Industry Committee on Nov. 6th, 2014

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Is there an example of something like this that has happened where you would use this?

[Lynne Fancy]

You could use it, for example, if somebody repeatedly operates without a licence. There are places in mining communities, where perhaps there are people who feel they don't need a licence, so they put up a tower and they just start broadcasting what they wish to broadcast. This creates interference for the other users and can have dramatic impacts on the economics of their businesses. If this person has done this on repeated occasions, we've tried to educate. Then an AMP would be an appropriate tool in that case.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

In terms of enforcement, who's actually going to enforce this? Is it the CRTC? Do they have the resources to enforce any of this?

[Lynne Fancy]

With regard to the Radiocommunication Act, it will be Industry Canada. Industry Canada has a strong regional presence and has inspectors in the regions able to enforce.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much.

Now to Mr. Côté for four minutes.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will begin by denouncing the current process. We are studying parts of a monstrous omnibill. Once again, the government is abusing its majority. We will be unable to amend the parts referred to this committee, which makes the entire process very suspect. This indicates a lack of respect towards the entire Canadian population, and towards the stakeholders concerned, who have place their trust in their elected officials, and of course, towards the witnesses who appear before us. I insist upon denouncing this situation, which is totally deplorable, because we have seen this farce played out over the last several years, and continue to witness it now.

I would like to thank the witnesses for coming today, even though we will not have the time to amend anything whatsoever, nor propose amendments to the parts of the bill we are currently studying.

Mr. Scott, I would like to come back to your comments and ask you, when it comes to paper billing, whether consultation of the affected businesses was positive in your opinion.

[Adam Scott]

It was certainly positive in the sense that it produced a substantial fact base. The CRTC conducted a fact-finding exercise; they consulted 70 companies, I believe, covering a full range of the largest and a sampling of many of the smaller companies involved. They produced a report, which I would encourage you to read if you have not already. It details which companies charge for paper bills, which companies do not; the full range of rates that are charged as well as things like which companies provide incentives for electronic billing. So yes, in that sense, I would say the consultation was very positive because it gave a good snapshot of what the practices are within the industry.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Very well, thank you.

I would also like to know why you only consulted industry representatives. Would it not have been better to consult the whole population and allow consumers or consumers' interest groups to provide their views on the issue?

[Adam Scott]

I agree that those views are absolutely critical to this and that's very much the group that was the beneficiary of this policy change. I would also direct you to a study that was done by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, which is a consumer group that appears frequently before the CRTC and is extremely knowledgeable in this area. They've also released a study that has been very much a focal point. They include one of the best estimates I've seen of the expected financial impact of these fees. That's a publicly available resource that was very much considered in the development of this amendment.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

All right, but can you explain to us why there were no parallel or complementary public consultations, in addition to consulting businesses?

[Adam Scott]

The consultation process was a CRTC-led process. I'm not able to speak to why they would have chosen the process that they did.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Scott.

Thank you, Mr. Côté.

Now on to the Conservatives, Madam Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Unlike the opposition, I won't waste my time whining about process.

What sorts of actions or inactions on the parts of telecoms would constitute a violation of spectrum rules or regulations?

[Lynne Fancy]

There would be four primary violations. The first is that you would be operating without a licence or in violation of the conditions of licences that are outlined. Second would be that you are operating equipment that does not meet the standards. The third would be that you're operating equipment, like a jammer, that is not allowed. Fourth would be that you would violate the spectrum auction rules.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

When one of these rules is violated, how does it come to pass that the regulators, the enforcers, would find out?

[Lynne Fancy]

Often for the first three—not the auction rules—anything to do with equipment and operating without a licence or not in agreement with your conditions, generally will come about because there will be some form of interference. Some user will complain that they are getting interference and then we have inspectors who go out and find the source of the interference and we would know about that. We also conduct our own audits to find out whether or not people are operating without a licence.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Are jammers used by telecoms for anti-competition reasons?

[Lynne Fancy]

Jammers are typically used for criminal activities. As a very good example, I''m told that chop shops use them. They disable the GPS equipment on your car so you won't be able to find your stolen car while they're busy chopping it up.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Okay.

With respect to certifications, what are the risks in having telecommunications apparatus without the technical specifications and markings?

[Lynne Fancy]

It would be interference again, so that your cellphone is not operating properly. Or it could be some form of damage to the network.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Fax machines were mentioned. How would that damage the network or cause interference?

[Lynne Fancy]

Fax machines will fall under the provisions of the Telecommunications Act. Adam, would you like to add?

[Adam Scott]

Sure.

I should be clear that I'm not an engineer, but the standards are set by Industry Canada and are designed primarily to ensure that the device can operate safely, because we are talking about an electrical device. It's similar to what you'd see for any electrical device. The standard is set to ensure that it will not harm the user, and a plug-in electrical device into a complex network could cause damage, I'm told.

It's not something that we see frequently nowadays. The standards have been in place for a long time and most devices are very much in compliance.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

And imported devices are checked for compliance as well, are they not?

[Adam Scott]

That's correct. Before any device is distributed or sold within Canada, it is certified to meet the Canadian standard.