![]() |
| By Katherine
Ellis Producer: Laura Ward |
| OTTAWA
| Nov.14,
2008 — It
is Murphy's Law that the phone rings just as you are about to sit and enjoy
a nice quiet meal. Well, maybe not Murphy's Law, but the rule of the telemarketer.
Since Sept. 30, Canadians have had the option to place their numbers on a national Do Not Call List (DNCL) to stop receiving telemarketing calls for three years. Political parties, news organizations and charities are a few of the groups exempt from the list and its restrictions. But these groups may soon have to pay a fee to fund a new complaints investigator. "We worked very hard to be exempt from the list and Parliament backed us up," says Teri Kirk, the vice-president of Public Policy and Regulatory Affairs at Imagine Canada, a national organization representing the interests of nearly 1,000 charities and non-profit organizations across Canada.
The DNCL legislation (Bill C-37) containing the exemption for registered charities was passed on Nov. 25, 2005. Last January, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) decided that all groups, even those exempt, must register with the DNCL operator Bell Canada, and pay the possible fee charged by a complaints investigator. "We don't see why we should have to pay for people who are complaining about telemarketers," says Kirk. "You wouldn't make a recreational fisherman pay to cover the costs of commercial fishermen when they have been exempted." Kirk, along with the Association of Fundraising Professionals, filed a joint petition to cabinet in April 2008. They are lobbying the government to modify or cancel the ruling that charities will have to pay the fee and register with the list. Donors are also upset, says Kirk. Unlike telemarketers who can pass the rates to their clients, charities can't because of their charitable status. Kirk says the groups would have to shoulder the fee themselves. "We are like small businesses . . . We just don't have that in our budget," she says. Of nearly 84,000 charities across Canada, Kirk says less than half make phone calls to raise money for their causes, and the funds raised account for very little in their annual budget. In the 2004 Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating, more than 22 million Canadians aged 15 and over donated to a charitable organization, raising nearly $8.9 million. Only 2.8 million Canadians donated on the phone at an average rate of $70 per call. Charities raised $138 million over the phone, totalling three per cent of donations that year, and only two per cent of the total value of donations. "Fees on charities is like a tax. They're just trying to tax us," says Jason Lee, a spokesperson for the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP).
CRTC spokesperson Denis Carmel says the question of a fee applicable to all organizations under the DNCL is "a question of money and people." The CRTC does not have the necessary funds to investigate complaints, he says, and is still trying to find a third-party organization. After an unsuccessful search this year, the CRTC is investigating complaints itself. It will try another search in the next 12 to 18 months to find a suitable candidate to take over the operation. The investigator's duties include following up on complaints made by Canadians via e-mail or phone. Nancy Webster Cole, Senior Manager of Telemarketing Regulations at CRTC, says the possible fee charged to all groups in the DNCL registry is still unknown, and that it is impossible to determine the number of complaints they will receive. At this time, Cole says it is still too early to forecast a trend in investigation requests. Carmel says there are no fees applicable as of yet, but charities are awaiting Parliament's decision. Industry Canada was unavailable to comment due to the petition going to cabinet in January 2009. "There wasn't a cap instituted on the fee," says Lee. "We believe it would be at the low end of the scale, but it could grow with time." Cole says that all groups, even exempt organizations, must
pay and register because it would create a more efficient process to
investigate complaints.
|
|
|