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

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

moved that Bill C-288, An Act to amend the Telecommunications Act (transparent and accurate broadband services information), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-288, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act.

Access to quality Internet is essential, and rural Canadians, in particular, understand the devastating impacts associated with poor Internet service across our nation. If members of the House were to speak with Canadians across our country, they would realize that many feel cheated, misled and ripped-off by Internet companies. This is because millions of Canadians are frustrated to learn that the Internet quality they are paying for is nowhere near what they expected.

Consumers make purchasing decisions based on information. When it comes to the Internet, Canadians expect the highest quality of service. Unfortunately, when consumers are making decisions on what Internet provider is best for them, they do not have access to the most accurate and realistic information.

Canadians are exposed to advertisements and offers that display a maximum theoretical speed. Misleading words such as “up to” are used in these ads to convince consumers that a service is better than it is. These theoretical speeds and performance metrics that consumers are provided with do not always reflect the actual speed delivered to them.

A constituent recently told me that she signed up for a high-speed wireless Internet plan that advertised download speeds of up to 50 megabits per second. Many speed tests later, she was not even getting 10% of that speed. If she knew what speed she was actually going to receive, she would never have signed a contract for such a high price.

The problem is that the current legislative landscape allows Internet service providers to advertise theoretical speeds without providing consumers with the speeds they can realistically expect. This confuses consumers, prevents competition and contributes to customer complaints.

Sure, the speeds that companies advertise have the potential to be reached, but the highest speeds are most likely reached during the hours when the consumer is not using the Internet. Some Canadians have called this practice “false advertising”, but it is not. Internet providers are following the law, which is why we need to change the law so it will benefit Canadians.

Data released by the Canadian Internet Registration Authority found that only one-third of Canadians believed their household received the “up to” speed included in their home Internet package all or most of the time. That is it. Only 33% of Canadians believe they fully receive the quality for which they pay. These numbers are even lower in my home province of Manitoba.

Canadians deserve to know what they are paying for, which is why I have introduced Bill C-288.

Bill C-288 would implement a simple change to ensure Canadians have access to accurate and transparent information. It would require Internet service providers to present a reliable indicator of the speeds and quality metrics that are in the public’s best interest.

The first pillar of the legislation is the requirement for Internet service providers to provide Canadians with typical download and upload speeds, not maximum theoretical speed but typical speeds. Canadians want to know what they can consistently expect to receive, not what they can receive once in a blue moon.

When Canadians visit any car dealership to purchase a new vehicle, there is a standardized label on the windows displaying the fuel economy of that specific vehicle. That number does not reflect the fuel economy when driving down a hill; it is a number that reflects what a driver can realistically expect to consume in fuel on average. This information is even divided into two categories to provide Canadians with better information, city and highway consumption. This enables consumers to make more informed purchasing decisions on what product best fits their needs. Consumers expect to know what they are paying for, and rightfully so.

The second pillar of the legislation would provide Canadians with the quality metrics that they can expect during the time that they will most likely use the service. I refer to this as the “peak period”. Few Canadians care what their Internet speeds are at 3 o’clock in the morning, but they do care what they are during work hours or family movie night. This is why Bill C-288 would require Internet providers to display speeds during peak periods. Consumers should understand how their Internet will perform when they are most likely to use the service.

Finally, the third pillar of the legislation would initiate a consultation process that would empower Canadians to develop a framework that is in the public's best interest.

Bill C-288 would empower consumers and industry to participate in public hearings that would contribute to a made-in-Canada model. Developing a model that works for Canada and clearly legislating the criteria is a better process than any policy directive led by the government.

We all know that access to accurate and transparent information is the bedrock of consumer decision-making and protection. Unfortunately, Canadians do not have access to it. As I mentioned earlier, this confuses consumers, prevents competition and contributes to customer complaints. Bill C-288 is a non-partisan pro-consumer bill.

The bill would not only enable Canadians to make informed purchasing decisions by providing them with accurate and transparent information, but it would also increase Internet quality within the industry. Competition is needed to ensure companies improve quality or decrease prices. When companies get too comfortable, they fail to innovate and improve.

Studies on Internet service across the world have proven that service quality increases with an increase in product transparency. Research conducted by Dr. Reza Rajabiun and Dr. Catherine Middleton from the Ted Rogers School of Information Technology Management published work on the correlation between information transparency and overall industry quality. Their research showed that a problem existed within the telecom industry because companies could not fairly compete based on quality due to the inability to signal their authentic service to potential consumers.

Imagine two Internet companies competing in Canada. I will refer to them as company X and company Y. They both advertise the same maximum theoretical speed of 50 megabits per second download and 10 megabits per second upload.

How do consumers know which service provider is better? They do not. On paper, both companies appear to offer high-quality Internet, however, we know they are advertising theoretical speeds rather than expected speeds. Although both companies advertise the same maximum theoretical speed, one provider may have much better service during the time when consumers are more likely to use the service.

For example, company X may be able to consistently deliver speeds 60% higher than company Y. This could be a result of multiple factors, including lower over-subscription ratios, improved operations or better equipment. However, company X cannot signal this quality due to the noise produced from the theoretical speed of company Y. As a result, company Y has no reason to improve its service to compete based on quality.

The researchers I mentioned earlier called this concept the “Lemons Problem” and stated the following:

Even if there are a large number of buyers of high quality products and sellers willing to meet their demand, the existence of the so-called Lemons Problem can generate markets where low quality goods dominate since providers of high quality goods cannot credibly signal the quality of their products due to the noise from their low quality rivals.

They also stated:

In addition to usual concerns about consumer protection, these considerations indicate that the potential for misleading advertising by low quality players in the market can distort platform competition and reduce the pace of technological change in the market for Internet connectivity.

If the House wants to improve telecom competition, we must allow Canadians to compare accurate information. Consumers will take their money elsewhere if a company's service quality is worse than its competitors.

Not all connectivity solutions require money; some require common sense. This legislation is truly a pro-consumer, common sense solution. That is why countries around the world are leading the way and have introduced similar policies that even go beyond the legislation we are debating today.

Australia is leading the way on this front. After consultation with the public and industry, the Aussies have implemented clear guidance and standards on advertising with typical speeds during peak periods, and consumers have benefited.

According to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's 2018 report on the effectiveness of broadband speed claims, these changes have promoted more competitive and efficient markets for the supply of broadband services. Overall, the effectiveness report concluded that increased transparency resulted in better quality services and better consumer understanding of performance.

After the industry guidance was implemented, Australian bandwidth congestion began decreasing.

Section 2.23 of the effectiveness report stated:

Overall we consider the Guidance has assisted in improving the information and support available to broadband consumers and promoting competition among RSPs.

That is a powerful statement for those looking to improve connectivity in Canada.

The United States proposed a broadband disclosure label for Internet service providers that resembled a nutrition label so consumers could easily understand and compare Internet packages.

In the U.K., the Internet service providers must state the average speed that at least 50% of their consumers receive during the high-usage hours.

Furthermore, the European Union's open Internet regulation requires Internet companies to provide information relating to their normally available minimum and maximum speeds. Clearly, this is a solution that protects consumers and increases competition through better information.

I should also note that in June 2021, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology published report 7, and recommended the following:

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.

Not one party dissented in that report.

I have been extremely appreciative of the industry experts and organizations that have supported this legislation. It confirms the importance of this issue and the impact it is having on Canadians.

I want to quote a statement released by OpenMedia, an organization that works to keep Internet open and affordable. The statement reads:

When you sign up for an Internet plan, you deserve to know what you’re paying for.... It’s a simple matter of truth and transparency. If an Internet provider is advertising certain speeds, consumers have the right to know before they buy if those speeds accurately reflect average network performance. Other countries have handled this issue — Canada is falling behind. We hope to see every MP support and help pass Bill C-288.

This is not a partisan issue; this is a Canadian issue. I hope that every member of the House will join me in supporting this legislation that would provide Canadians with accurate and transparent broadband information.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, one issue that the member did not really address was the CRTC. CRTC plays a very strong role in our society and it deals with a lot of the telecommunications that the member references. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on how CRTC would be taken into consideration with respect to what he has proposed, especially if we take into consideration that it has already been given some instruction.

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

Madam Speaker, I think the member is talking about the policy directive that it has already been given. The bottom line is that the policy directive does not mention peak period or typical speeds, and that is the biggest hole in this whole thing. My whole speech evolved around that.

Once consumers realize what they are actually buying as a service, they will be able to make that decision of what service best fits them. Right now, it is a very “up to“ or theoretical speed, so they are basically supplying a service that can be smoke and mirrors at certain times, especially in rural Canada.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am particularly interested in this bill because I represent a rural region where Internet service is, unfortunately, not yet available to everyone, even in 2022. Where it is available, as my colleague explained very well in his speech, people are not necessarily given all of the information. Companies will say that users have access up to a certain speed, for example, when that is not always the case. It is not adapted to the needs of the service users.

I would like my colleague to explain, once again, how this bill will benefit rural areas in particular and whether it will promote competition among Internet service providers once they are more transparent.

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

Madam Speaker, this is what the whole bill gets at. Once consumers realize what kind of accurate information they would be getting, as I said in my speech, from company X and company Y, and they know what kind of service they are getting, they could decide what kind of service they need. With that information, they might decide not to need all that information or all that cost that goes with it. They might not need so many terabytes of downloadable information if they decide they can get it in a more accurate and timely period when they are actually using the Internet.

Part of all the time and cost that goes into using the Internet are all the delays that happen in buffering. We go to use the Internet and all of a sudden we do not have a connection and have to wait for that conversation to be complete. All those minutes and time that is lost in trying to get a connection could be used getting business done. We do not need an Internet service provider of poor quality standing in the middle of businesses and people trying to communicate to do business with Canadians and the rest of the world.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa for this interesting bill. I look forward to hearing the debate today.

My question for him is around enforcement of the provisions in the bill. It would do something fairly simple, which is to require companies to clearly and transparently state what they are actually selling and what consumers can expect. For companies that are not doing that in accordance with the regulations, how would the enforcement process work? I can see two options in that regard. One is a complaints-based process, and the other one involves independent auditing by the CRTC.

Could the member talk about which he would find preferable?

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

Madam Speaker, section 72.01 of the Telecommunications Act addresses a breach within the act, so it is covered. I do believe if a telecommunications company is breaking the law it should be held to account. I have no problems with supporting that type of concept.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to this issue. I will start off by giving a very clear indication.

When we think of Internet or cell services, it is really important to recognize the fact that consumers do have rights. It is so important that we look at ways we can enhance competition. Nothing frustrates me or my colleagues more than when we get contacted by constituents, and we want to be able to send a very strong message that we are very much aware of the issues and concerns. We understand the importance of competition and the impact it has on prices and want to highlight the fact that consumers have rights.

We have seen through government actions, both present and past, that we have a government that is clearly there to support consumers. I will make reference to that for those who may be following the debate, as well as to how technology has advanced to the point where we are having these types of discussions here on the floor of the House and outside of the House in some of the arm's-length institutions that we have established to protect the rights of consumers.

It was not that long ago when, as a parliamentarian, the Internet was a new, wonderful thing. I was probably further ahead than most of my constituents back in 1988-89 when we required a telephone line. The first thing we heard was a dial tone followed by pushed buttons, and then these weird hook-up connections. Some might say I am a little older than others as I can still remember the era of the old-fashioned Apple computer. We just waited for the simplest of things to appear on the monitor. Today the expectation is far greater and we need to recognize that advancement.

Computers today are than more just something that we use to play games, watch a video or do a Google search. Over the summer, I had the opportunity to meet with a couple of businesses that are very much there today as a direct result of having access to the Internet. Its speed is absolutely critical in terms of their future growth.

Today more than ever, people will consult with the Internet on all sorts of how-to repairs for something in their home, or to take a look at symptoms in regard to a health-related issue. Suffice it to say that the role that the Internet plays today is virtually an essential service.

The current government and all members of the House, as the member opposite indicated, it does not matter what side of the House one sits on, are all concerned about the issue of price points and consumer awareness, and what we can do to ensure that we are serving Canadians well through the responsibilities we have.

We do that in many ways. We have a Minister of Rural Economic Development who, over the last number of years, has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in rural communities, from coast to coast to coast, to assist in building an infrastructure. Being in downtown Toronto, Vancouver or my own city of Winnipeg, there is a high expectation of fast Internet service.

One thing we can do to enable economic growth, whether in a high-density urban centre or a remote rural setting, is to invest in the Internet. Part of doing that is recognizing the services that are being provided through the private companies.

That gets to the core of the issue that my friend across the way is raising. Like him, all Canadians have seen the ads. The ads are plentiful with the whole idea of “up to” a certain set speed. A consumer looking at that would think that sounds awfully fast. For many consumers like me, it is hard to get an appreciation of how fast that actually is, let alone after factoring in the different times of day or a peak period versus three o'clock in the morning, which has been highlighted.

It has been pointed out that there is a difference in demand during a peak period versus those non-usage hours or those hours when the number of people accessing the Internet is down. In fact, often when one sees those packages one will see five or six items in one household that use the Internet as a way to be able to watch TV, communicate with a family member, do business transactions or do random Google searches. Whether using a desktop computer, a high-resolution TV or an iPad, the demand even within one household can be fairly extensive. These are the types of issues that will be best served if we are prepared to step up.

The member across the way brought forward Bill C-288, which has some real substance to it. As I pointed out, there was policy direction given to the CRTC earlier this year, around April or May. How can we, through using the CRTC as an arm's-length organization, ensure that we protect consumers? We might at times have personal opinions and concerns in regard to the CRTC, but, all in all, it does a relatively good job for Canadians.

The CRTC has a mandate. It has been asked to look at the ways we can ensure we are protecting the interests of consumers, such as mandating broadband testing and performance reporting, which is absolutely critical. One does not need to read between the lines of what the member is proposing. That is the thing that would be required to provide the type of consumer awareness that many of us would advocate for.

I look forward to hearing from the CRTC and some of the recommendations that it will bring forward. For me, put quite simply, I like consumer labelling that is simplified so that the average person can truly understand it. I want to know what sort of speed is there during that prime time. Being able to do a comparison between companies is really important. It is very hard to do that given the current system. That is why we do need change. I acknowledge that.

I am anticipating that, in early 2023, we will be hearing something that is positive and encouraging from the CRTC. I look forward to that.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the bill from the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.

The member and I have had the opportunity to discuss it and I told him this week that the Bloc Québécois agreed to allow this bill to be studied in committee. In fact, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology already made a recommendation to the government in June 2021 in its report on the accessibility and affordability of telecommunications services in Canada.

This enactment amends the Telecommunications Act to require Canadian carriers to make tacitly available certain information in respect of the fixed broadband services that they offer. It also requires the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, to hold public hearings to determine the form and manner in which this information is to be provided to the public.

In 2016, the CRTC declared that broadband Internet was an essential service for all Canadians. This bill is part of the measures that will not only allow consumers to finally have a better experience on the Internet, but also ensure that actual speeds are closer to expected speeds, in other words, that people actually get what they pay for.

It also takes aim at competition between Internet services providers, or ISPs, which will now need to make more detailed and accurate descriptions of the services offered. The quality we are looking for, in addition to reliability, is the ability to recognize the actual browsing speed offered to consumers. Thus, consumers will be able to make informed purchasing decisions and will be able to appreciate the full value of their purchase.

For several years now, Internet service providers have been criticized for shortchanging the public. At least, that is the impression that consumers have of them. Consumers pay astronomical prices for Internet services, particularly in the regions, only to realize, in most cases, that the speeds they achieve are much lower than expected.

The experience with the Internet is very different for residents of rural areas. Internet service providers are well aware of it and I understand that they are working hard to ensure that this reliability can be achieved. However, it is time to do better. The public no longer want to settle just for the maximum theoretical speeds that the network can offer. As we know, this is due to the current legislative framework, which allows ISPs to only mention maximum theoretical speeds in their advertising.

The download speed in question here refers to the speed at which downloads take place, usually calculated in megabits per second. People are entitled to receive the download speed they signed up for. Internet service providers use words like “up to”, leading consumers to believe that their Internet access services are better than they really are.

Bill C‑288 seeks to correct that practice and bring Internet service providers to sell the speed that consumers will receive during the hours they are most likely to use those services. Bill C‑288 will therefore provide order and have a significant impact on how Internet services are sold in Quebec and Canada.

Under section 37 of the Telecommunications Act, ISPs are already required to provide various data to the CRTC, including data on download and upload speeds. Since they already have that information, it will be easy for them to make some of it available to their customers.

Earlier, I mentioned that the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology had supported a Bloc Québécois recommendation in 2021 in its report entitled “Affordability and Accessibility of Telecommunications Services in Canada: Encouraging Competition to (Finally) Bridge the Digital Divide”. That recommendation is as follows:

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.

All the parties agreed on this issue in 2021 because most of the witnesses and many society stakeholders agreed that consumers are entitled to have this information.

If they do not have the exact information when making a purchase decision, consumers may find themselves paying too much for a service or not purchasing the one that best meets their needs. The deployment of Internet in rural areas has caused its share of dissatisfaction and led to many complaints to the CRTC. There is no denying that all the barriers to competition in the telecommunications industry must be eliminated.

In the current context, it is impossible for an ISP that advertises the real quality of its service to compete with providers that advertise theoretically misleading speeds. ISPs therefore have little incentive to improve the quality of their service or reduce their price to attract customers. The bill gives the CRTC the flexibility to require that Internet service providers make other indicators of the quality of their service available to the public, such as wait times or the level of instability. Paragraph 24.2(2)(c) will also allow the CRTC to require disclosure of any other information that is in the public's interest.

The measures proposed in the bill are not new. They have been successfully implemented in other countries, including Australia, the United Kingdom and European Union member states. We see provisions in this bill that encourage competition between Internet service providers, which will bring prices down over time and improve the overall quality of the network. Consumers are entitled to have access when they need it most to the download speed to which they agreed.

I will digress for a moment because it is such an important issue in the regions. A service is provided, but the infrastructure is often outdated or lacking. Too many users can overload a given band, particularly during peak periods. As a result, the quality of the services is often lower in the regions. In large cities and urban areas, there is competition, and different providers can meet those needs. In rural areas, however, there is often only one provider and, if they are overloaded, the entire service cannot be offered. This has repercussions on all economic development measures in some villages, particularly in agriculture.

I am thinking of home education in rural areas, Facebook posts and the ability to stream videos, music or television shows. It is really an essential issue. If Internet service providers ensure that they give the right speed and invest in their network to make it more robust, stronger and more resilient, everyone will win. For too many years, we have seen lower quality Internet services in rural and regional areas due to a lack of investment.

Bill C‑288 addresses many concerns from people in my riding, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, and will allow them to make informed decisions while improving service quality throughout the industry.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this morning and contribute to this debate on Bill C-288. I want to start by thanking my colleague, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa for bringing this forward. I understand that it has been brought forward in previous Parliaments, and perhaps this time we will have a chance to pass it.

This is a bill that does something that I think is fairly simple and that most Canadians probably take for granted or assume is already articulated somewhere in regulation or law. It requires companies to clearly and transparently and honestly depict the services they are selling, so that when consumers purchase those services, they know what they are buying. This is a basic tenet of consumer protection and one that I believe has broad support across our country.

The bill, as has been mentioned, amends the Telecommunications Act to do a couple of things. First, it requires carriers and Internet service providers to provide transparent, clear-to-understand information about the real-world performance of the Internet services they are selling. Second, it lays out a consultation process, a series of public hearings, that would be used to create and inform the framework by which this bill would be enacted and rolled out. These are things most people can get behind. They are pretty basic requirements and they have a number of benefits.

I mentioned the benefit in terms of consumer protection. This is particularly important for seniors, for people who may not have a detailed understanding of some of the nomenclature that is used when talking about Internet services, for people who did not grow up with access to digital services, and for people who are vulnerable to being taken for a ride by companies that are less than honest about the products they are selling.

This is also positive because, as many know, Canada does not stack up well when it comes to our telecommunications sector. When it comes to transparency, when it comes to competition and when it comes to pricing, Canada is among the worst countries in the world. Any measures, in terms of regulation and reform, that tilt the scales in favour of consumers are, I think, warranted.

It is good to see that the Conservative Party supports reasonable regulations in the interests of consumers. I know, in many ways, it is more of a fan of deregulation, but this is certainly one area where we can find broad agreement across party lines.

Finally, it is always good to catch up with other countries around the world and, in this case, catch up to where Australia was over a decade ago. That is good to see. We can certainly look to their experience and their example to inform this process moving forward.

Of course, I would be remiss if I did not offer some of my concerns, the first of which is that this bill could go much further in terms of protecting Canadians, particularly in the area of affordability. Perhaps I will run through some of the areas I have questions about.

The first is enforcement. I raised this a few minutes ago in my question to the member. It is one thing to require companies to provide transparent and honest advertising about the services they provide. It is another thing to enforce that provision.

Thinking about how this could take place, we can envision either a complaint-driven process or an audit-driven process. I am trying to imagine how it would look for a consumer to lodge a complaint with the CRTC based on the provisions in this bill, particularly because this bill acknowledges that service delivery can vary depending on the time of day.

If we look at the Australian model, some of the advertising that is consistent with their regulations is pretty broad. It is hard to see how someone would prove an infraction when, for instance, consumers are promised a standard evening speed of between two and 23 megabits per second. That is a pretty broad range.

For a claim that around 50% of customers achieve download speeds greater than 50 megabits per second, I think it would be tough for an individual consumer to call up the CRTC and lodge a complaint, claiming they were in the 50% that was not served properly, and have the CRTC investigate that. Having some sort of independent verification of the real-world performance of these telecoms would be beneficial. Of course, that would require a system and some cost, so we need to understand how these rules, if they come into force, are actually going to protect consumers.

My biggest concern is that, while these regulations and this legislative change may benefit consumers in areas where there is competition for Internet services, there are vast areas of our country where there is simply no competition in purchasing Internet. This is something we need to turn our minds to. How do we deliver transparency in advertising, and how do we deliver choice, competition and affordability for rural and remote residents of our country?

I will tell members a bit about the part of the country I get to represent. It is a vast, rural area. Many of the communities are tiny, remote communities with limited services, particularly when it comes to Internet service. I cannot tell members the number of residents who have approached me with concerns about the lack of choice and service they have for access to Internet. This is a big deal when it comes to ensuring economic development in and attracting residents to remote communities, and when it comes to delivering a basic quality of life in an era when so many of the services that we rely on are moving online.

I was recently contacted by a fellow named Lee Marion. He is the postmaster in Telegraph Creek, which is a tiny and remote indigenous community hours away from the nearest neighbouring community. It is way up in northwest B.C., and it only has one Internet service option. The service speed and quality of that service is insufficient for him to conduct the basic operations of the post office.

This is an area of huge concern, and it is one that I do not believe this bill will address. It might help the residents of Telegraph Creek understand what speed they can expect, but if that speed is insufficient, knowing that fact is not going to help them very much. To put it a bit more simply, if one is in a position of “take it or leave it”, it is not terribly helpful to know more about what “it” is.

The residents of Findlay Lake, an area just north of Terrace, is not a particularly remote area, but it has similar challenges. When Telus built out its fibre optic infrastructure in the area, it stopped just a few kilometres north of the city, which left out dozens of households that are relatively close to a built-up urban area. They are not able to access proper Internet service. They rely on hubs and wireless service that is, frankly, at speeds that do not allow them to conduct the basic operations necessary to work from home or attend school from home, things that are and were, especially during the pandemic, so important to Canadians.

In rural areas, we really need to look at this issue of affordability. The Liberal government's approach to affordability when it comes to the telecom sector relies almost solely on competition. The fact is there are vast areas of this country where no competition exists in the sector, and folks in those areas are stuck with whatever price the companies want to charge them or feel they need to charge them. We need some assurance that, moving forward, we have a mechanism to drive affordability. I am not sure that greater transparency in advertising is going to achieve that.

The NDP has a policy proposal that would require all telecoms in Canada to provide a basic service that is comparable, affordability wise, with the basic services provided in other countries, and I think we are going to need that kind of regulation moving forward, especially for rural residents.

There are a bunch of related issues I could speak to, but I am excited to see this bill move forward. It is something we can get behind. I hope it gets strengthened, and I hope that when it gets to committee, some of these questions around enforcement and potential areas of improvement can be addressed.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to debate Bill C-288, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act concerning transparent and accurate broadband services information.

I was originally planning to speak to the predecessor of this bill on June 23, 2021. There is nothing like 16 months of intervening time to allow me to really collect my thoughts on this matter, but I am pleased that my colleague and friend from Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa has revived his bill from the previous Parliament to provide Canadian consumers with the important information they need when it comes to rural broadband services across our country, so I thank him for raising this issue.

Something I have said many times in the House of Commons and in public to my constituents at events is that reliable high-speed Internet ceased being a luxury a long time ago. For Canadian families, businesses and communities, it is an absolute necessity. When members are given the opportunity to bring forward private member's bills, there are often a lot of competing priorities, which members see as being important to their communities and their ridings. When members win the lottery and have a high-up number in the private member's business lottery, like my friend from Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa did, it is great when they are able to pick a priority like this, which is important for folks not only in rural communities like Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, but also in places like Perth—Wellington and across the country.

In my community of Perth—Wellington, the issue of rural broadband is one I hear of time and again. On a nearly weekly basis, if not sometimes on a daily basis, I will receive an email from a constituent, a phone call from a family, sometimes even a printed letter in the mail because the Internet is so bad, asking when they might finally see rural broadband fibre optics coming to their communities. Just this morning I spoke with a business owner in Wellington North, in the north part of Wellington County, who was talking about how his business was affected by not having access to reliable high-speed Internet. The speeds he is able to get, based on his current Internet service provider, are simply not adequate for him to carry out his business.

Later today, after I have downloaded this video and upload it to my website, my Facebook page and YouTube, many of the constituents in my riding will not be able to watch it. They will not be able to watch it because their high-speed Internet is simply not adequate. They would spend most of the day watching it buffering rather than actually watching this, or any other video or business communication.

There are challenges affecting Internet across the country. I will be honest that it takes a lot of infrastructure investment in order to get reliable Internet and telecommunications services in a country as large, rural and remote as Canada. One of the challenges is that there are very few Internet service providers in Canada, and this market is dominated by a couple of large corporations.

I do not think it is a surprise to anyone in this chamber who those large corporations are that dominate the marketplace. This lack of competition leads to the lack of choice for Canadians. In many parts of my riding, my constituents have no choice and are stuck with one provider. In a lot of cases, that is old ma Bell herself.

There are several, often community-owned, Internet service providers that are trying to do the hard work to make sure that fibre is installed along every concession road. They are trying hard. They are working hard, and they are committed to providing reliable high-speed Internet, but they are often unable or struggling to compete with the large Internet service providers that often engage in marketing that, while legal, is really pushing the boundaries of what is believable and consistent.

In my riding, I am very proud of community businesses such as Quadro, Wightman and Mornington, which are working to connect rural subscribers and rural residents with fibre-optic Internet service that would have up to one gigabyte of download speeds. This is an amount that is simply unbelievable for so many in my community right now because they are dealing with speeds as low as 2.5 Mbps, megabytes per second, which is simply not sufficient to carry on a business, participate in community events or communicate with family members.

Canadians need accurate information about the speed of their Internet service, which is why I support this bill. The theoretical speeds, hypothetical service and best-case scenarios are all advertising mechanisms that some of these large corporations use. They hinder us and prevent us from making meaningful decisions when deciding what Internet service provider to go with.

What does help Canadian consumers is realistic expectations based on data regarding what the download and upload speeds are going to be with the specific Internet service provider in their community.

Let us step back just a little to look at what has been happening in the past number of years. Throughout the first 15 years of the 21st century, Internet access expanded dramatically. Service, quality and speeds increased during that period, albeit not always consistently across the country.

What we have seen in the last seven or so years is that progress has slowed and stalled. In fact, I would say that the progress of the government on expanding high-speed Internet across the country has been slower than dial-up. I have raised this issue of poor Internet service time and time again with different Liberal members of cabinet over these past seven years. Unfortunately, the responses we get are either disappointing or, quite frankly, misleading.

The Liberal government has pointed to the different federal funds and dollar totals that it claims to have invested, but in typical Liberal fashion, it measures success based on the amount of money it spends rather than on the actual results it achieves.

One small example of this is when, in November 2018, I raised a question during question period about a report that was criticizing the government's failed process to improve rural Internet. I raised this in question period, and the now Attorney General, who was the parliamentary secretary at the time, responded simply by telling me how much more money they were spending, how many more dollars were being put into it rather than focusing on results. Here we are, four years later, and people in rural and remote communities across Canada simply do not have access.

I will note that some other strategies have been promoted more broadly on the issue of spectrum. I would note that the government still has not followed up on the use it or lose it policy that would actually make sure that spectrum is actually used and not kept in corporate coffers as some kind of bargaining chip or future asset that they could sell or re-sell in the future.

Many of the projects being funded across the country have gone to some of these large telecom companies rather than going to the smaller telecoms. In fact, I would note that the so-called rapid response stream of the universal broadband fund gave $7 million of taxpayer funding to Bell in November 2020, whereas a lot of small, local, often community-owned, Internet service providers in rural communities could have used that $7 million to actually get fibre in the ground.

I would note as well, in terms of the failure of the Liberal government, that despite the fact that 10% of the underserved population lives in southern Ontario, the Liberal government's connect to innovate program did not invest a single dime in southern Ontario. Again, there was a big show, lots of announcements, the citing of big dollar figures, but 10% of the population is not being served in Ontario.

There is a program in southern Ontario, the SWIFT program, which is a collaboration among Internet service providers, municipalities, counties and private business. Hopefully, at some point there will be some further funding from different levels of government because they are ready to do the work necessary to make sure that fibre is in the home of all Canadians. However, when it comes to the program like the connect to innovate program, not a single dollar is being invested in southern Ontario.

I want to refocus on why this bill is important. As the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa mentioned earlier, the phrase “up to speeds” and misleading types of advertising are simply not acceptable when Canadians are making important decisions about rural high-speed Internet. We need to do more. We need to act. I am very excited to support Bill C-288.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning to talk about the importance of affordable, high-quality Internet services and the need for consumer protection in the telecommunications industry.

To start, we all know how important access to the Internet is for Canadians as we work, learn and socialize online more and more every day. To make progress against our key goals for the telecom sector, the government continues, contrary to what we just heard, to introduce new policy measures to enhance the quality, coverage and affordability of telecom services.

One of the key parts of our forward agenda is a new policy direction to Canada's telecom regulator, the CRTC. The policy direction would provide the CRTC direction that aligns with the government's priorities, and one of our government's key priorities is to ensure that Internet service is affordable for all consumers. The policy direction would tackle this issue and help consumers. In particular, it targets improvements to strengthen competition in the telecom sector.

The proposed policy direction sets out a renewed approach to wholesale regulation. It would instruct the CRTC to take action to have more timely and improved wholesale rates available, and to consider external expertise for international best practices as it sets these new rates. Ultimately, these changes would encourage more sustainable competition, and this would lead to better prices and better outcomes for consumers.

Within the wholesale regime, the CRTC requires large telephone and cable companies to provide other service providers with access to their networks. The CRTC does this by mandating wholesale access and regulates the rates charged for these services. This allows other service providers to offer their own services to Canadians. I am glad that we have taken the action to strengthen the ability of these alternative Internet providers to compete, because I know it has meaningful impacts on prices in the marketplace.

The proposed policy direction also includes a range of measures to strengthen consumer rights. For example, our government understands that having competitive service providers in the telecom sector is important, but consumers also need to be able to easily switch providers when they find a better deal. That is why the policy direction would require the CRTC to make it easier for consumers to cancel their service or change their service provider so that Canadians can take advantage of better offers.

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

I regularly hear from Canadians, including those in my riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, who are having difficulty with their telecom service providers. I know that my colleagues hear about these issues as well. Questions about quality and a lack of satisfaction with how these issues are resolved can be very frustrating for our constituents. Poor quality service can lead to lagging Zoom calls for students in virtual classrooms, frustration for parents working from home and missed opportunities to connect with family and friends.

To deal with issues like this, the Government of Canada helped to establish the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-Television Services, or the CCTS. The CCTS is an independent organization that provides consumers with recourse when they are unable to resolve disagreements directly with their telecom service providers.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, I have to cut off the member at this point, but when this matter is next before the House, the hon. member will have a little over six minutes remaining.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from October 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-288, An Act to amend the Telecommunications Act (transparent and accurate broadband services information), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak at second reading of Bill C‑288, and I will take this opportunity to make references to what I experience in Laurentides—Labelle.

This bill will, I am sure, have an impact on Quebeckers, including people in my riding, Laurentides—Labelle. The riding that I have the honour to represent is vast and rural. Anyone who knows our region knows that accessing high-quality, reliable and stable Internet service is a challenge that affects a good number of my constituents.

The Bloc Québécois's work on the issue of Internet service is based on three levels of intervention. The first is providing access to as many people as possible. We are almost there. There have been a lot of initiatives in our ridings, and I commend some of the small municipalities, such as Labelle, where my sister lives, which has had broadband for several years now. The second level is ensuring high-quality service throughout our territory. Access is one thing, but there is also quality. The third level is to encourage competition among the various Internet service providers.

In recent years, I have worked to substantially increase and improve Internet availability in my riding, enhancing speed and expanding coverage. In this day and age, we all agree that the Internet should be available everywhere. I am very proud to say that, in my riding, our elected representatives, our 43 mayors, took action and signed a letter calling out the lack of access. That sped up the process. We have seen numerous undertakings, including a new telecommunications co-operative that made it possible for my own home to connect to broadband a few months ago. I am very proud of that.

As I said, the Internet is an essential service, now more than ever. Unfortunately, there are still lots of places that lack quality service. I find that hard to believe. Anyone who travels abroad and compares our service quality and access to what is available elsewhere knows that we have a long way to go.

It is a question of security, development, economic vitality, geographic equality, social cohesion, quality of life and I could go on. Now is the time to expand access, and Bill C‑288 allows us to do just that.

Unfortunately, as we see day in and day out, inflation is dragging on. That is why it is so important to facilitate competition in the very closed and monopolized world of Internet service providers. It is a matter of offering a breath of fresh air to Quebec families, who greatly need it. As legislators, we need to ensure that the information on connection speeds is exactly what is advertised by the large media conglomerates, that is, our Internet providers. If consumers are told that they will get a certain speed to ensure capacity, that information must be consistent and transparent. Consumers should not be fooled by claims of maximum download speeds that are ultimately very theoretical. It fails to tell the whole story about the service that people are paying for.

Workers have been teleworking on a permanent basis for several months now throughout Quebec, including Laurentides—Labelle.

The pandemic has not been easy for employers, who had to implement teleworking for their employees as quickly and efficiently as possible. However, employers are now demanding quality from their teleworking employees, and this is non-negotiable. This means that download speeds need to be optimal.

I want to talk about Simon, a constituent of mine. He made arrangements to work from home during the pandemic. He did what many people did and managed to create an extraordinary quality of life. These days, in 2022, he should be able to work from home. Internet providers told him that he had everything he needed to do his job in the video game industry, so he settled in during the pandemic, only to find out shortly afterwards that the megabits that he was expecting from the Internet providers did not pan out, and this had a negative impact on his work.

I experienced that too during the pandemic. We know it when it happens to us: When everyone wants to use the service at the same time, we have to choose who gets the connection, even at home. That is behind us now, because we are back in the House.

How can we trust what we are being sold when there is still talk of theoretical speed, but not the real speed, meaning the 80% of speed we actually get when browsing online? This can have a direct impact on employment and quality of life, which goes back to what I was saying about Simon.

Let us get back to the content of the bill. Thanks to the establishment of a comparable, standardized format, these guidelines would help see the real speed but would also allow the providers to adjust. This is a prime example of needing to walk the talk.

In their advertising, Internet service providers claim that they are the best, the fastest and the top-performing. That may be, but when I use the Internet, the upload and download speeds may not be exactly as advertised. It is very important that there be transparency in that regard.

Increased competition among the big players would directly and inevitably reduce prices. I am not making this up. None other than Joseph Stiglitz, a U.S. economist who received a Nobel Prize in economics, stated in 2011 that a competitive telecommunications sector opens up a whole world of possibilities.

Competition can reduce prices, increasing access to the Internet for the least well-off. Many of us are also victims. Do my colleagues agree with me that lower prices would be most welcome for a good number of Quebeckers and for every person living in Canada? We must work together to ensure that there is real competition. We see it in other countries, and we must take action so that consumers have a range of providers to choose from.

As consumers, how can we really believe these businesses? Requiring them to be transparent will increase competition. I hope that we will have a consensus so that we can do more to address quality and access across the country.

[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), 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), 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), 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.

The House resumed from November 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-288, An Act to amend the Telecommunications Act (transparent and accurate broadband services information), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:18 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C‑288 under Private Members' Business.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #228

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)