that charities like MADD Canada can continue to effectively pursue their mission. Please legislate in the public's interest.
We respectfully recommend that charitable organizations be exempt from Bill C-37's do not call list and that this exemption be legislated—not left to be regulated by the CRTC.
Thank you.
The Chair: Do any of the others have a comment?
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: I believe our vendor is a member of the CMA, but to speak to your question about membership and do not call, we manage our own list. As I mentioned before, we did 775,000 cold calls last year, and we know that less than 0.5% of those called actually asked to be on the list. We maintain this list daily. We meet with our board of directors three times a year. If they want, they can get it monthly from us. We actually have a list of every single complaint to MADD we have received, and we monitor this very carefully.
Clearly we do not want to be offending the public. We have a very important message to impart in terms of safety, and it's not just about raising funds; it is that outreach to the public.
-
Mr. Michael Chong: If I can go back to you, Ms. Regan, you have your own list?
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: We do. We maintain our own list. I'll say two things. MADD Canada itself maintains its own list in-house, so as people call us, mail us, fax us, or e-mail us and say “I'd like to be off your call list”, we take care of that immediately. Our telemarketing vendor has its own list as well.
+-
Mr. Michael Chong: So you outsource your fundraising?
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: Correct.
+-
Mr. Michael Chong: And how do they manage the do not call list? Do they have their own list, or are they are part of the CMA?
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: They are part of the CMA, but they also manage their own list. So they would literally go to the Nixie file that exists at the CMA and make sure they're not calling someone they shouldn't be calling, and then they have their own list as well that they're maintaining for us.
So as they're talking to a potential donor over the phone, or talking to an existing donor, if that donor expresses that they do not wish to hear from MADD Canada again, they're adding that to our file.
+-
Mr. Michael Chong: Here's the question. You're advocating that charities be exempt from the proposed regulations that flow out of the proposed legislation, so in other words you're advocating for a more open access than you currently have, because in the current environment your outsourced vendor being a member of that association has to make sure it purges its phone numbers of anybody who doesn't want to be called.
But what you're advocating--and correct me if I'm wrong--is that under the new proposed regulatory regime charities be completely exempt from the list and be allowed to call anybody.
º +-(1640)
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: No, I wouldn't say that. I would say that you're proposing a registry right now that doesn't exist in terms of legislation, right? A do not call registry doesn't exist. Should you add that do not call registry and charities are not exempt.... MADD Canada's own experience tells us that 40% of our revenues come from that cold calling, and that would financially devastate us.
I would also say that the outreach to the public would be affected. What you'd be saying is that we could not call anybody who's added themselves to that list.
+-
Mr. Michael Chong: Let me be devil's advocate here. What if this legislation doesn't pass and the CMA undertakes a massive public awareness campaign to tell Canadians that if they contact that association they can add their number to the do not call list? That would have the same effect as something that's being proposed here, would it not?
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: I don't know how to answer that. I would say we'll cross that bridge when we get to it, I suppose.
I will say again, right now, that it is something that would devastate us financially. Our outreach to the public is very important to us. We are managing ourselves very well as a charity and making sure we listen to the public who call us and say, “Do not call me”. We take care of them. We ensure that we've handled their issue.
+-
Mr. Michael Chong: I guess one of the problems, though, with the existing system is that many people are unaware that this association exists and that they can contact it to get off the calling lists. Furthermore, it's a voluntary association, so not everybody is mandated to be a member. So there are a lot of people who aren't on those lists.
Furthermore, I don't think it's reasonable to expect that every single person would contact every single individual organization to get on their do not call list. I think the idea here is to have a centralized list where people could call once to get off the calling lists.
You mentioned in your testimony that you thought--and I think others did as well--there might be some room for a second list, so you'd have two sets of lists, one for most organizations and one for charities. Maybe you could elaborate on how you see that working.
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: This is the first opportunity we've had to hear about this second registry. It was brought up today for the first time. We really do want a clear exemption for charities. We don't want to have that message mixed, as it were.
I'd like the opportunity to go back to our board of directors--we have a scheduled board meeting on Friday--and bring that question to them, ask the board what they would say about a second registry.
My first thought would be that it would be equally devastating. Again, we're talking about 40% of our revenue coming from cold calling.
However, let us get back to you with a written response after that board meeting.
+-
The Chair: Thank you, Michael.
Very quickly, Nik.
+-
Mr. Nik Nanos: If I could, I'll just add a couple of things.
One thing that MADD and the survey research industry have in common is that we have a vested interest in ensuring that Canadians cooperate and are happy with those contacts. We're not telemarketers, where we are selling, basically. Those are two different things. We have a different interest.
When MADD Canada talks about how they maintain their list and why they engage in their own little internal do not call registry, they do that in order to keep their members happy, in order to engage in good corporate practices, because of the societal good they do. In the same way, market research companies maintain their own internal do not call lists, for the exact same reason--because we need Canadians to participate and cooperate. When our firm does a survey, the first thing we say in the first 10 seconds is that this is not a sales call; this is a bona fide research initiative. It's very important.
One thing I heard earlier, and this points to what you were talking about, is whether Canadians will know. I heard a little earlier from the CRTC about the costs, but in order to make this work, you have to educate Canadians and create awareness that this registry exists in the first place. It's more than just putting a piece of software in a computer. I know our association would be very willing to participate and support the government in educating Canadians about what is appropriate behaviour and an appropriate way to contact people, and clearly have that distinction. But there are costs in regard to educating Canadians and creating awareness about the list in the first place.
The Chair: Are there any other comments?
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: I would say the same. As a charity, we would prefer to have the exemption in the legislation before it went to the CRTC for regulation.
[Translation]
+-
Mr. Paul Crête: Did you have the time to review the amendment to see whether it satisfied you? If you cannot give a definitive answer today, you could always send us a definitive reply in writing. Does it match what you said today in your presentation?
[English]
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: Well, I would say two things. A relationship--I believe it was mentioned--would be considered an existing relationship at two years.
+-
The Chair: It's 18 months in the U.S.; that's all we have here.
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: I think I mentioned earlier--I'm pretty sure I did--that a significant portion of our revenues came from people we hadn't had an existing relationship with in that two years; it went beyond the two years. In fact, I can give you some cases anecdotally where we had a relationship seven years ago. They gave us a donation seven years ago, and we were able to contact them again recently and they gave another gift. If this “existing relationship” is 18 months, we won't have that capability.
As far as a registered charity is concerned, again, we haven't had an opportunity to see the differences between one registry and two, and I believe this is what it's referring to.
I'd like an opportunity to put a written response together.
º +-(1650)
[Translation]
+-
Mr. Paul Crête: The proposed amendment speaks of calls made “by or on behalf of a charitable organization…”. This means that a registered charitable organization could award a contract to a telemarketing company to make calls on its behalf.
Does MADD Canada award this type of contract? Just now, Mr. Nanos was saying that associations like his were not telemarketing firms.
Under the current wording of the section, major organizations could have their calls made by a telemarketing firm, whereas small agencies that do not issue charitable receipts would not be entitled to the exemption.
[English]
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: In the current model MADD Canada has, we use a telemarketing vendor to make our phone calls. Most charities do.
+-
The Chair: Thank you, Paul.
Jerry.
+-
Hon. Jerry Pickard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, possibly, I can talk to a couple of different groups, because I think some of the information is quite critical. You should be aware that under the CRTC rulings at present, when we talk about marketing surveys and intelligence research, you're already exempt, and we anticipate there will be no question but that the exemption will remain.
Timelines have been mentioned, those in accordance with U.S. regulations and U.S. law. In Canada there was no timeline mentioned. There has not been, to my knowledge, any timeline-related intervention at this point. Unless the CRTC were to come forward with timelines, the legislation is open on that issue, which means we don't have a problem there. As far as I know, that would go back to Mr. Campbell's presentation initially.
I think also, when we talk about the ability in the legislation for contacts of previous business organizations or for previous business commitments, we opened that to a much broader category. We said “persons”, and within that we opened it up to charities or personal contacts or a vast array of things that would go beyond the business connection, and therefore your follow-ups--talking about it being two years, 24 months, 18 months--could be done at any time. There was no way the government or Industry Canada, in putting forth the legislation and the amendments to the legislation, wanted to make any inhibition of your ability to do business or that of other corporations that have those concerns at heart.
It goes beyond just a client-business connection. For instance, there are many businesses that make deals with other businesses. A credit card company could bring in Air Canada to be a client; they have Aeroplan and they move forward with that.
We want those business relationships to be maintained, to continue, and to prosper. That is not in question in any regard, I understand, within the legislation. Up to this point CRTC has, in my view, supported with their rulings an open basis for telemarketing research and those types of initiatives.
When it comes to cold canvass, I hear the MADD organization, and I know other organizations face similar problems. Canadians certainly realize how important cold call telemarketing is to all kinds of research organizations. In Canada, it has been suggested the number of telephone calls we get from charitable organizations is in the neighbourhood of 60%...so it is very high.
In some ways you can think of people who say they do not want charities phoning them as that group of people who wouldn't donate to charities anyway. We're not talking about interfering with a group of people who would receive and accept telephone calls from charities. If they specifically say no, they don't want charities to phone them, it's more than likely that's the client base that wouldn't give a donation to a charity anyway.
That's why we tried to look at what the reasonable compromise and balance would be here. There are some folks who say no telephone calls from anybody. There are some who say yes, for the purpose of community good--the United Way, MADD, or the Cancer Society--they certainly would receive telephone calls. I think that is the differential we were trying to look at to create a base and see if that met the needs.
But I see your concerns within all three organizations, and I do believe the amendments that have been brought forward will help vastly with the interests of all three of you. Maybe you could comment on that.
º +-(1655)
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: Could I respond to that?
There are two things you mentioned. On the 60%, we don't know how that survey was done. We don't know how the questions were asked. I would suggest that those numbers are not accurate. We called 775,000 people last year. Less than 0.5% said, “Take me off your phone list”.
On top of that, if you put us all in the same category, charities are not exempt. If you call and you say you want to make sure you're not on the call list for charities, they may not be thinking of their current relationships or a relationship of three years ago. In three years' time, they may forget about MADD, the Canadian Cancer Society, or Juvenile Diabetes. By putting themselves on that list, they can no longer be called by those charities because they no longer have an existing relationship. I think this becomes a bigger issue. If we can't ask, we will not get.
+-
Hon. Jerry Pickard: If they have an existing relationship, with the exemption, you do have the right to phone them. That's why, within the first issue of exemption, we did persons. As far as I'm concerned, with the amendments, if you had a relationship three years ago, you have an existing relationship—unless this changes after hearings. You have an existing relationship, and you're allowed to phone.
So all of your existing relationships, you're still allowed to telephone. I don't see anything that would restrict it in what the government has put forward.
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: Did I misunderstand that there was an 18-month purview?
+-
Hon. Jerry Pickard: You certainly did. That's in the United States, not Canada.
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: So that's not what we're suggesting here?
+-
Hon. Jerry Pickard: That's not here at all.
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: I would go back to the 40% of revenues we raised by cold calling. These are not existing relationships for us. That's 40% of revenues from cold calling—tens of thousands of dollars. The public outreach cannot be forgotten. It's not just about raising money. It's about the outreach to the public, and those people I can't reach.
+-
Hon. Jerry Pickard: You could only reach them if they haven't said, “I do not want charities to phone me”. This is the limitation in the legislation. If someone said they didn't want charities to phone, the likelihood of their donating to charities is rather limited.
It may do a job of filtering out who you should be phoning in your telephone calls. You might now be phoning only people who are very receptive to those calls, and your donations might escalate dramatically. That's the other side of the coin.
Mr. Brian Masse: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I can understand your hesitation to turn over your future to an arm's-length body that won't report back to Parliament for five years. That's one of the problems we face. Once these wheels are put in motion, it really goes away from the democratic process for a while, and what happens to your charities and organizations in the interim hangs in the balance.
Maybe I can start with Ms. Regan. You mention that you do have people identified who were on a list. I guess they came from the contract that you had with the telephone marketers you hire.
I have some experience. I spent four years, through high school, in a smoke-filled hotel room with 40 people, calling about circus tickets for a marketing association. So in going through phone book name after name after name, my concern would be....
Would you be willing to have an obligation that, say, for example, charitable organizations go through the list, they identify that somebody doesn't want to be called, and you have to take that name and number and then report it, through the obligation, to the body and make sure those people then get registered? Would that be something that could be coordinated through your endeavours in terms of when you identify someone who says, “Okay, I don't want to have a call from MADD”? Then MADD--Mr. and Mrs. Jones, and such and such--takes the onerous responsibility of saying, “Make sure this information gets immediately to the do not call list.”
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: You're asking should that exist, right?
+-
Mr. Brian Masse: Could your organization do that? If that was one of the options available, would your organization have the capability to get back from your marketer, okay, here are the 117 names that came in of people who don't want to be bothered by us any more, for whatever reason, and then your responsibility is to make sure those names get on the do not call list?
I guess the difference would be that they'd hang out there in the balance with no connection. They're still on your list but not on the other list.
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: Practically, yes, of course. We have a database of names of people who have said “Do not call me”. We have to maintain those numbers, obviously, so we know we can't be calling those numbers. In practicality, we could easily say, “Here's our list of numbers not to call”.
Sure. It exists.
+-
Mr. Brian Masse: Do you do any telethons? I'm sorry I don't know that.
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: We don't.
Mr. Bradley Trost: Are there any comments from either of the other two?
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: The CRTC already indicates to us when we can make those phone calls and into what time of night we can make those phone calls. Again, I would say we self-regulate as well, in the sense that our calls are not onerous in length. I believe that if the calls were too long or there was an issue with the callers or the time of day, we would be hearing back from those people, because we're reaching a large volume of people each year and that's not happening.
I don't have anything to offer, other than suggesting we try to maintain ourselves in a very great manner to ensure we don't offend the public, because they're there to serve us and help us.
Mr. Bradley Trost: I have a general comment, just to follow up.
The groups appearing in front of us in committee are not causing the problem; they're the responsible people. It's always the exceptions out there, not the rule.
I have just one last question to Ms. Regan.
As you said, your group has been very responsible and is very widely respected, I think I'm fairly safe to say, throughout Canada and among pretty much everyone. Do you think it would be too onerous if codes like those from responsible organizations like yours were more codified? Would it be an onerous problem across the board? We're just trying to figure out how to weed out the bad apples, and we're not going after the legitimate larger organizations. Take some of the practices that you, the deaf, and a few other charities have brought in letters they've sent to our offices, and possibly codify them. Would you be opposed to that? Would you think that's positive, or do you think it would impinge on future flexibility?
» +-(1710)
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: I think that would be positive. I think we are a group to be emulated. We hold ourselves to the highest standards.
In addition to that, you'll notice the charitable industry can of course, with Imagine Canada, adhere to certain fundraising practices. They must make sure they adhere to them. We are members of Imagine Canada. We're members of the Association of Fundraising Professionals. These are all industry-wide organizations that help us ensure we are following a code. Those codes exist, with those two organizations, to ensure that we are not annoying the public, that we are giving proper information, that we are upfront in all our dealings, and that if a complaint is lodged, we handle the complaint.
That does exist, and it's something you could emulate.
Hon. Jerry Pickard: With the regulations those can be dealt with. That's the whole point.
+-
The Chair: Ms. Regan.
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: I'd like to comment that legislation is what we're looking for and an exemption for charities at the legislative as opposed to the regulatory stage. We believe there's a unique partnership between government and charities. You ask us to work on behalf of the public good and we rise to that challenge. Our contribution to our society is immeasurable.
In return, we ask that you work with us, that government protect us and ensure that we as charities are not irreparably hurt. You've heard my numbers. We respectfully submit that it is the role of the government, as our partners, to ensure we are protected and not leave that up to the CRTC. It's not their job, nor expertise, to understand charities and our particular needs. So we'd prefer that you legislate an exemption.
+-
The Chair: Thank you.
Any final comments by our witnesses before we adjourn?
With that, colleagues, I just have a couple of things to discuss with you as the witnesses are leaving the table.
Thank you very much for your time today. You've given us very helpful advice. I think with that, combined with the proposed amendments, and who knows what else, the final package should be very good.
We're going to continue the meeting, colleagues. I want to talk about Bill S-18, the census bill. If we get it quickly--it's in the House now--and if there are no problems, we'll try to deal with that on May 4. Maybe it will only take a few minutes.
We're also going to receive, in a day or two, or very soon, the BDC president appointment, I think it is, unless you want to take a pass on it. We could do that on May 4 as well for maybe 15 or 20 minutes, or half an hour on S-18 and an hour and a half on the BDC. I just propose that for you to think about.
As I said at the beginning of the meeting, are there any travel plans you might have for committee? I don't have any myself, as your chair. I don't think we do have any on our plate, but for the record, we need to submit any travel plans to the liaison committee right away, because of the budget forecasting.
Unless there are questions by colleagues, I'm going to adjourn the meeting.
Paul.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dawn Regan
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:46:05 +0000
Subject: RE: RE My Calls about a call I got today on behalf MADD from an unlisted number 902 780 0917 and hustler named "Lucas"
To: David Amos
Your name and telephone number has been removed from our call list and you have been added to our do not call list for future.
Thank you for your email.
Dawn Regan
Chief Operating Officer/Chef des opérations
MADD Canada
2010 Winston Park Drive, Suite 500
Oakville, ON L6H 5R7
Tel: 1-800-665-6233/905-829-8805, ext 223
Fax: 905-829-8860
Email: dregan@madd.ca
website: www.madd.ca
Canadian Charitable Registration Number: 13907 2060 RR0001
Join us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/maddcanada.ca
Support MADD Canada by making your donation today at www.madd.ca.
MADD Canada is educating youth about the dangers of impaired driving. Learn more about our School Assembly Program!
MADD Canada sensibilise les jeunes aux dangers de la conduite avec facultés affaiblies. Pour en apprendre plus sur notre Programme scolaire!
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 12:44 PM
To: amurie@madd.ca; dregan@madd.ca; ssullivan@madd.ca; atlantic@madd.ca; Gilles.Blinn; martin.gaudet; rodney.wadden; Leanne.Fitch; leanne.murray; Mike.Cabana; bob.paulson; goodale; ralph.goodale; jus.minister; justmin; Kathleen.Ganley; ministryofjustice; Paul.Lynch; geoff.crowe; sunrayzulu; radical; oldmaison; gopublic; Jacques.Poitras; newsroom; Katie.Telford; Gerald.Butts; pm; premier; news; marc.giroux; Baumberg, Andrew; mcu; jan.jensen; david; david.hansen; bill.pentney; harry.forestell; Dean Ray; lois; loissheplawy; paul; Brian Ruhe; Monika Schaefer; jake.stewart; BrianThomasMacdonald; briangallant10; hugh.flemming; mnorton; blaine.higgs; jody.carr
Cc: David Amos; oig; hon.melanie.joly; jean-pierre.blais
Subject: RE My Calls about a call I got today on behalf MADD from an unlisted number 902 780 0917 and hustler named "Lucas"
https://openparliament.ca/bills/38-1/C-37/?singlepage=1
nt, 1st Session Bill C-37 (Historical)
Bill C-37 (Historical)
An Act to amend the Telecommunications Act
This bill was last introduced in the 38th Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in November 2005
This enactment amends the Telecommunications Act to permit the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to administer databases for the purpose of its power under section 41, namely the power to 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 that the Commission considers it necessary to prevent undue inconvenience or nuisance, giving due regard to freedom of expression.
The enactment also establishes an administrative monetary penalty for the contravention of prohibitions or requirements of the Commission under that section.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=1789837&Language=E&Mode=2#Int-1240754
The Chair: Thank you very much, all of you, as you've been very helpful.
We invite to the table Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Canadian Association of Optometrists, and the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association. We are going to proceed to the second part of this meeting, as we continue our study of Bill C-37.
If our witnesses were here at the beginning when Mr. Pickard gave an outline of the amendments being proposed, you should certainly feel free to raise any of the concerns you may have with respect to those issues, but you might want to temper your remarks around the changes being proposed.
So with that, we'll start with Dawn Regan of MADD.
º +-(1615)
Ms. Dawn Regan (Director, Finance and Fundraising, Mothers Against Drunk Driving): Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of MADD Canada today about the potential impact of Bill C-37.
I want to share with you that the telemarketing activities of Mothers Against Drunk Driving are extremely important for our organization. Telemarketing for MADD Canada is about more than fundraising. It's public education, awareness, and, most importantly, an outreach effort to Canadians who can benefit from our services and programs. Not only would Bill C-37 have a devastating financial impact on MADD Canada, it would cripple our ability to effectively serve Canadians.
MADD Canada and its 80-plus local chapters have been providing service and education relating to impaired driving to the Canadian public since 1990. Our organization has over 7,500 active volunteers and over 700,000 financial supporters annually. We are Canada's largest grassroots organization on the issue of impaired driving and supporting victims of this violent crime.
MADD Canada serves over 20,000 victims, family members, and the general public. We help to rebuild lives after people suffer tragic losses. Our organization also communicates with literally millions of Canadians each year. In fact, there are about 69,000 men, women, and children who are impacted by impaired driving annually. We have public awareness campaigns, educational programs, victim services, youth outreach, and legal education, as well as fundraising efforts. The vast majority of these activities occur by using the telephone as our primary communication tool. We have no doubt that if MADD Canada and its supporters would have to participate in a national do not call list, it would destroy the ability of our organization to be effective and to meet the mission of MADD Canada.
Let me share with you a number of real stories on the potential impact of a do not call list on our organization.
First, there's the financial impact. Over 90% of our revenues each year come from the donations of ordinary Canadians. MADD Canada uses an integrated system of fundraising with our donors, and donor acquisition is an important aspect of our fundraising. Organizations like MADD Canada can experience a 35% reduction in our active donor base in as little as one year. So to maintain our organization's programs and services, we need the ability to acquire new donors, and the telephone is the key tool to do so.
I cannot overemphasize enough the fact that we use the telephone a lot. In the past four years, MADD Canada has raised over $30 million in donations over the phone. In fact, 40% of all the revenues raised in the last five years have come from a relationship with people with whom we didn't have a relationship in the past two years, so it's beyond the two-year model that you were suggesting earlier.
These donations are, in part, a result of cold calls, as I mentioned, and the reactivation of lapsed donors. Last year, our telemarketing efforts made 775,000 cold calls for MADD Canada, and the number of complaints received by Canadians on those 775,000 cold calls was less than 0.5%. Our calling is professional, respectful, and we keep our own do not call list to ensure that those Canadians who don't want to hear from us don't.
We believe our telemarketing success is defined by two indicators: the funds raised, and that figure of less than 0.5% who are annoyed by our calls. Bill C-37, without a full exemption for charities, would have a devastating impact on our ability to acquire new donors and raise funds. Initiating two registries, as has been suggested today, would appear at first glance not to be very helpful.
Our calculations indicate that MADD Canada's gross revenues will decrease by approximately 35% in the first year of the do not call list, and eventually by more than 50% over the next three years. Furthermore, our 83 community chapters would be devastated with the implementation of this list. The impact on the communities where a local chapter is active would be severe. Allow me to surmise that there would be a cut in our youth multimedia show, which targets 500,000 high school and elementary students each year, sobriety checkpoints with police enforcement agencies, death notification training, victim support, and materials for schools, poster, and essay campaigns, as well as public awareness campaigns like Project Red Ribbon.
Likely, after three to five years, as the full impact of a do not call list were to be felt, we would be forced to shut down the vast majority of our chapters, but aside from the considerable financial blow, it would also impact our outreach and service to victims of impaired driving. As mentioned earlier, MADD Canada provides, on an annual basis, victim services to over 20,000 Canadians. A number of these referrals come from our telemarketing efforts. The telemarketing vendor and his personnel are trained that when they call an individual who has been injured himself or herself or has lost a loved one due to a drinking and driving crash, they refer that individual back to MADD Canada to provide victim support and services. A do not call list will significantly decrease the number of victims and their families served by MADD Canada.
º +-(1620)
As part of our victim services, we provide support to individuals who have had a family member, peer, or neighbour who is drinking and driving. MADD Canada provides them with support and education on how to refer this type of individual to community resources to get the support they need. I can't tell you how many times we've received calls back from our supporters to thank us for saving their, or someone else's, life from drinking and driving.
By not giving charities an exemption, you will be putting more drinking drivers on our roadways, because MADD Canada will have less interaction with Canadians who want to assist someone to stop drinking and driving. Perhaps the greatest service of our telemarketing campaign is the ongoing public education and awareness programs we integrate into our fundraising efforts. I'd be happy to share those with you in our question and answer period.
It is estimated that drug- and alcohol-related crashes cost Canadians approximately $10.8 billion a year. Impaired driving is Canada's number one criminal cause of death, accounting for slightly less than four people a day, each and every day. MADD Canada has been and still is one of the most influential organizations in changing the social behaviours related to drinking and driving. Limiting our ability through a do not call list to raise funds, contact our supporters, and offer general information to the public about impaired driving would be a severe problem for us. It would be devastating.
We do not believe this was the intent of the parliamentarians. With respect to Bill C-37, there are a few recommendations we would like to conclude with.
First, this committee has heard that in the United States the do not call list has been hugely successful. We read in the committee's hearings that over 90% of Americans are satisfied with their new system. Let's underline the fact that the American government has made an exception for charities, and Americans are satisfied with the results. If our government officials are emulating the success of our neighbours in implementing this do not call list, then make the necessary exceptions to allow charities to continue their good work on behalf of Canadians and for better communities.
Secondly, non-profit organizations are often lifelines to Canadians who need help. The work our country's charities do on the streets, in homes, with people in need is immeasurable. MADD Canada supporters serve with their hearts, many mustering their energy and commitment from their own personal experience. Our supporters urge parliamentarians to legislate a charity exemption and not to sidestep the issue by letting the CRTC decide the issue. Please ensure the proper legislative framework is in place so that charities like MADD Canada can continue to effectively pursue their mission. Please legislate in the public's interest.
We respectfully recommend that charitable organizations be exempt from Bill C-37's do not call list and that this exemption be legislated—not left to be regulated by the CRTC.
Thank you.
The Chair: Do any of the others have a comment?
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: I believe our vendor is a member of the CMA, but to speak to your question about membership and do not call, we manage our own list. As I mentioned before, we did 775,000 cold calls last year, and we know that less than 0.5% of those called actually asked to be on the list. We maintain this list daily. We meet with our board of directors three times a year. If they want, they can get it monthly from us. We actually have a list of every single complaint to MADD we have received, and we monitor this very carefully.
Clearly we do not want to be offending the public. We have a very important message to impart in terms of safety, and it's not just about raising funds; it is that outreach to the public.
-
Mr. Michael Chong: If I can go back to you, Ms. Regan, you have your own list?
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: We do. We maintain our own list. I'll say two things. MADD Canada itself maintains its own list in-house, so as people call us, mail us, fax us, or e-mail us and say “I'd like to be off your call list”, we take care of that immediately. Our telemarketing vendor has its own list as well.
+-
Mr. Michael Chong: So you outsource your fundraising?
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: Correct.
+-
Mr. Michael Chong: And how do they manage the do not call list? Do they have their own list, or are they are part of the CMA?
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: They are part of the CMA, but they also manage their own list. So they would literally go to the Nixie file that exists at the CMA and make sure they're not calling someone they shouldn't be calling, and then they have their own list as well that they're maintaining for us.
So as they're talking to a potential donor over the phone, or talking to an existing donor, if that donor expresses that they do not wish to hear from MADD Canada again, they're adding that to our file.
+-
Mr. Michael Chong: Here's the question. You're advocating that charities be exempt from the proposed regulations that flow out of the proposed legislation, so in other words you're advocating for a more open access than you currently have, because in the current environment your outsourced vendor being a member of that association has to make sure it purges its phone numbers of anybody who doesn't want to be called.
But what you're advocating--and correct me if I'm wrong--is that under the new proposed regulatory regime charities be completely exempt from the list and be allowed to call anybody.
º +-(1640)
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: No, I wouldn't say that. I would say that you're proposing a registry right now that doesn't exist in terms of legislation, right? A do not call registry doesn't exist. Should you add that do not call registry and charities are not exempt.... MADD Canada's own experience tells us that 40% of our revenues come from that cold calling, and that would financially devastate us.
I would also say that the outreach to the public would be affected. What you'd be saying is that we could not call anybody who's added themselves to that list.
+-
Mr. Michael Chong: Let me be devil's advocate here. What if this legislation doesn't pass and the CMA undertakes a massive public awareness campaign to tell Canadians that if they contact that association they can add their number to the do not call list? That would have the same effect as something that's being proposed here, would it not?
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: I don't know how to answer that. I would say we'll cross that bridge when we get to it, I suppose.
I will say again, right now, that it is something that would devastate us financially. Our outreach to the public is very important to us. We are managing ourselves very well as a charity and making sure we listen to the public who call us and say, “Do not call me”. We take care of them. We ensure that we've handled their issue.
+-
Mr. Michael Chong: I guess one of the problems, though, with the existing system is that many people are unaware that this association exists and that they can contact it to get off the calling lists. Furthermore, it's a voluntary association, so not everybody is mandated to be a member. So there are a lot of people who aren't on those lists.
Furthermore, I don't think it's reasonable to expect that every single person would contact every single individual organization to get on their do not call list. I think the idea here is to have a centralized list where people could call once to get off the calling lists.
You mentioned in your testimony that you thought--and I think others did as well--there might be some room for a second list, so you'd have two sets of lists, one for most organizations and one for charities. Maybe you could elaborate on how you see that working.
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: This is the first opportunity we've had to hear about this second registry. It was brought up today for the first time. We really do want a clear exemption for charities. We don't want to have that message mixed, as it were.
I'd like the opportunity to go back to our board of directors--we have a scheduled board meeting on Friday--and bring that question to them, ask the board what they would say about a second registry.
My first thought would be that it would be equally devastating. Again, we're talking about 40% of our revenue coming from cold calling.
However, let us get back to you with a written response after that board meeting.
+-
The Chair: Thank you, Michael.
Very quickly, Nik.
+-
Mr. Nik Nanos: If I could, I'll just add a couple of things.
One thing that MADD and the survey research industry have in common is that we have a vested interest in ensuring that Canadians cooperate and are happy with those contacts. We're not telemarketers, where we are selling, basically. Those are two different things. We have a different interest.
When MADD Canada talks about how they maintain their list and why they engage in their own little internal do not call registry, they do that in order to keep their members happy, in order to engage in good corporate practices, because of the societal good they do. In the same way, market research companies maintain their own internal do not call lists, for the exact same reason--because we need Canadians to participate and cooperate. When our firm does a survey, the first thing we say in the first 10 seconds is that this is not a sales call; this is a bona fide research initiative. It's very important.
One thing I heard earlier, and this points to what you were talking about, is whether Canadians will know. I heard a little earlier from the CRTC about the costs, but in order to make this work, you have to educate Canadians and create awareness that this registry exists in the first place. It's more than just putting a piece of software in a computer. I know our association would be very willing to participate and support the government in educating Canadians about what is appropriate behaviour and an appropriate way to contact people, and clearly have that distinction. But there are costs in regard to educating Canadians and creating awareness about the list in the first place.
The Chair: Are there any other comments?
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: I would say the same. As a charity, we would prefer to have the exemption in the legislation before it went to the CRTC for regulation.
[Translation]
+-
Mr. Paul Crête: Did you have the time to review the amendment to see whether it satisfied you? If you cannot give a definitive answer today, you could always send us a definitive reply in writing. Does it match what you said today in your presentation?
[English]
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: Well, I would say two things. A relationship--I believe it was mentioned--would be considered an existing relationship at two years.
+-
The Chair: It's 18 months in the U.S.; that's all we have here.
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: I think I mentioned earlier--I'm pretty sure I did--that a significant portion of our revenues came from people we hadn't had an existing relationship with in that two years; it went beyond the two years. In fact, I can give you some cases anecdotally where we had a relationship seven years ago. They gave us a donation seven years ago, and we were able to contact them again recently and they gave another gift. If this “existing relationship” is 18 months, we won't have that capability.
As far as a registered charity is concerned, again, we haven't had an opportunity to see the differences between one registry and two, and I believe this is what it's referring to.
I'd like an opportunity to put a written response together.
º +-(1650)
[Translation]
+-
Mr. Paul Crête: The proposed amendment speaks of calls made “by or on behalf of a charitable organization…”. This means that a registered charitable organization could award a contract to a telemarketing company to make calls on its behalf.
Does MADD Canada award this type of contract? Just now, Mr. Nanos was saying that associations like his were not telemarketing firms.
Under the current wording of the section, major organizations could have their calls made by a telemarketing firm, whereas small agencies that do not issue charitable receipts would not be entitled to the exemption.
[English]
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: In the current model MADD Canada has, we use a telemarketing vendor to make our phone calls. Most charities do.
+-
The Chair: Thank you, Paul.
Jerry.
+-
Hon. Jerry Pickard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, possibly, I can talk to a couple of different groups, because I think some of the information is quite critical. You should be aware that under the CRTC rulings at present, when we talk about marketing surveys and intelligence research, you're already exempt, and we anticipate there will be no question but that the exemption will remain.
Timelines have been mentioned, those in accordance with U.S. regulations and U.S. law. In Canada there was no timeline mentioned. There has not been, to my knowledge, any timeline-related intervention at this point. Unless the CRTC were to come forward with timelines, the legislation is open on that issue, which means we don't have a problem there. As far as I know, that would go back to Mr. Campbell's presentation initially.
I think also, when we talk about the ability in the legislation for contacts of previous business organizations or for previous business commitments, we opened that to a much broader category. We said “persons”, and within that we opened it up to charities or personal contacts or a vast array of things that would go beyond the business connection, and therefore your follow-ups--talking about it being two years, 24 months, 18 months--could be done at any time. There was no way the government or Industry Canada, in putting forth the legislation and the amendments to the legislation, wanted to make any inhibition of your ability to do business or that of other corporations that have those concerns at heart.
It goes beyond just a client-business connection. For instance, there are many businesses that make deals with other businesses. A credit card company could bring in Air Canada to be a client; they have Aeroplan and they move forward with that.
We want those business relationships to be maintained, to continue, and to prosper. That is not in question in any regard, I understand, within the legislation. Up to this point CRTC has, in my view, supported with their rulings an open basis for telemarketing research and those types of initiatives.
When it comes to cold canvass, I hear the MADD organization, and I know other organizations face similar problems. Canadians certainly realize how important cold call telemarketing is to all kinds of research organizations. In Canada, it has been suggested the number of telephone calls we get from charitable organizations is in the neighbourhood of 60%...so it is very high.
In some ways you can think of people who say they do not want charities phoning them as that group of people who wouldn't donate to charities anyway. We're not talking about interfering with a group of people who would receive and accept telephone calls from charities. If they specifically say no, they don't want charities to phone them, it's more than likely that's the client base that wouldn't give a donation to a charity anyway.
That's why we tried to look at what the reasonable compromise and balance would be here. There are some folks who say no telephone calls from anybody. There are some who say yes, for the purpose of community good--the United Way, MADD, or the Cancer Society--they certainly would receive telephone calls. I think that is the differential we were trying to look at to create a base and see if that met the needs.
But I see your concerns within all three organizations, and I do believe the amendments that have been brought forward will help vastly with the interests of all three of you. Maybe you could comment on that.
º +-(1655)
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: Could I respond to that?
There are two things you mentioned. On the 60%, we don't know how that survey was done. We don't know how the questions were asked. I would suggest that those numbers are not accurate. We called 775,000 people last year. Less than 0.5% said, “Take me off your phone list”.
On top of that, if you put us all in the same category, charities are not exempt. If you call and you say you want to make sure you're not on the call list for charities, they may not be thinking of their current relationships or a relationship of three years ago. In three years' time, they may forget about MADD, the Canadian Cancer Society, or Juvenile Diabetes. By putting themselves on that list, they can no longer be called by those charities because they no longer have an existing relationship. I think this becomes a bigger issue. If we can't ask, we will not get.
+-
Hon. Jerry Pickard: If they have an existing relationship, with the exemption, you do have the right to phone them. That's why, within the first issue of exemption, we did persons. As far as I'm concerned, with the amendments, if you had a relationship three years ago, you have an existing relationship—unless this changes after hearings. You have an existing relationship, and you're allowed to phone.
So all of your existing relationships, you're still allowed to telephone. I don't see anything that would restrict it in what the government has put forward.
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: Did I misunderstand that there was an 18-month purview?
+-
Hon. Jerry Pickard: You certainly did. That's in the United States, not Canada.
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: So that's not what we're suggesting here?
+-
Hon. Jerry Pickard: That's not here at all.
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: I would go back to the 40% of revenues we raised by cold calling. These are not existing relationships for us. That's 40% of revenues from cold calling—tens of thousands of dollars. The public outreach cannot be forgotten. It's not just about raising money. It's about the outreach to the public, and those people I can't reach.
+-
Hon. Jerry Pickard: You could only reach them if they haven't said, “I do not want charities to phone me”. This is the limitation in the legislation. If someone said they didn't want charities to phone, the likelihood of their donating to charities is rather limited.
It may do a job of filtering out who you should be phoning in your telephone calls. You might now be phoning only people who are very receptive to those calls, and your donations might escalate dramatically. That's the other side of the coin.
Mr. Brian Masse: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I can understand your hesitation to turn over your future to an arm's-length body that won't report back to Parliament for five years. That's one of the problems we face. Once these wheels are put in motion, it really goes away from the democratic process for a while, and what happens to your charities and organizations in the interim hangs in the balance.
Maybe I can start with Ms. Regan. You mention that you do have people identified who were on a list. I guess they came from the contract that you had with the telephone marketers you hire.
I have some experience. I spent four years, through high school, in a smoke-filled hotel room with 40 people, calling about circus tickets for a marketing association. So in going through phone book name after name after name, my concern would be....
Would you be willing to have an obligation that, say, for example, charitable organizations go through the list, they identify that somebody doesn't want to be called, and you have to take that name and number and then report it, through the obligation, to the body and make sure those people then get registered? Would that be something that could be coordinated through your endeavours in terms of when you identify someone who says, “Okay, I don't want to have a call from MADD”? Then MADD--Mr. and Mrs. Jones, and such and such--takes the onerous responsibility of saying, “Make sure this information gets immediately to the do not call list.”
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: You're asking should that exist, right?
+-
Mr. Brian Masse: Could your organization do that? If that was one of the options available, would your organization have the capability to get back from your marketer, okay, here are the 117 names that came in of people who don't want to be bothered by us any more, for whatever reason, and then your responsibility is to make sure those names get on the do not call list?
I guess the difference would be that they'd hang out there in the balance with no connection. They're still on your list but not on the other list.
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: Practically, yes, of course. We have a database of names of people who have said “Do not call me”. We have to maintain those numbers, obviously, so we know we can't be calling those numbers. In practicality, we could easily say, “Here's our list of numbers not to call”.
Sure. It exists.
+-
Mr. Brian Masse: Do you do any telethons? I'm sorry I don't know that.
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: We don't.
Mr. Bradley Trost: Are there any comments from either of the other two?
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: The CRTC already indicates to us when we can make those phone calls and into what time of night we can make those phone calls. Again, I would say we self-regulate as well, in the sense that our calls are not onerous in length. I believe that if the calls were too long or there was an issue with the callers or the time of day, we would be hearing back from those people, because we're reaching a large volume of people each year and that's not happening.
I don't have anything to offer, other than suggesting we try to maintain ourselves in a very great manner to ensure we don't offend the public, because they're there to serve us and help us.
Mr. Bradley Trost: I have a general comment, just to follow up.
The groups appearing in front of us in committee are not causing the problem; they're the responsible people. It's always the exceptions out there, not the rule.
I have just one last question to Ms. Regan.
As you said, your group has been very responsible and is very widely respected, I think I'm fairly safe to say, throughout Canada and among pretty much everyone. Do you think it would be too onerous if codes like those from responsible organizations like yours were more codified? Would it be an onerous problem across the board? We're just trying to figure out how to weed out the bad apples, and we're not going after the legitimate larger organizations. Take some of the practices that you, the deaf, and a few other charities have brought in letters they've sent to our offices, and possibly codify them. Would you be opposed to that? Would you think that's positive, or do you think it would impinge on future flexibility?
» +-(1710)
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: I think that would be positive. I think we are a group to be emulated. We hold ourselves to the highest standards.
In addition to that, you'll notice the charitable industry can of course, with Imagine Canada, adhere to certain fundraising practices. They must make sure they adhere to them. We are members of Imagine Canada. We're members of the Association of Fundraising Professionals. These are all industry-wide organizations that help us ensure we are following a code. Those codes exist, with those two organizations, to ensure that we are not annoying the public, that we are giving proper information, that we are upfront in all our dealings, and that if a complaint is lodged, we handle the complaint.
That does exist, and it's something you could emulate.
Hon. Jerry Pickard: With the regulations those can be dealt with. That's the whole point.
+-
The Chair: Ms. Regan.
+-
Ms. Dawn Regan: I'd like to comment that legislation is what we're looking for and an exemption for charities at the legislative as opposed to the regulatory stage. We believe there's a unique partnership between government and charities. You ask us to work on behalf of the public good and we rise to that challenge. Our contribution to our society is immeasurable.
In return, we ask that you work with us, that government protect us and ensure that we as charities are not irreparably hurt. You've heard my numbers. We respectfully submit that it is the role of the government, as our partners, to ensure we are protected and not leave that up to the CRTC. It's not their job, nor expertise, to understand charities and our particular needs. So we'd prefer that you legislate an exemption.
+-
The Chair: Thank you.
Any final comments by our witnesses before we adjourn?
With that, colleagues, I just have a couple of things to discuss with you as the witnesses are leaving the table.
Thank you very much for your time today. You've given us very helpful advice. I think with that, combined with the proposed amendments, and who knows what else, the final package should be very good.
We're going to continue the meeting, colleagues. I want to talk about Bill S-18, the census bill. If we get it quickly--it's in the House now--and if there are no problems, we'll try to deal with that on May 4. Maybe it will only take a few minutes.
We're also going to receive, in a day or two, or very soon, the BDC president appointment, I think it is, unless you want to take a pass on it. We could do that on May 4 as well for maybe 15 or 20 minutes, or half an hour on S-18 and an hour and a half on the BDC. I just propose that for you to think about.
As I said at the beginning of the meeting, are there any travel plans you might have for committee? I don't have any myself, as your chair. I don't think we do have any on our plate, but for the record, we need to submit any travel plans to the liaison committee right away, because of the budget forecasting.
Unless there are questions by colleagues, I'm going to adjourn the meeting.
Paul.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dawn Regan
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:46:05 +0000
Subject: RE: RE My Calls about a call I got today on behalf MADD from an unlisted number 902 780 0917 and hustler named "Lucas"
To: David Amos
Your name and telephone number has been removed from our call list and you have been added to our do not call list for future.
Thank you for your email.
Dawn Regan
Chief Operating Officer/Chef des opérations
MADD Canada
2010 Winston Park Drive, Suite 500
Oakville, ON L6H 5R7
Tel: 1-800-665-6233/905-829-8805, ext 223
Fax: 905-829-8860
Email: dregan@madd.ca
website: www.madd.ca
Canadian Charitable Registration Number: 13907 2060 RR0001
Join us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/maddcanada.ca
Support MADD Canada by making your donation today at www.madd.ca.
MADD Canada is educating youth about the dangers of impaired driving. Learn more about our School Assembly Program!
MADD Canada sensibilise les jeunes aux dangers de la conduite avec facultés affaiblies. Pour en apprendre plus sur notre Programme scolaire!
No comments:
Post a Comment