CRTC Outlines Plans for Do-Not-Call List Policy Process

The CRTC today unveiled a series of developments on the creation of a do-not-call list.  The Commission will hold a four-day public hearing on the issue from May 2 to 5, 2006.  Those interested in participating must register by March 6, 2006 (those interested in submitting comments without participating can submit something until May 10, 2006).  In addition, there are potential opportunities to participate in a consortium that will appoint the do-not-call list administrator as well as on a technical body that will address operational issues.

While Bill C-37, the legislation that created the do-not-call list, was gutted by special interest lobbying, the implementation could still be worse as even more lobbying is expected with further attempts to broaden the exemptions.  For that reason, Canadians should be taking the CRTC up on its offer to participate in the hearings or to submit comments.


  1. Peter Lomath says:

    CRTC comments

    The registry should be a “DO NOT COMMUNICATE” registry not simply a “DO NOT CALL” registry.

    It is the broader processes of communication rather than the specific medium of communication that needs to be addressed in the definition of the registry. All “electronic” forms of communication POTS, VOIP, FAX, “Messenger” can be used for unwanted communication, voice (by definition “call”) is singled out for this registry when it should be any and all forms of electronic communication that should be included. With the high potential for POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) to be supplanted by COIP (Communication Over IP) within the next 5 years across most of Canada, any implementation of a registry should include all types of communication via both POTS and COIP. That to include any communication to a telephone number (POTS) or to any “receiver” (computer, router, VOIP phone etc) using an IP address (VOIP, Fax, Video mail, messenger service etc).


    The scope of the calling party should also be expanded from “Telemarketers” to become “anyone who initiates an unwanted communication to a party who has registered his or her denial of approval for receipt of unwanted communication.”.

    Institutions that wish to communicate as part of a contractual agreement with a party should be required to embed a written approval of contact within their contract prior to trying to establish contact. The consumer should have the right to cancel any such agreement to communicate simply by adding their name to the registry and advising the contract holder appropriately by mail.

    Dictation of scope:

    Any registry should allow the consumer to dictate the scope of what they consider to be a “Call” and from whom they wish to accept communication.

    I consider any form of unwanted communication (voice call, Fax, Email, electronic message etc) from any party to whom I have not granted permission to communicate to be an infringement of my privacy and would like to be able to register a broad choice of communication methods for the DO NOT feature.


    Registration should be available over the internet and through any level of government kiosk system currently available to the consumer as well as through direct verbal direction to a calling party. In the latter case it should be the responsibility of the calling party to ensure that the callers name is added to the registry within the time constraints listed below.

    Exempt parties:

    The consumer should also be allowed to dictate if they will allow calls from any of the currently exempted parties such as registered political parties, bona fide charities, surveys etc.

    I do not wish to be bothered by any of the parties currently exempted and I do not believe that the parties currently exempted have any more right than a non-exempt party to communicate with me without my prior express permission in writing.

    The ONLY exemption to the registry should be for a bona fide emergency organization such as the police, ambulance, 911 service etc. when there is a need to communicate for a supportable reason of emergency.


    I believe that surveys should require payment to the consumer for the service of answering the survey, otherwise they should be a non-exempt use of the telecommunications system subject to the conditions of the registry.

    The survey section should be enforced against the common carriers who are themselves one of the heaviest users of surveys as unwanted contact.

    Grace period:

    An appropriate grace period for registration should be the same as that used by the courts for postal delivery of notice, namely 3 working days.


    The rules should be equally applicable to the party originating the call, the business by which that party is employed, the company employing the telemarketer and ultimately any organization which stands to benefit from any aspect of the process.

    “Real time” communication:

    DNCL rules should apply to any and all forms of electronic communication regardless of their impact in real time or not. It is the intent and establishment of an unwanted communication that should determine applicability.

  2. Ken Walker says:

    In May there were to be hearings about the implementation of the Do Not Call List. I can find nothing on the CRTC web site indicating where the process goes from here. Is there any indication of when a report or some action resulting from this hearing can be expected?

  3. David Gow
    Hey nice going .. glad somebody came up with the idea.. The Americans have had this idea in force for 2 yrs.hmmm good thinking.

  4. Think Positive says:

    SK Residence
    I’m not sure what the dabate is in Canada. The UK and USA have already debated the issue and made decisions. Our politicians are wasting their time and getting paid for trying to reinvent the wheel.

  5. Anonymous says:

    The worst offender is Bell and all its associate companies. The telephone, Sympatico,Direct View et all don’t seem to understand DO NOT CALL. HELP!!! go get them off my back.