Industry Committee on March 21st, 2007

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Yes, and the fact is, I believe Ms. Gordon was in the process of explaining that the cancellation of the court challenges program will in fact potentially affect the ability of the people she represents to actually access basic telephone services as an essential service, because their ability to challenge under the charter is predicated by their ability to access legal services, which requires a court challenges program.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You're asking how the cancellation of the court challenges program affected the rights of the disabled community in terms of access to telecommunications services.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Yes, and I would argue that the need of any disadvantaged community to access basic services requires us when we're creating a regulatory framework to take that into account. If in fact we're not going to have a court challenges program, then in fact we have to be more rigorous than we would be otherwise to ensure that all our society is ensured—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

All right, thank you.

[Phyllis Gordon]

I have a pertinent comment that's not with respect to—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Just hold that.

Ms. Gordon, I will let you address the question of whether a court challenges program does or does not affect the rights of the disabled community to access telecommunications services, as long as it's telecommunications.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

On a point of order, Mr. Byrne.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

In the infinite reasonableness that you've shown as chair throughout our times together, you will admit that it is Mr. Van Kesteren who did open this line of questioning up, as he did present questions to the witnesses asking them what their source of funding was, who paid for their activities, and how that influenced or affected what they brought forward to this particular committee. So the court challenges program, being a program that enables third parties to bring forward interventions on behalf of their clients and on behalf of public policy.... It is you, Mr. Chair, who allowed that line of questioning, so I'm sure that our dear colleagues here, sitting on both sides—

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Don't call me “dear”.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

I'll call you “dear” if you're expensive; “dear” is a term for expensive.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Members, order.

I'll make a ruling and then I'll allow Ms. Gordon to answer.

First of all, I like being called “infinitely reasonable”.

Second, we are doing a deregulation of the telecommunications sector, and with respect to questioning witnesses on whatever organizations or individuals or companies they represent, I allow that from all sides. In fact, I believe Mr. McTeague has posed questions like that in the past. Those questions, in my view, are entirely legitimate because they are within the scope of the study that we are doing on the deregulation of telecommunications. If people are here representing telecommunications companies, sectors, interest groups, consumer groups, members have a right to ask that. So I don't see that as the same point of order. But, with respect, I am actually allowing the question, so when you have a victory you might want to proceed with the victory.

I'm going to allow Ms. Gordon to answer the question that was posed.

[Phyllis Gordon]

Thank you.

The loss of the court challenges program has had an impact on people with disabilities and other disadvantaged groups across the county in many different fora, but of concern for your hearings is that currently at the CRTC the public interest nature of groups like ours and Ms. MacDonald's—I'm not sure if you're a consumer group or not—is that we can litigate at the CRTC because of the cost awards that the CRTC provides. That is a very important aspect of the current system that we fear would be lost entirely if the deregulation goes through holus-bolus.

We work with a very experienced telecommunications lawyer who gives us lots of time pro bono. We get this little bit of cost and we hand it back to him and it helps tremendously. That's what's keeping the public interest at the CRTC. It's those costs awards.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Gordon.

I have Mr. McTeague. You have three minutes.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

If I could, Ms. MacDonald, I'll come back to your presentation here earlier. It is a false assumption that the presence of competition equals competition. Here you're referring to the competitor presence test, I take it, that has been established. Is that what you're referring to?

[Patricia MacDonald]

No, I wouldn't take it that far. That's just the way I happened to write it, as it appealed to me that way.

I am familiar with the competitor presence test. I made submissions that I didn't believe that it was an appropriate test; but be that as it may, it was the test that the CRTC has chosen, and now, as you know, that has changed rather dramatically since then.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Are you comfortable with that test now being the prevalent test that the Competition Bureau will use, save and except for the fact there's been no significant, or any, market analysis done prior to embarking on this deregulation? Are you comfortable that merely identifying yourself as a competitor may be sufficient as a minimum standard for showing competition in a given market?

[Patricia MacDonald]

No, I'm not, but that's based upon my understanding of what the costs are for those particular services. So the competition, as I mentioned, was Shaw in B.C. and then the telephones. The costs simply aren't comparable, but the services aren't comparable either.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Let me ask you, then, about the potential now for large win-back schemes. You talked about the $120 to break your service contract through Telus, as an example. If I'm a company that's well endowed--I may be a cable company or a telephone company--and I use my ability knowing full well that the smaller competitor, such as Mr. Proulx next to you, finds himself at some disadvantage, and I know the names of these customers, how likely is it that we're going to be able to maintain a semblance of competition without these first fragile moves being protected, as was done in the era of long distance? How likely is it that these win-back programs are going to benefit everybody?

The ministry presented the argument that these win-back programs, among other things, were going to be a boon to consumers. We've been assured by advocates of that position who have said “Well, you know, if I have a deal from one particular company to win back my services, they're going to tell everybody on the street”. In fact, we've heard that it can be the contrary.

Do you think win-backs are a good thing to enhance the competitive process in lieu of using the existing framework to develop sufficient time to create competition in the local telephone market?

[Patricia MacDonald]

Yes, I think Michael Janigan at the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, who has testified here, would be more appropriate to answer that question, because he's done so much work in the area.

But I think it always comes back to what the alternatives are for the customers. If you get a deal--let's say Shaw provides you with this deal this month--then if there is no competition, once the competition is removed the deal is removed. Your deal lasts only for as long as that particular two- or three-year time period. And what has happened to the state of competition while you've been protected from prices? That kind of competition you're certainly not going to see in the rural areas.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. McTeague.

I just want to clarify something for members. Mr. Vincent informed me, and we've checked, that the votes on the budget are actually at 5:30. The bells will start ringing at 5:15, so we have less than ten minutes.

I'll go now to Mr. Arthur.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mrs. MacDonald, you had me shocked, as you had Mr. Masse shocked, with the $120 penalty from Telus to customers who cancelled their Internet service. At the end of the answer you came up with $400, and that I didn't quite get how horrified I should be. What was it?

[Patricia MacDonald]

What some companies are doing as an incentive to sign on with them is giving you a free gift. For example, the promotion that Telus has right now is that you'll get a free camera if you sign up for a three-year deal. If you cancel within the three years, you'll be subject to the $120 penalty, plus you'll have to pay back $400 for the free camera.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

That was before deregulation, I think.

[Patricia MacDonald]

Well, this is Internet service, and Internet service isn't regulated at all.