Evidence of meeting #29 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was crtc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:05 a.m.
Don Valley East, CPC
Okay. Obviously these changes are intended to protect consumers, improve the bottom line for businesses and Canadian families, and ensure that they're getting real value for their hard-earned dollars. When I look around the world, and I've been to places like India where even the beggars have cellphones, our services for cellphones etc. are extremely high here, in my view.
Can you talk about what you think competition should be doing to improve that for consumers here?
10:05 a.m.
Director, Regulatory Affairs, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association
I don't know that those people in India are watching TV on those cellphones or streaming live video. The ability to have a cellphone and make calls is different from having what have been proven to be among the best networks in the world. Recent studies have shown that app response time in Canada is the fastest in the world. There's a difference between availability and quantity and quality and usage. The usage volumes in Canada, which are traditionally among the highest in the world, show that people here are getting value.
10:10 a.m.
Executive Director and General Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre
I believe there's a proceeding now on at CRTC that they probably can't speak to about trying to get wholesale access so that perhaps more entrants can come into the market and offer those sorts of services. In PIAC's view, the lower-income end of the market, so to speak, has not been well served yet by the present competition in Canada. We look forward to that proceeding and other work of the Competition Bureau before CRTC to make that more of a reality.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you, Mr. Lawford.
On to Monsieur Côté, pour quatre minutes.
10:10 a.m.
NDP
Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Eby, we are now studying the amendments made to three acts, as part of the phoney study of an omnibus bill. Long before being elected as a member of Parliament, I quickly realized that the business community was trying to reduce the uncertainty related to changes, be they legal or regulatory, or other aspects of a competitive environment.
Right now, the government is forcing the opposition parties to examine, in one compressed chunk, a whole set of very disparate measures. Among others, aspects linked to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act will overlap with the amendments proposed to the bills that we are studying here. Let us not kid ourselves: we are about to see a regime change in a year.
The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology is doing this study without being able to introduce amendments or to reach a consensus. That being said, the NDP finds that some of the proposed measures are interesting. We might have been prepared to support them.
In your view, will the players that you are representing have a hard time with the uncertainty caused by the provisions being passed as a block, without debate and amendments? Do you think that could eventually bring about changes that would have an impact on the competitive environment in a year or two, in the short term?
10:10 a.m.
Director, Regulatory Affairs, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association
I think so, yes. There are a lot of things being proposed. If it all comes into force on royal assent, it's very quick, an AMP regime that is new being one example. Other than the criteria under which a penalty would be levied in the bill, that's all that exists. We don't know what the process would be, how a complaint would come about, what the investigation would be and how it would be determined, what a fine would be, and how a company could defend themselves or make representations.
It's a lot happening at once in a very quick time.
10:10 a.m.
NDP
Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Ms. Laizner, we talked about the fact that, for the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, the context is very flawed. In fact, the committee cannot amend the proposals submitted for various bills, including some that concern you directly.
Given that the opposition could have supported some provisions dealing with CRTC's mandate if they had been considered separately, in separate bills, do you think passing the provisions in an omnibus bill has an impact on the support that the CRTC might receive from the House of Commons?
Clearly, the government will once again take the opportunity to say that the opposition parties are against everything, that there are investors, penalties for offenders or other aspects.
Does that affect the work and the support that the CRTC is entitled to have?
November 18th, 2014 / 10:15 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
On a point of order, Chair, I believe the question is out of order. It's inappropriate to ask the CRTC if they support omnibus bills. It's inappropriate for the NDP to use it as an excuse to be voting against pay-to-pay.
Clearly, this government is in line with what Canadians want, to get rid of pay-to-pay, and they want to use... This diverting it on the CRTC, it's an inappropriate question, Chair.
10:15 a.m.
NDP
Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Mr. Chair, Mr. Warawa is clearly straying away from the purpose of the debate.
Actually, the New Democratic Party cannot fully participate, for instance in terms of supporting billing fees or administrative monetary penalties, given that all those items are buried in the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in particular. Clearly, that has consequences for some organizations that oversee important activities in our economy.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Chairman, the NDP were asking the CRTC a political question, and on that basis it's out of order.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you, Madam Gallant.
Fortunately, the time had expired, so I really don't have to rule on that.
What I did want to mention, though, totally outside of the framework of the conversation right now, and it may have been a consequence of the translation, Monsieur Côté, is that the committee does not have carriage of the bill, you are correct, and so we cannot amend the bill, but we can propose amendments. The question from the finance committee was for us to hear evidence. It came through as “proposal”, and I just wanted to make sure that the record was clear. I know it would be done inadvertently from translation, but I just want to be clear that that's what we heard.
10:15 a.m.
NDP
Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Mr. Chair, we agree that proposing amendments to the Standing Committee on Finance is not the same as proposing amendments to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Okay. That round has expired with that great flurry. Let me get my bearings again.
Mr. Lake, for four minutes.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think I'm going to start my questions with Mr. Lawford and Mr. Eby.
Mr. Lawford, just to clarify, you said the cost of pay-to-pay billing per year was how much?
10:15 a.m.
Executive Director and General Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre
For the telecommunications and broadcasting industry, we've estimated it at nearly a half a billion dollars. It consists of two groups in our report, which you don't have before you, but which is available on our website in both languages. Of those Canadians who purchase either telephone or broadcasting services and don't have access to the Internet or use computers, we estimate it at $65 million per year. If two in ten of the other customers who do have Internet still choose to receive a paper bill, and that's an estimate on our part, it's another $363 million, to which we add, depending on your province, federal and provincial tax. You're in the neighbourhood of $450 million to $500 million per year.
We don't know, Mr. Lake, how many consumers take paper billing, even though they have the Internet, because the companies wouldn't tell us. So that's an estimate that we've put in our report, which is available on our website.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Mr. Eby, in September 2013, in the Speech from the Throne, this was first mentioned, I imagine that your organization saw that and made comment at the time.
10:15 a.m.
Director, Regulatory Affairs, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association
Yes, we did.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
So it's not as though the organization or your members didn't see this coming in advance and start to prepare. I imagine your members have started to prepare for this?
10:15 a.m.
Director, Regulatory Affairs, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association
They had seen it coming. It was a year later that the bill was introduced.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Would steps not have been taken in business organizations in a multibillion-dollar industry to prepare for something like this?
10:15 a.m.
Director, Regulatory Affairs, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association
We don't talk about what they do business-wise, but I don't know that they're always preparing for whatever legislation or regulation might come down, when they don't know the exact form of it at that time. They were also invited to a CRTC meeting this past summer, the invitation to which said they would be invited to come and propose alternatives and comment on other aspects around paper billing, which they did. At that time it seemed as though there might be a regulatory process that wouldn't be a full prohibition.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I have just one more question.
At half a billion dollars a year, that's roughly $40 million a month for the industry. Just as a quick hypothetical question, if the government were to make a change that allowed your members to bring in $40 million in revenue every month, do you think they'd find a way to make that work by January?