Industry Committee on March 18th, 2024

[Mirko Bibic]

It's an excellent question. Conversations like these are very important. We can have a robust dialogue grounded in the facts, and we can communicate. In fact, we should use the opportunity here to communicate in a better way with Canadians. Also, it's a serious discussion. Canadians are concerned about affordability. This study is also about accessibility. The study is about both affordability and accessibility.

Our commitment to Canadians over the last five years, certainly, has been to invest massive amounts of money so we can deliver better networks, better customer service and undeniably lower prices. As I shared in answer to the previous question, the prices have come down. They are lower than those in the U.S., the U.K., Australia and France.

I gave you the Virgin Plus example on 5G. Also, you can compare 2019 with 2024 alone in Canada. We're offering, in some cases, 10 times more data for $40 less a month. In 2019, we were offering six gigabytes for $90. Now, in 5G, we're offering 60 gigabytes for $50. You can see the massive drop. I could give you a wide variety of data on 4G and 5G. You'll see the prices come down. It's so clear.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you.

I'm pretty sure I'm out of time here.

I will say to any of the CEOs that, if the committee can have any of that information you're speaking about with regard to price comparisons, I would love to take a look at that data, unless there's some proprietary competitive stuff that we can't see. It would be great to have that information you're referencing.

[Mirko Bibic]

I appreciate that. We'll make sure to do that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

You can answer, Mr. Entwistle. I'll give you some time.

[Darren Entwistle]

I think what you're seeing is a massive increase in data consumption. Canadians are among the highest data consumers in the world. Canadians consume almost twice as much data as German people and more than twice as much as Italians. That is reflective of the fact that wireless provides a tremendous amount of value in people's lives and allows them to manage their lifestyle logistics more efficiently and effectively. That constitutes significant value for Canadians.

I won't repeat the comment on low prices. I will just refer you to the studies done by Stats Canada, the Wall report done for ISED and what we're seeing from the OECD.

The other element that I think is missing is the cost of devices. This is a part of our service offering where we do not control the economics. At the end of the day, those economics are determined by the device manufacturers and represent a significant component of the cost factor for Canadian consumers.

Lastly, as it relates to profitability and the comment the member was making, I would say that's one of our core responsibilities, among others, to our stakeholders. It is key, because we recycle those profits into the construction of the world-leading broadband networks that Canadians significantly benefit from. We also recycle those profits into paying down the debt we incurred to build those broadband networks. Debt for the industry is up by 50%. Those profits return to Canadians in the form of taxes. Telus has paid over $57 billion in taxes and spectrum remittances during my tenure with the organization. As well, of course, those profits help subsidize “connecting for good” programs. Telus provides underserved Canadians with highly subsidized, low-cost programs that reach 1.1 million people in the country.

There's a symmetry, then, to profit that I think is important to understand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Entwistle.

I now yield the floor to Mr. Garon for six minutes.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I'd like to apologize to the witnesses, as I'm going to ask my colleagues to debate an urgent motion I tabled on March 14 regarding Rio Tinto. I hope we'll be able to pass it quickly. It deals with an event that has caused a major shockwave in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region and could jeopardize a significant number of jobs over the next few years. I'll read you the motion, the text of which my colleagues have received:

Whereas, in May 2018 and June 2021, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry provided $80 million in funding to Rio Tinto and Alcoa for the development and deployment of ELYSIS technology in the industry’s existing aluminum smelters for the production of carbon-neutral aluminum; Whereas, in addition to greening this production sector, this investment was intended to create and retain thousands of jobs, particularly in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region of Quebec; Whereas work on commercializing the process was expected to begin in 2024, but the company recently announced that ELYSIS technology would not be available until the mid-2030s and that it anticipated cost overruns on the initial budget of $240 million; That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee invite to appear, first, Jérôme Pécresse, Chief Executive Aluminium with Rio Tinto, and then François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, for two hours each, on the feasibility and expected timeline for the implementation of ELYSIS technology at the company’s facilities, the anticipated additional costs and the estimated economic benefits.

I have two items to add by way of context. First, the future of this industry in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean is at stake. We know the importance of reducing carbon emissions and of this industry in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. Rio Tinto Alcan's announcement that it will be postponing the deployment of this technology for a very long time has caused a major shockwave in the region.

Secondly, regardless of some of the elements in the election platforms of all the parties here regarding the environment, whether it's carbon pricing or something else, we all agree on the need to reduce carbon emissions and to use new technologies to do so. Therefore, we should be able to quickly pass this motion, which is fundamental for Quebec.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you for introducing the motion, Mr. Garon.

Mr. Turnbull, you have the floor.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you to Mr. Garon for moving this motion. Certainly I think it's an important issue to study.

I wanted to clarify two quick things.

One is that the intention of this motion is not to delay Bill C-27, but would follow any work we have left on Bill C-27.

The other very small change, which I would like to propose, is just to remove the word “each” in the last paragraph in the English version, which would suggest we have one two-hour meeting on this. Right now, the way I read it, it looks like it's two hours each, which makes it four hours, as far as I interpret it.

If Mr. Garon would be amenable to those small changes and the clarification that this is to come after the work on C-27, I would certainly be supportive. I think we could probably say he would have the support of all the members on this side.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

On that question from Mr. Turnbull, before I turn it over to you, Mr. Masse, I'll just check whether there is a consensus around the room or not. Otherwise, it's an amendment that's being proposed.

Mr. Garon, you have the floor.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

The important thing is that we not delay the study of Bill C‑27, but that we hear from these people in short order. I can accept that we meet the Rio Tinto people for an hour and the minister for an hour, but we'd prefer it to be during the same meeting. We can then assess the need for an additional meeting, but we have to respect the timetable we've given ourselves for studying Bill C-27. I therefore suggest that we convene all these people as soon as possible, ideally for April 8, when we return, which will also give them time to prepare.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

If I understand correctly, there is a consensus to remove the word “each”. So it would be a two-hour meeting, during which we would have the president of Rio Tinto for an hour and the minister for an hour.

Is everyone in agreement?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

We will now debate the amended motion.

Mr. Masse, you have the floor.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I want to get clarification on something. Usually the history of this committee has been to introduce motions that don't affect other parties' time during critical interventions like this, so I want to ensure I'm not going to lose any of my time at committee today related to this. Otherwise, it's something that is of great concern.

I want to confirm with you this Bloc motion will not take away from the time of other members on the committee today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

That depends on the committee. If we deal with this matter quickly, then we can resume questioning, but I can't guarantee that.

I'm hopeful, Mr. Masse, that you'll have your time as allocated.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Okay, I appreciate that, because this is a serious issue and I want to support the member, but not at the expense of me doing the right thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Agreed.

Are there any other comments on the motion presented by Mr. Garon as amended? Do we need a vote, or do I have consensus?

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Monsieur Garon, you still have about four minutes.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to assure my colleague that my goal was not to cut into his speaking time. Being a new member of the committee, I take good note of the tradition and thank him for his comment.

Mr. Bibic, in Canada, the major telecommunications companies own the infrastructure, such as cell towers. In this context, low roaming charges, ideally, and access by rival companies to these infrastructures are essential to guaranteeing a minimum of competition. According to Bell, why are roaming charges so high? I'd like a fairly succinct answer.

[Mirko Bibic]

Personally, I rather believe that the regulatory framework and Bell's actions have allowed competition to develop. That's why, in Canada, there are now four national players competing, which means that prices have been reduced considerably—we've been discussing this since the start of the meeting at 11.

In passing, I'd like to say that Australia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, South Korea and the U.S. don't have four national wireless providers. So there has been progress.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I understand the bad habit we have of comparing ourselves to the worst. I dislike it, but I understand it's a habit among the big players.

Let's take Videotron as an example. Representatives came to testify publicly before the committee, and they told us that they were trying to negotiate lower roaming charges in order to break into certain markets. They also told us that they don't have the necessary infrastructure, particularly in western Canada.

Unless I'm mistaken, I believe Bell has appealed an arbitration decision. Indeed, as you said, you've invested heavily in infrastructure, which we recognize, so you have world-class infrastructure. However, it seems to me that there is underutilized capacity. What's more, according to your competitors, notably Videotron, any manoeuvre is good to keep these competitors out. How do you respond to this?

[Mirko Bibic]

Thank you for the question.

I'd like to make two brief comments.

Firstly, South Korea, the United States, Germany and Australia are leaders, but Canada is better.

Secondly, Bell has not appealed the arbitration decision involving roaming charges. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission ruled on these costs at Bell and Quebecor, and we have not appealed that decision.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Okay.

The major cellphone providers have told us that their prices have come down over the years, and that's true. My Conservative colleague alluded to this earlier. However, the prices have gone down in all developed countries, as is the case once any technology is adopted by a large number of people.

When we heard from representatives of the Competition Bureau and the Canadian Radio‑television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, we asked them whether prices had dropped more in Canada than in the other countries you mentioned. Although prices have come down in Canada, we are still doing a poor job, since prices have come down more in those other countries.

I understand that competition may not be ideal and that regulatory bodies are trying to increase the level of competition. That said, do you think that in the next few years, prices will have to continue to come down so that the percentages of these price reductions are higher than those of the major countries you are comparing yourselves with?

[Mirko Bibic]

In Canada, as I pointed out in my presentation, prices have fallen by 47.1% over the past five years. At the same time, as I think Mr. Staffieri mentioned, prices have increased by 1.5% in the United States and by 24.4% in England. Prices are coming down significantly here and going up elsewhere. This morning, we have repeatedly compared current prices in Canada with those in the United States, England, Australia and elsewhere, and our prices are lower.

Our prices are dropping in terms of percentages, and absolute prices today are lower than in a number of countries. As I said, we want to invest even more in Canada to better serve Quebeckers and Canadians. We want to do more, but we need a predictable regulatory framework and federal public policies that encourage investment. Unfortunately, regulatory decisions are making it difficult to invest these days.