Bill C-288

An Act to amend the Telecommunications Act (transparent and accurate broadband services information)

This enactment amends the Telecommunications Act to require Canadian carriers to make easily available certain information in respect of the fixed broadband services that they offer.
It also requires the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to hold public hearings to inform its determinations on how Canadian carriers are to fulfill this obligation.

Telecommunications Act

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, It is a pleasure to participate in today's debate on this item of private members' business, Bill C-288, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act (transparent and accurate broadband services information).

I want to start by congratulating and thanking the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa for his initiative. It is a good example of a member using wisely their private member's slot, because the bill comes from work that I was fortunately part of at the industry committee, where all parties supported a recommendation. I want to congratulate the member for finding a piece of legislation that, on the surface, not only would help protect consumers but is very important for our economy. I will get into more of that later. It would create more competition accountability, which is necessary in this industry, and it would drive our economy in a significant way.

I want to start by reading one of the recommendations we had from 2021 at the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. We had a report called “Affordability and Accessibility of Telecommunications Services in Canada: Encouraging Competition to (Finally) Bridge the Digital Divide”, and this was our recommendation:

That the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission require Internet service providers to make information available to consumers on the usual download and upload speeds they can expect during peak periods so they can make more informed purchasing decisions based on accurate and transparent information, thereby improving the industry’s competitiveness overall.

The member was really wise, in my opinion, to table this type of bill in the House of Commons, because we did get a response from the government saying that it agreed with our all-party recommendation. However, we have not seen any activity on it. It is one of those things that I think we can find some consensus on in the House. Given the fact that we have had some recent issues with regard to our telecommunications industry and the practices that we need to catch up on regarding consumer rights, it is very timely.

In general, Canada is basically treated as a colony when it comes to consumer rights, often from international firms and organizations that are doing business here. A quick example is the auto industry and the recalls in the Toyota file and others. Consumers in the United States got preferential treatment. They got hundreds of millions of dollars in investment because of terms and conditions when consumers were abused, whereas Canada did not get any of that. This came about from a number of different problems, but it is a good example showing that many times we are behind on common products that are sold across the border.

This brings me to the thrust of our Canadian industries. There have been significant challenges to get competition running in the system. We should take note, as the member has, that other countries have advanced legislation on this. Australia has a very keen interest in this and has developed a very influential pattern that can be followed. The United States has more information. The United Kingdom and the European Union also have better performance standards in terms of reporting.

Let us go to the surface of where this comes from at a base level with regard to letting consumers decide. It is fair to respond that if we look at some of the consumer products that are most frustrating and confusing for consumers to purchase, we would probably put in that category everything from insurance to purchasing a car to picking out which data plan a person and their family should have. Then there are all the promises, the subsets of conditions, the changing factors and the confusion. All of that is necessary to consider as people become experts, basically, to try to protect their consumer interests, with quite significant consequences.

This is very important, because we cannot see it through the lens of basically accepting that we cannot download a movie quicker. The reality is that what we have seen over the pandemic and even prior to that, as the New Democrats have argued for over a decade now, is that Internet service reliability, access in rural and urban areas and affordability are actually essential. Our strategy, which I will touch on later in terms of the Canadian market economy, has been a poor one. However, the reality is that as people make these decisions, they do not have a chance to advocate for themselves and their family as consumers, and there is a consequence. With children going online, with people working at home going online and with a series of different types of interpersonal connections in business, in education and on social platforms, this has significant consequences.

What the member is asking for is a regular reporting system that would actually allow consumers to have greater accountability. When we look at the different plans that are out there, it can be quite confusing, and the time frames of when the plans are accessed when using the product, being Internet access and the downloading speed, can vary significantly.

We should have the right to choose the advantage of either putting more money towards a service that might be more reliable, versus that of an advertiser that does not have the same type of follow-through, and then have a consequence later on. This is significant, because we are spending hundreds of dollars per family for this type of service. As was mentioned before, it is essential because it affects everything going on in our lives.

As New Democrats, we applaud this piece of legislation, because we feel it is going to also be significant for the economy. What I mean by that, which I do not think gets a lot of attention, is that coming out of the pandemic, Canada actually has an advantage with our network reliability. If there is more competition and lower pricing, if we change our spectrum auction to be more general in terms of access to the market and also a lower price threshold, we are going to take an advantage.

For example, what is taking place now is that many people are getting jobs in Canada to work internationally without even going over to those countries. They can work from home, and they can do a number of occupations now while maybe visiting once in a while, or predominately working in their homes. That brings a significant income stream into the Canadian economy. It brings us innovation and skilled labour that is domestically developed.

We should be looking at our network systems at the highest potential possible, which is why I want to touch on how bad our system has become with regard to the previous and current governments' use of the spectrum auction.

Usually, people's eyes roll back when we talk about the spectrum auction and what it is, but we need to think about it as a pure asset we have that does not have any type of encumbrance on public cost.

The spectrum auction is where we sell off the air rights. Consider it the same as water and land; it is completely open for development. What Canada has chosen to do is set up a spectrum auction, getting as much money back to the government as possible. The problem with that strategy has been that the companies, the traditional ones and the start-ups, have had to borrow a lot of money, encumbering them with the costs, which they pass on to Canadian consumers. However, other countries would have used the spectrum auction to facilitate higher-speed Internet service and development and lower costs, which is where New Democrats believe we should be going.

The government, right now, has raked in over $30 billion with regard to the cost it has brought back in, and that has been passed on to consumers. We have to get that under control. We need to have greater access and lower costs, which means there has to be give and take in that relationship.

When we look at a bill like this, it would also provide some extra competition from a number of different sector proponents and also straighten out some of the myths behind some of the costing platforms. It would show some of the vulnerabilities in the systems we have that I think we need to address, which I really think might be one of the more underrated aspects of the bill. It might be less about the fact that one wants to pay and get what one deserves, which is critical and should be a basic right no matter what.

Second to that, it could be really helpful to know where our weaknesses are in rural, remote and even urban settings, which are underperforming and which are actually declared and supposed to have certain service requirements. That actually affects economic development, education and social integration. For all those elements, we will have to look at shoring up or seeing where the real problems are, and having the CRTC and the capabilities of that reporting made public is critical.

I will conclude by thanking the member for bringing forward a very thoughtful bill during a minority Parliament where we want to get things done. I think all members should rally around this, because at the basic level it is for consumer protection, and beyond that for economic development, which is necessary, as well as for social integration and social justice for inclusion.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise once again in the House and to be able to speak to what I think is a fantastic bill by my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa in Manitoba. As a result, we are continuing the conversation about reliable Internet access.

There have been many speeches and questions in the House on this issue, and there are many members from different parties all across the country who care about the issue. The government has made announcements and promises over the years, but progress has been slow.

Bill C-288, however, is doing something more than talking about a problem; it is taking some practical steps forward that will make a real difference for Canadians.

To begin this debate at second reading, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa did a great job of laying out the three pillars of this legislation.

The first is a requirement for Internet service providers to provide Canadians the typical download and upload speeds they offer, not just the maximum theoretical speeds.

The second is a requirement to provide Canadians with the quality metrics they can expect during the peak periods, when people are most likely to use the service. For people at home who wonder why that is so important, the first reason in particular is that it deals with mostly what people would think of with their cellphone. A lot of the cellphone companies will talk about how their LTE speed on their cellphone could be up to 80 megabytes per second, or it could be 100 megabytes per second. The reality is that people are going to realize those speeds only if they are standing within 100 metres of the tower, with nobody else connected to the tower. That is the only time they are going to theoretically get that 100 megabyte speed. As technology has advanced and moved along, we are slowly getting to the point at which more people might be able to realize speeds closer to that, but it does not change the fact that for years people have been told that they could theoretically get that, without ever actually coming close to getting it.

The second metric that I mentioned is especially important when we think about companies that are providing service via satellite, or maybe via a wireless-to-the-home connection. They are told they are going to get x amount of speed, but the reality is that as more users are utilizing the system, it is going to drag that speed down to a point at which it almost becomes unusable. As we all saw over the last couple of years with people doing school from home and people working from home, it has become almost impossible for a lot of people, particularly people in rural Canada, to be able to participate in the economy and to be able to participate in school. That is why I think these are a really good first couple of steps with this bill.

The third pillar is to begin a consultation process with the CRTC and develop a framework that can work in the public's best interest.

These are three simple things that are meant to work together so customers can have accurate and transparent information about the services they are paying for. It sounds like this should be something basic to the experience of buying anything, but in this case it is not, and certainly not for millions of Canadians.

I want to make sure everyone understands the situation with Internet service in our country, which this bill is trying to improve. Let us start with some data that will help to put it in perspective.

Last year, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority, or CIRA, released a report called “Canadians Deserve a Better Internet”. Here is what it had to say about the performance of quality experienced by customers. It states:

ISPs market their service tiers as “up to” certain speeds, but when asked how often they feel they receive those speeds, only one-third of Canadians said it was most of the time or all of the time.

If only one-third consistently reach those advertised speeds, what does that say about the remaining two-thirds of Canadians? That would make for a strong majority of customers who do not believe they receive the quality of service they are paying for. With a number like that, it is clear something is not working for members of the public, and this creates a lack of trust, which weakens the industry itself. This is the problem Bill C-288 has in mind. A key part of the solution is transparency and, more importantly, accuracy. That is exactly what the first two points of this legislation would provide.

As the report noted, Internet providers market their service packages in a given area by saying they go “up to” a certain speed. This is called the maximum theoretical speed. It is a positive spin that sounds good to the potential customer and helps with making sales, but many do not realize the actual speed they are going to get does not match up with what they were told.

For some people, it is obviously annoying and inconvenient, but they can still get by, and that is bad enough, because they still feel like they are not getting what they paid for. For others, however, depending on where they live, it could make a more significant difference. They might be paying for Internet in theory, but it almost does not exist in practice. That is something that is a common occurrence in rural areas and that many members of this House have brought up, either in this debate or in other debates when we talk about broadband access. Either way, those people are likely to get a different impression as a customer if they are told about the typical speed on average and what the speed is during peak periods. It is a better reflection of the quality they will get when they are using the Internet, and it could affect the decision they might otherwise make when purchasing the product. Without having this information for more context, it is misleading in too many cases.

I proudly represent a rural riding myself. Over the years, I have heard from many people who have this problem with their Internet, and I actually saw it first-hand in my career prior to being a parliamentarian, when I worked as an Internet service provider technician. It was my job to not only install but also repair and fix people’s Internet services.

As someone who had to deal with people who were told that they were getting one thing, but the reality was that they could only possibly get a fraction of that, I saw that it caused a lot of confusion and headache. I can tell members that, for an installer, this legislation would make life a lot simpler, knowing that customers have the accurate and appropriate information prior to either signing a contract for service or purchasing equipment for their services.

For a lot of these paying customers, as well as for those of us working in the field, but especially for those customers, it would have been easier for everyone involved if there had been realistic information from the start, which, again, is what this bill would be doing. Bill C-288 would require that to be made available to Canadian consumers.

This is in line with what the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology recommended in a report last year. I know that the member who spoke before me already mentioned this recommendation, but I am going to say it again for the context of my speech. It recommends:

That the [CRTC] require Internet service providers to make information available to consumers on the usual download and upload speeds they can expect during peak periods so they can make more informed purchasing decisions based on accurate and transparent information, thereby improving the industry’s competitiveness overall.

It would be simple enough to do it, and I think all parties can see the benefit. After this recommendation was put forward, the government side has tried to say that it announced a proposed policy directive to the CRTC earlier this year. In reality, it is not the same thing. Its proposal is vague, and it does not mention the issue with typical speeds or peak periods.

That is what we need to see happen, and the sooner, the better. We do not need to wait around for the lagging speed of government to catch up. It is good to see the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa bring forward a bill trying to get it done. We need to act on this like it is a real priority.

As of last week, we have seen progress from the FCC in the United States. It will require broadband providers to display easy-to-understand labels with key information. This will include typical upload and download speeds, as well as typical latency.

For years now, Australia has had standards for advertising for typical speeds during peak periods. As a result, going back to 2018, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has found benefits for consumers. It has also improved the industry by strengthening market competition. We can learn from them and do the same thing. We can encourage more innovation.

This is something that will benefit all Canadians, not just those in rural areas. I want to make sure that this point is clear to everyone. Part of the problem we sometimes have in this place is that there are different ideas of what “rural” actually means.

For one of the government's programs for rural connectivity, I once asked for a definition, and I was told that communities of 30,000 people or less were eligible. The largest community in my riding, for example, is only 18,000, so it is interesting to see how that fits in. We are dealing with the population of a city, at least, as I have mentioned to members, it is where I am from.

Another example we had was that the definition of “rural” could be described as any community that uses oil and gas or agriculture as its main economic driver. I think of some of the cities that we have out west, such as Edmonton and Calgary, which would be more than happy to say that those are some of the driving forces of their economies. I think that we would also agree that Calgary and Edmonton are not rural communities.

When it comes to Internet access, there was a recent news article published online with this headline: “Internet services in rural GTA ‘like living in the dark ages’: Oshawa residents”. People who live near urban areas of the GTA are describing problems similar to what I hear from my constituents back in rural Saskatchewan. One of the residents said, “We are within minutes of a shopping center and yet no internet”. That does not sound like someone living in the middle of nowhere.

Another person spoke about paying “an exorbitant amount of money for service that is less than adequate.” She continued, “We’ve tried almost every service provider available, and the end result is the same – spotty at best internet connection.”

My plea would be for everyone to consider supporting Bill C-288 because it would get the job done for getting accurate reporting for Canadians.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to talk about the importance of Internet services and the need for consumer protection in the telecommunications industry.

The Government of Canada knows that now more than ever Canadians rely on telecom services for work, school, finances, health care and just staying connected to one another. All too often I hear Canadians' frustrations regarding their telecom services. I will continue to hold Canada's telecom service providers accountable and keep Canadians updated on the work our government is doing to strengthen the reliability of our networks as well as increase affordability, competition and consumer protection in this sector.

We are here today to discuss private member's bill, Bill C-288, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act regarding transparent and accurate broadband services information. I support the intent of the bill and agree that consumers need access to clear information about how broadband services are performing, so they can be confident that what they are paying for is what they are actually getting.

In fact, consumers also need more information about the cellular coverage provided by mobile services. Our government is already taking action. We will work to ensure the actions we have already taken to address this topic work in tandem with this legislation to improve outcomes for Canadians and can be implemented quickly.

I firmly believe that consumers must have access to clear information about how broadband services are performing, so that they can be sure that they are getting what they are paying for. In fact, consumers also need more information about the mobile services that provide cellular coverage.

In May our government tabled in both Houses of Parliament a draft policy direction to the CRTC on a renewed approach to telecommunications policy. The proposed policy direction is legally binding and directs the CRTC on a range of issues. These include putting in place new rules to improve competition, enhancing the rights of consumers and their access to information, speeding up the deployment of high-quality broadband networks, and promoting lower prices and better telecom services for Canadian consumers.

The policy direction also asks service providers to collect, publicly report and make available to consumers information on the services they offer. It also requires them to test the technologies that are used the most in rural regions, such as fixed wireless. What is more, we are asking the CRTC to develop and implement a standardized and robust approach for reporting mobile wireless coverage.

Another key part of the proposed policy direction would require the CRTC to take measures to promote clarity and transparency of pricing information and service plan characteristics in marketing materials. This will allow consumers to better understand their choices in the Internet market.

The CRTC has worked on that. For example, it introduced a program called measuring broadband Canada, which involved testing a number of broadband performance metrics, such as download and upload speeds, the impact of peak periods and latency for Internet service providers that offer the highest subscription fees.

The program was flawed, however. Participation was voluntary, and the study did not take into account the reality of rural regions. Internet services using fixed wireless technology were not included in the tests, which left many Canadians, especially those in rural and remote regions, without any information on the performance of their Internet service.

Our government understands that the CRTC needs to ensure that it is not only testing broadband performance generally, but addressing the gaps in the previous tests. We have measures under way to make sure this happens. We are in agreement that the CRTC needed additional direction to ensure consumers are fully protected, and the binding policy direction will achieve that in parallel with the new legislation.

The proposed direction was tabled in both chambers of Parliament on May 30, 2022, for a minimum of 40 sitting days and has been the subject of extensive public consultation. I will soon present the final version, which takes into account what we heard from the Governor in Council. It will then be published in the form of a decree that will be legally binding for the CRTC.

The policy direction requires that testing be done on a regular basis and clarifies that participation is mandatory for ISPs. It also captures more technologies by including mobile wireless in addition to broadband Internet.

The direction will soon be finalized and the government will be able to easily update it as the market and technologies evolve. If new technologies emerge, we can ask the CRTC to take measures to test them. I think that everyone here recognizes that this is a very important issue. We want to show Canadians that we are working with our colleagues to improve the telecommunications sector's response to consumers' needs.

For these reasons, I am also supporting adjustments to the proposed policy direction text so that it takes into account language from this bill and makes clear that we recognize the importance of regular, mandatory broadband performance testing. This approach will demonstrate that Parliament is working together to progress diligently toward important goals for the telecom sector.

The direction contains many other important initiatives that will encourage competition and benefit consumers. For example, it will eliminate regulatory uncertainty for small competing service providers and strengthen their business case so that they can offer more services on the market. It will also order the CRTC to improve access to telephone poles and similar infrastructure, which we know is important for the construction of new broadband networks.

The policy direction also instructs the CRTC to increase the public's awareness of the telecommunications complaints organization so that consumers have recourse if they are treated unfairly by a telecom provider. It will require the CRTC to proactively and systemically improve the accessibility of telecommunications services for Canadians with disabilities.

I am pleased that the policy direction can work together with the proposed legislation to make progress in this area for Canadians.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

I have a great audience tonight, Madam Speaker. I hope I will be able to concentrate.

Stephen Hawking once said, “We are all now connected by the Internet, like neurons in a giant brain.” In this giant brain, good Internet is equivalent to a high IQ. It lets us go further in life. The issues in the Internet service market involve both the providers themselves and the legal framework in which they operate, and can be summed up in two points that are intrinsically linked. The first is the inadequate service quality and download speeds, and the second is the exorbitant rates that Quebeckers and Canadians pay for their telecommunications services.

This bill seeks, among other things, to give consumers the ability to make an informed decision when choosing an Internet service provider. In other words, Internet providers will no longer have the right to advertise the highest theoretical speed possible, but will have to indicate the average speed, especially during peak periods. That is a good start.

We should note right from the outset that the proposed measures apply only to fixed broadband service and not mobile phones, even though everyone knows that cell phone rates in Canada are much higher than elsewhere in the world, but let us move on.

This bill will contribute to improving the situation, but other actions will have to be taken. As I will explain, there needs to be a discussion on competition and the market power of the telecommunications giants.

I would like to begin with the importance of having access to high-quality Internet. This service is beyond essential. The quality and affordability of Internet services are closely linked to the economic performance of Quebec and Canada.

Let me share a quick story. In my former life as a consultant, I had a contract in the Republic of Palau. It is a small island paradise in the middle of the Pacific, and I was able to help its finance department improve their environmental, social and accounting standards so they could receive money from foreign funds. The Island of Palau does not really have Internet. My stay went very well with a bit of an Internet connection, and therefore less work, potentially, but ultimately, we can see that Palau's economic development has suffered a great deal due to this. I experienced that.

The trend has been moving towards digitizing the economy for several years now, and the pandemic only accelerated this. The massive shift to telework and people's ability to work remotely should encourage the development of the regions of Quebec and Canada. Unfortunately, the Liberal government is struggling to keep up with technological developments and the digitization of the economy. Its outdated policies mean that Canada often lags behind on telecommunications affordability.

We cannot talk about economic development without considering the quality of Internet access. It is as important to economic development as the power grid was in Quebec in the 1960s.

The Quebec government is working hard to improve Internet access, particularly in remote areas. High-speed Internet access for all eligible households in Quebec is a priority for the Quebec government. Furthermore, it has invested huge amounts of money in this area. To date, the Quebec government has budgeted $1.3 billion to get households connected faster to high-speed Internet. In comparison, the Government of Canada has invested $1 billion this year, bringing its total investment to $2.75 billion. In Quebec, the amount is about $150 per person. In Canada, it is half that, or only about $75 per person.

Now let us look at what is happening internationally. Every year, The Economist compiles data on Internet services in about 100 countries. Although Canada scores well for quality of infrastructure and literacy, which is Canadians' understanding of and ability to use Internet services, its rank is rapidly declining because of its competition and affordability scores.

If the government really wants to bring telecommunications costs down and improve service quality, it has to use the Competition Act. Canada has a frustrating tendency to tolerate and sometimes even encourage monopolistic practices. In many of the country's markets, including telecommunications, a handful of companies dominate the entire market. The upshot is that providers have a lot more leeway when it comes to deciding how much to charge.

Time for a quick economics refresher. In an ideal market, the price of a service is equivalent to the marginal cost, that is, the cost that the supplier pays to provide the service. It is quite easy to demonstrate, and this has been studied by economists, that in Quebec and in Canada, we pay a price that is much higher than the marginal cost. There are people who agree. For example, Bell, Rogers, Shaw and Telus collectively account for 71.7% of Internet service revenues. That is what we call an oligopoly, a market dominated by a small number of suppliers. For cellphone services, it is even worse. Three companies, Bell, Rogers and Telus, hold nearly 91% of the market.

As a general rule, increasing the number of companies in a market does two things that benefit consumers and are ultimately good for the economy. Healthy competition in a market tends to lower the prices paid by consumers. In addition, companies often improve the quality of their services to attract and retain customers. While this rule is not absolute, it applies particularly well to telecommunications markets. Let us look again at what is done in other countries. Telecommunications prices are much lower in Europe, where there are a large number of telecommunications service providers. In The Economist's list, France, Spain, the Netherlands and Sweden all rank higher than Canada on the Internet affordability index.

This summer, the Liberal government passed a competition reform that does not do enough to result in real change. The Liberal government's competition policies are outdated and not very well suited to the reality of the digital economy in Quebec and Canada. In practical terms, some sections of the Competition Act, which dates back to the 1980s, are obsolete and due for a serious update. It is not just the Bloc Québécois that is saying that. The competition commissioner is, too. In fact, in January, he published a list of recommendations to modernize the Competition Act. One of them involves removing the provision on the efficiency gains argument, which allows one company to merge with another on the pretext that it will be more efficient. Let us acknowledge right off the bat that this provision is an anomaly. It does not exist in the rest of the world. It exists in Canada and it is putting many consumers at a real disadvantage, so it should be removed from the act.

This very argument could be made in the transaction between Shaw and Rogers, which is currently before the court. Let us recall that two out of the four companies that make up the oligopoly on Internet telecommunications want to merge their services. When this provision is invoked, the Competition Bureau cannot block the transaction, even if it is anti-competitive. In a market that is already perceived to be run by an oligopoly, this transaction should not go through. Speaking before the Competition Tribunal quite recently, an economist from Dalhousie University, Mr. Osberg, said that low-income Canadians who are already dealing with inflationary pressures would be the most affected if the cost of telecommunications increases in the wake of the merger. The last thing we need right now is to further reduce competition and guarantee that prices increase even more.

The other thing the commissioner recommended as an important change to the Competition Act is related to the fact that the Competition Bureau does not have the final say on a transaction. A minister, an elected official, someone who is anything but neutral, can make a decision that goes against the bureau's recommendation. That is what happens. In the case of the Shaw-Rogers merger, the Minister of Industry intervened to defend the transaction. Yes, he is defending the deal, suggesting that part of Shaw be acquired by one of the other four providers instead. Guess what the bureau's response was. It said no, that is not a good enough solution. Unfortunately, it is not up to the bureau to make that decision. The minister will have the final say.

In closing, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-288, because it will allow consumers to make more informed choices about Internet packages. Consumers need to be able to see the actual download speeds they will be getting, rather than the theoretical highest speed. Since speeds are lower at peak hours, it is important that consumers get accurate information about the service they will receive at those times.

In short, the bill is a step in the right direction, but it clearly does not go far enough. As my leader likes to say, the Bloc Québécois is never against apple pie. However, I know that apple pie alone does not make a nutritious dinner. We need more.

I hope that I demonstrated, in a short amount of time, the importance of in-depth reform of the Competition Bureau, real reform that will stop the telecommunications giants' lobbyists from abusing their position of power and ensure that consumers, honest citizens, are finally protected.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa for his right of reply.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will begin by thanking my colleagues who have spoken in support of my bill.

It is humbling to see a piece of legislation with one's name on it move through the parliamentary process. It is also a reminder of why we were sent to the House of Commons and of our duty to represent the Canadians who put their trust in us.

I also thank our Conservative leader for appointing me as the shadow minister responsible for connectivity. Since I was first elected, I have strived to improve connectivity in Canada. I could have introduced legislation that scored political points and did not have a chance to pass, but I wanted to make a difference on the issue of connectivity.

When I began developing Bill C-288, I approached it from a non-partisan, pro-consumer point of view. I was privileged to work with industry experts, researchers, academics, advocacy groups and members from across the political spectrum to get where we are today, and here we are. In the coming days, Parliament will vote on Bill C-288, a truly non-partisan, pro-consumer bill.

Since Bill C-288 was introduced, a few things have come to light. One thing is an argument that the government’s proposed policy directive to the CRTC would address the content of my bill. I want to make two points on this argument. The first is that nowhere in the government’s policy directive are there details of what information Internet companies must provide consumers with. There is no mention of peak periods. There is no mention of typical speeds. There is no mention of public hearings.

The second is the notion that these important decisions should be left entirely to the CRTC, instead of being made by parliamentarians. Connectivity issues are too important to always be pushed into policy directives. Members of the House should make these decisions on behalf of the Canadians we represent and not leave everything up to the CRTC. Nowhere in the Telecommunications Act is there a public interest objective focused on ensuring that the economic and social interests of Canadians are at the centre of the system.

Bill C-288 strikes a balance between empowering parliamentarians and a regulatory body. While some may argue that this bill does not go far enough, I think it is an important step forward.

The other matter that has emerged since my bill was introduced is that the United States Federal Communications Commission announced that they will mandate a broadband service label. This was a direct result of the legislated Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. It will ensure consumers have a better understanding of what Internet services they are paying for. This significant announcement reflects the content of Bill C-288.

A statement from the FCC commissioner, Geoffrey Starks, on this announcement read:

Instead of legalese, consumers will have clear, straightforward information about a provider’s service offerings....

He went on to state:

I fully expect that this transparency will increase competition and hopefully result in lower prices for consumers.

What a significant statement. Too many Canadians purchase Internet services at sky-high prices only to realize that the quality and speed they expected to receive are nowhere near what they actually receive.

As I have said, Canadians do not believe they are receiving the Internet service they are paying for. Connectivity is no longer a luxury. Connectivity is essential to the safety of our communities, to the economic growth of rural regions and to the accessibility of services like education and health care. Canadians should know what they are paying for before they purchase an Internet service, not after.

I encourage all parliamentarians to support Bill C-288.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I ask that it carry on division, please.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to an order made on Thursday, June 23, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 30, at the time provided for Oral Questions.