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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Amrita Singh  Associate, Bereskin and Parr LLP
Scott MacKendrick  Partner, Bereskin and Parr LLP
Omar Wakil  Chair, Foreign Investment Review Committee, Competition Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
David Schwartz  President, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada
Stephen Perry  Chair, Industrial Design Committee, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada
Mark Rowlinson  Executive Assistant to the National Director, United Steelworkers
Christianne Laizner  Senior General Counsel, Legal Sector, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Christopher Seidl  Executive Director, Telecommunications, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Kurt Eby  Director, Regulatory Affairs, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association
John Lawford  Executive Director and General Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre
Roger Charland  Associate Deputy Commissioner, Legislative Affairs and Planning, Competition Bureau
Martine Dagenais  Associate Deputy Commissioner, Economic Policy and Enforcement, Competition Bureau
Joe Daniel  Don Valley East, CPC

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Sweet

Monsieur Côté.

10:35 a.m.

NDP

Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lawford, the NDP launched a campaign against “pay-to-pay” fees a while back already. The goal of the campaign is to deal with the increase of fees all over the place. While the government is bragging about lowering taxes, benefiting only a small segment of the population—because the income of the rest of the people is too low for them to benefit—people are paying all sorts of fees for both government services and various businesses. The purpose of our study is to focus on pay-to-pay fees charged by various telecommunication companies, such as cable television. It took the government some time to act.

What do you think about the government's piecemeal approach, which overlooks other types of fees that could harm people? I am thinking of the banking sector, among others, where the voluntary code does not apply to banking fees. People are forgotten in some sectors, while the government is clearly catching up in others.

In your view, what type of climate is this creating right now?

10:35 a.m.

Executive Director and General Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre

John Lawford

Thank you for your question.

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) deplores the fact that banks are not subject to the proposed amendment. The Canadian Bankers Association has apparently convinced the folks at the Department of Finance that statements are not bills.

In my view and that of the consumers we are representing, there is no difference between a statement and a bill. Perhaps this committee could propose an amendment to include statements. I don't think that will happen, but I still wanted to mention it.

In our report, we estimate that Canadians pay between $200,000 and $300,000 in annual fees for those statements. We deplore the fact that there is a difference between a statement and a bill.

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Sweet

Mr. Lawford, it has been the custom of our committee that when the bells go, we adjourn.

We want to thank the witnesses for their testimony.

Colleagues, you should be prepared for a vote coming up very shortly.

I regret that it's so cold in here. I'm going to instruct the clerk to light the fire behind us next time.

The meeting is adjourned.