Evidence of meeting #46 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rural.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Persona Cable
The reality is that the average Canadian doesn't give a rat's ass about my company and probably all the companies around this table.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Persona Cable
I could be more colourful, actually.
Let me say this. What they really care about is that they get good service and get it at a good price. If the current rules stay in place, rural Canadians in particular will not ever see that choice. So it's not really about our company.
Of course it's about our company in the sense that I'm here from a very self-interested point of view, as is everyone around the table. But the reality is that it's about Canadians and about whether or not they're going to get service—and an alternative service and a cheaper service—and the rules dictate that it's not going to happen.
So that's the answer to your question, Monsieur Vincent, that it's not going to happen.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
There are 30 seconds remaining. Would anyone else like to comment?
If not, Monsieur Vincent, do you have a brief question?
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC
If I understand what you're saying, Mr. MacDonald, large centres will really profit from more competition, whereas the rural regions will be left high and dry. There will be no competition in the regions.
4:35 p.m.
Persona Cable
You realize, of course, that the large centres have been in business for over a year, so they've actually worked under a completely different set of rules that has allowed them to flourish. If this rule had come into effect 18 months ago, it would be a different story.
So rural Canada doesn't even get the benefit of the rules that big-city cable companies bet their business on. That's the irony of it all. We're not even getting the same treatment. We're getting second-rate treatment.
4:35 p.m.
President, Bluewater TV Cable
I actually agree with Mr. MacDonald on that. We would have taken our investment dollars and possibly put them someplace else if we had known that the rules were going to change as we were building these systems. There's no incentive for a small company. We're 7,000 subscribers. There are many others that are smaller than us that are looking to do this exact same thing. There's no reason they should. There's no reason they should go and deregulate Bell.
4:35 p.m.
Persona Cable
I want to add that the large cable companies that have done this should be commended. They've given Canadians a choice. They've given them better pricing and better services. So this isn't criticizing what they've done. They've been great.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you. Sorry, we're out of time.
We'll go now to Mr. Shipley.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Thank you.
I may split my time; I'm sorry, but I'm running out of voice here. I have one quick question, and then I may defer over to Mr. Arthur, if that's okay.
On existing regulations under the CRTC, I think we understand that there's going to be deregulation. I think what I'm hearing is that it's a timing issue. Under that deregulation, the Competition Bureau would still be involved if there was rivalrous behaviour, or whatever the term is. One of the things I understand also is that they don't have the tools to deal with it, but they would still be involved.
So what I believe we're talking about under the deregulation is that regarding the $15 million, when I look at the other countries that have been mentioned where it has never actually had to be acted on because of a behaviour, I think the issue is that they now will have the tools to deal with it. Is it the concern that they won't, with those tools, be able to act if they have to? I know Mr. Cohen said it's $15 million per incident, in regard to change in terms of their business operation.
Please help me here.
4:35 p.m.
President, Distributel
Mr. Shipley, I'm not sure about these references to there never being an occurrence to enforce any anti-competition laws in other countries, but there's a suggestion that our telephone companies will not behave in anti-competitive ways because, somehow or other, either they're good corporate citizens or the $15-million penalty will deter them.
When I started Distributel, within a month of receiving service from Bell Canada, they were at the CRTC with an application to shut me down. For the first four or five months of operation, I didn't know if I would actually survive. I did prevail, thanks to a fair and transparent process at the CRTC where all arguments were heard, but in the subsequent years, there were at least three additional attempts by the telephone company to manipulate the regulatory environment or their tariffs in such a way that my business would have been precluded.
So we've seen this. I would even go so far as to dare to say that the lobbying efforts of the large telcos with the government are also anti-competitive in their nature, because they're trying to preclude us from the rules that we have now.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
President, Distributel
I can't answer whether $15 million would be too much for the incumbents to pay to see a couple of competitors leave the market.
4:35 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Access Communications Co-operative Limited
You're asking us to take something on faith here that's going to come out of the Competition Bureau. I can tell you that we're not going to invest the millions of dollars required to launch telephone service in Kamsack or Weyburn, Saskatchewan, based on faith. We need a set of rules, which we thought we had when we made the investment for Regina.
I guess my answer to that would be, we'll wait and see what happens. But that means competition and lower prices and the market forces that we're all trying to achieve come to rural Saskatchewan or rural Canada a lot later than they ordinarily would have.
4:40 p.m.
Persona Cable
Perhaps I can add to that.
You have to admit that from our perspective, a minister has just come in and changed the rules of a regulatory body: bang, these are the rules. Right now I don't know what the hell to do. I don't know what to trust and I'm not certain how I'm supposed to operate my business, because I don't know who calls the shots.
Maybe I should just do whatever the hell I want just, since it's so ridiculous to try to operate a business in this kind of environment.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
One more: I'm curious about the rule. From my understanding and interpretation, if you have the three test and it isn't met, the regulations go back in and you stay in place.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
The regulations will stay in if the test of three can't be met.