Industry Committee on Nov. 26th, 2020

[Ian Scott]

No. Again, I hope it doesn't sound defensive, but we don't commit to timelines. Whether it is in assessing the broadband proposals, or whether it is on another file, going back to Mr. Masse's question, our process is to develop a record. We make sure that all parties have an opportunity to file with us, develop the record, and then we make the best decision. That takes, if you will, the time that it takes. We move as quickly as possible on the highest value projects.

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

I appreciate that, and I'm not going to get into a debate, but the argument and the concerns we hear is that the time it takes to adjudicate puts us in a very tough position, especially for some smaller Internet service providers who simply don't have the time or resources to spend their time doing application after application, while waiting on applications for other applications.

Mr. Masse mentioned a dog's breakfast of different programs supporting broadband across the country. That's a great comparison, because, as Mr. Cumming mentioned, we have this vast array of programs—except your suggestion is that they do different things and focus on different areas. I agree with that in a sense, but at the same time, especially when we're talking about smaller service providers, they're spending massive resources and time doing applications for these different programs.

As a matter of principle, would it not be better if these were streamlined into a single window application, a single organization, a single minister accountable, rather than being spread out across these different programs?

[Ian Scott]

I can only speak to the CRTC's program, and I tried to distinguish earlier why ours is different. It's not a government program; it doesn't come from taxpayers' contributions to a budget. It is from the carriers, and we are quasi-judicial and arm's-length, so ours is different.

To your point, I'm a little confused if you're referring specifically to the broadband process. I'll give you an example. On ours, we took the time to develop an application guide that is very detailed in order to support and assist smaller players so that they wouldn't have to spend a ton of time figuring out how to apply. We really have spent a lot of time and effort to facilitate that process.

I hope that answers your question.

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

Yes, it does to a degree, and I'm glad there are guidelines and guidance, but it's still time consuming for smaller operations to do multiple applications for different funds. I recognize you are different and apart, and I will leave it at that, because I do want to move on to another question.

How many BITS licences applications do you receive on an annual basis from new proponents?

[Ian Scott]

That's not information I have at hand, but there aren't many applications. They have to be renewed from time to time. Carriers that operate internationally have to have a BITS licence, but it's not a statistic I have at hand. If you would like, I can undertake to provide the committee with a number, but it's not large.

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

It would be great if you could provide us with a number.

I see that my time is just about up, so maybe I'll ask if you could also provide us with a written response on how many new entrants there are in the broadband market generally on an annual basis.

Thank you, Madam Chair, as I see that I'm out of time.

[Ian Scott]

We'll try to answer that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Scott, if you could send that information to the clerk, he'll make sure that it circulates amongst the members.

[Ian Scott]

Yes, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you.

We'll now turn to MP Ehsassi.

You have the floor for five minutes.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to share my time with the member for Beaches—East York, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Go ahead.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thanks very much, Ali.

Mr. Scott, I recognize that you said you don't want to comment on the current wholesale rates proceeding. That's fair, but you did say that the record is complete in that proceeding. When I read the Federal Court of Appeal's decision that upholds the CRTC's decision overall, there is indication that the company did not provide company-specific information. Can you at least confirm that when you say the record is complete, the companies have finally come forward with company-specific information this year as had been requested?

[Ian Scott]

I think, with respect, that you may be conflating some different files, so let me just explain quickly. On the review and vary applications, we received a number of them both from what we used to call “telephone companies” and “cable operators”. Then we open it up to comments from intervenors, the competitors typically, who then file their arguments. We have a complete record in the sense that there are no more submissions coming in on that, and we are in the course of examining it and will render a decision.

There's also a related proceeding in which we have a continuing process. It's called the “disaggregated access proceeding”. There has been some public commentary and media coverage about an area where specific information was requested, and certain parties don't believe that cable operators provided the necessary information. That may be what you're referring to.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I was referring to the productivity factor area of dispute. When the Federal Court of Appeal was walking through its analysis, the CRTC said “it is reasonable to expect that they have detailed company-specific equipment prices and capacities for traffic-driven equipment that they acquire on an annual basis”, and that the companies had not provided the company-specific information.

[Ian Scott]

Sorry, I understand your question better. Pardon me for using up some of your time.

That was the court looking at our reasoning in the decision, and they upheld it.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

So have the companies provided the information that had initially been requested?

[Ian Scott]

The review and vary applications are not the same as what was in the original decision. They are arguing or addressing different issues and those same issues.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

When it comes to low-cost, data-only plans, in 2018 the CRTC identified a gap in the wireless market for lower-cost data-only plans. Two years later, the lowest-cost plan I can find for one gigabyte is $28 through Virgin Mobile. Do you view that cost as low enough?

[Ian Scott]

If you want, I can go search for some metrics on what the current rates are; but again, I don't—

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Well, instead of doing that, I'll ask some specific questions, then.

Does the CRTC have an analysis of what basic data amount would be required if an individual were using it for basic browsing and VoIP services?

[Ian Scott]

There are lots of views on that. That was one of the issues that was certainly discussed in the wireless proceeding. A variety of groups—those arguing for particular targeted services and other stakeholders—have defined what they believe is a basic service, but there isn't a defined basic service by the commission, no.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Right. Ought there not to be at some point? I mean, when you talk about a gap in the wireless market for lower costs, they don't have any plans. Unless you know what that basic service provision ought to be, how do you determine ultimately what should be made available?

[Ian Scott]

The competitive market determines what products are available. We're trying to ensure that the pricing for that service continues to go down as it has been. The gap—

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

On that point, because I'm out of time, I want to get to that cost point.

Among these carriers, the best plan I saw was $50 for 10 gigabytes from Freedom Mobile, but others were in the range of $30 for one gigabyte. If, say, they were required to provide two or three gigabytes of data, what is the additional cost to the carriers of providing that? Are they at some capacity that they can't provide more? What is the additional cost to them if they were to say that poor Canadians who can't afford basic Internet service, basic mobile services, were to get three gigabytes instead of one gigabyte?