Evidence of meeting #112 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was prices.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Right.
How long have they been negotiating with Rogers and the CRTC right now to get access through an MVNO policy that the CRTC has? I'm told that it has been two years now.
11:45 a.m.
Chief of Consumer, Research and Communications, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Well, we essentially set the terms and conditions for that regime last May or April. As early as late June, we arbitrated the first deal between Rogers and Vidéotron—
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
11:45 a.m.
Chief of Consumer, Research and Communications, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
—and again, we arbitrated an additional deal with respect to Bell and Quebecor at that point in time.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
11:45 a.m.
Chief of Consumer, Research and Communications, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
As you know, there is a legislative framework and laws in this country—
11:45 a.m.
Chief of Consumer, Research and Communications, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
—so yes, our role essentially is to make sure we act quickly and we have robust decisions that are put in place to—
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
The big two ones that MP Williams mentioned that basically control the two networks are, it appears to me, using the legal system year after year to prevent MVNOs from entering this market. They're dragging it out because every year of profitability without an MVNO is good for their shareholders and not so good for consumers.
It appears to me that they're actively using the system that the government, the CRTC and now the courts have to at least delay, if not totally prevent, competition through MVNOs. Is your policy really effective if they're allowed to use it that way?
11:45 a.m.
Chief of Consumer, Research and Communications, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Quite frankly, there is a legislative framework and a legal framework that the companies are using. That is at their disposal on that front. What we've been doing is put the regime in place, and we've acted quickly and we've acted robustly to make sure that everything we can do is put in place. Those are sort of the limits of our ability at this point.
Contrary to what was highlighted, prices have been declining in that market since—
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I didn't ask about that. We've been through this already. They're number one, number two and number three in the world still. In the rest of the world, prices are going down faster than Canada's are.
Here's the issue going forward: We were also told by Mr. Péladeau and by others that the roaming fees the CRTC sets haven't changed in something like five years and are now six times higher than in other countries.
Why has the government not reduced roaming fees?
11:45 a.m.
Chief of Consumer, Research and Communications, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
We are currently actively studying and looking at the costing of those roaming fees. The roaming fees in question that we're looking at there are the intercarrier roaming fees for domestic roaming.
When Vidéotron doesn't have a network in a certain area, they would be using the roaming fees to roam on the networks of Bell, Rogers or Telus, depending on where that is. Those are the roaming fees we are looking at. They are something that's determined based on cost.
We are actively and currently studying those costs to look at establishing rates going forward.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
When do you think those new rates would become public, and presumably substantially reduced from the $12, $13 and $14 they are now, to the $2 or $3 we see in other countries?
11:45 a.m.
Chief of Consumer, Research and Communications, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
I can't presume. We're conducting proceedings and hearings on that front. I can't forecast or presume an outcome at this point in time, given our nature as a tribunal.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the committee, witnesses.
For Ms. Pratt from the Competition Bureau, in terms of the teeth of the Competition Bureau, if I can use that analogy, I believe that what's in Bill C-34 and what's in Bill C-59 currently have been probably two decades overdue in terms of the changing competitive environment we operate in and also the nature of a number of industrial sectors in Canada where concentration is an issue. You can chalk it up to geography, capital requirements, investment and so forth.
I want to get on the record how important the changes were to the Competition Act in Bill C-34 and now in Bill C-59, from your point of view, in looking at combinations, mergers, acquisitions, inverse deals or whatever term you want to use.
February 26th, 2024 / 11:50 a.m.
Senior Deputy Commissioner, Mergers and Monopolistic Practices Branch, Competition Bureau Canada
Maybe I'll start and talk from the mergers perspective. I'm going to defer to my colleague to talk about the larger changes in the acts.
We are incredibly welcoming of the changes in Bill C-56 and Bill C-59. I do think that these are the first significant changes to our act since 1986. The merger provisions are affirmed. That is transformative. The repeal of the efficiencies exception, as well as the addition of being able to consider concentration under the merger provisions, is very different from a world where the tribunal explicitly could not do that, and adding that is a factor.
It is also very helpful when we're talking about sectors like telecommunications, which tend to have fairly stable oligopolistic market structures, that we have an explicit provision to deal with tacit and explicit coordination in section 93, the merger provisions, as well. We're very welcoming of all of those changes to the merger provisions.
Mr. Durocher can speak to the larger view of the other changes in the act.
11:50 a.m.
Anthony Durocher Deputy Commissioner, Competition Promotion Branch, Competition Bureau Canada
I think Bill C-56 and what's proposed in Bill C-59 are very important changes and very much welcome. Many of the changes are in fact entirely in line with recommendations the Competition Bureau had made to government in the context of consultation.
I would flag this: If we look at the merger regime in particular, merger is the first line of defence in protecting competition in the economy.
There are a couple of other areas where we believe this can be strengthened. One relates to the adoption of structural presumptions in the merger review process, while the other relates to the remedial standard when there is harm to competition. What needs to be fixed? These are issues we will continue to advocate for.
However, by and large, Bill C-56 and Bill C-59 have been very significant in moving Canada forward in having a robust competition regime.
11:50 a.m.
Senior Deputy Commissioner, Mergers and Monopolistic Practices Branch, Competition Bureau Canada
Maybe I'll speak on this.
The tribunal did not make any order, so with regard to any of the representations made by representatives and witnesses, there's no order to hold them to those representations.
What I can say is that structural presumptions in particular may have changed the way the case was heard, because the way a structural presumption works is.... We would have demonstrated that the merger was concentrative. The burden would have shifted to the parties to demonstrate that the merger was not anti-competitive, instead of us continuing to prove that it is anti-competitive.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
11:50 a.m.
Senior Deputy Commissioner, Mergers and Monopolistic Practices Branch, Competition Bureau Canada
Yes, it's a reverse onus, which still leaves the door open. If they can demonstrate it is pro-competitive, that would still be there.
The other addition is the remedy standards. Here we advocated that the remedy of the divestiture of Freedom did not go far enough. The restore standard, which we advocated in our competition submission, would ensure that all of the anti-competitive effects would have to be remedied, not just the part that takes it from the “substantial lessening” of competition to a “lessening” of competition. We think that would have also helped.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
I'll go to the CRTC.
I believe there was a policy framework put in place. Could you comment, gentlemen, with regard to how the CRTC is doing in terms of implementing that policy framework?
The follow-up question is this: The MVNO stand-alone operator seems very popular in Europe, from my understanding. What can we do further to facilitate MVNOs here in Canada?
11:55 a.m.
Chief of Consumer, Research and Communications, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
With respect to the policy directive, there are certainly a number of different points that were highlighted on that front, primarily with respect to ensuring Canadians have continued access to reliable, affordable, high-quality networks.
Various areas were highlighted: Paying close attention to the MVNO regime and ensuring that all of the components, whether it's roaming or access to the networks, are functioning properly. Certainly the commission has been acting quickly and with aplomb to make sure that this component is in place going forward.
There were also highlights with respect to the regime that gives access to home Internet wires to competitors. We certainly have—
