Industry Committee on Nov. 21st, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

No, go ahead, Mr. Savard‑Tremblay.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I'll read it to you, but first I'll explain it briefly.

In January 2024, 911 emergency calls were made using IP telephony, that is, over the Internet. In some cases, these calls were transferred to unilingual English call centres in Ontario.

If emergency services are not accessible at all times in both official languages, it can lead to complications and even death.

At the time, the industry minister and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, said that measures would be taken. We can't wait for deaths, injuries or fires to decide to act.

However, we have not seen any directives or announcements of potential changes. During the summer, though, new cases involving citizens came up in our ridings, which means it's likely nothing was done.

Mr. Chair, would you like me to read the motion or let everyone read it on their own?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Please read it, Mr. Savard‑Tremblay.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Here is what the motion says:

Whereas francophone users of 911 emergency services must have access to a fast, efficient and clear service, regardless of the official language in which they express themselves, for their safety to be fully ensured; Whereas under the Official Languages Act, citizens enjoy the same rights and services regardless of the official language in which they express themselves, and federal institutions are required to provide services equitably to all citizens; Whereas the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) is the government organization responsible for regulating IP telephony, and that, consequently, the CRTC must resolve problems arising from call localization; that, pursuant to section 108(2) of the Regulations, the committee undertake a study of the difficulties that persist for francophones in Quebec or in francophone minority communities in Canada in receiving service in French when they call 911 emergency services, because of their locality at the time of the call; that the committee hold two meetings to hear witnesses, and that it invite to testify, for one hour per witness, the Official Languages Commissioner, the Department of Public Safety, the CRTC and the Department of Innovation, Science and Industry; that the committee report back to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Savard‑Tremblay.

The clerk is distributing your motion in both official languages, and it will be received shortly. Are there any immediate comments?

Mr. Généreux, you have the floor.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to tell my colleague that I sit on the Standing Committee on Official Languages, and I think it would be more appropriate for his motion to be tabled at that committee.

I understand that there's a connection with the CRTC, but the premise of his motion, which I've not yet read, is essentially that francophones were allegedly failed. So I think this is an issue that concerns the francophonie and official languages.

Many times in the past, CRTC officials have appeared before the Standing Committee on Official Languages, as have Statistics Canada officials. I think it would be more appropriate to table the motion at that committee than to table it here, especially if we consider our work schedule over the coming months. This would allow mishaps to be prevented. In my opinion, the Standing Committee on Official Languages has more time to study this issue, which seems to be a very relevant one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Généreux.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Savard‑Tremblay.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I'd just like to say that, on paper, this may seem more like a matter for the Standing Committee on Official Languages. However, that committee mainly monitors official, institutionalized bilingualism, as it were, whereas, in this case, the CRTC is the regulatory authority.

In addition, we're not talking about an institutional language issue, but about private companies. This falls within the purview of the Minister of Industry. So I think he should be the one to answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Savard‑Tremblay.

Mr. Masse, you have the floor.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This might help newer members of the committee. This committee, in the past—and this is why I will support this motion—actually looked at the failing of the telcos on the 911 problem we had about seven years ago. If my memory serves me correctly, I think we even had a couple of special meetings for it, when we reconvened during the summer, related to the 911 call failure.

There were two of them, actually. There was one, most recently, when the minister had to call from Japan to get in touch with somebody from Rogers and others because they were fighting over their jurisdictions. There was that. Prior to that—and I'm going from memory right now—I believe it was in the Ottawa area, and it was related to tornadoes and other inclement weather. There were 911 failures at that time as well.

Given that we've looked at this with the CRTC before, related to 911, I'll support my colleague on this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Next on my list is Mr. Patzer.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you very much.

I guess it's just a technicality, of sorts. In the paragraph where it says, “considering that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission is the government body responsible for regulating IP telephony”, on that wording right there, “IP telephony” actually refers to a very specific type of phone that people use, generally speaking. I know it wouldn't necessarily preclude the study from including other types of telecommunication services that are provided, but that is actually a very specific type of service that people get, using a phone over IP, rather than an analog line or even a digital line.

I don't know if there's a way to clarify that it would be all telephone systems, not just one specific type, to make sure it fully captures the breadth of the phone systems that people use.

For example, when I worked in the industry, I would install an IP set only in a business location and only in some locations. It wasn't widespread usage just yet, but I certainly don't recall.... The only instance where I ever installed it in a residential area was for a lady who worked from home. She had her own business that she ran out of her house, as a call centre type of business.

It would be a very small sample of the public that would use an IP phone. Just to make sure that we have an accurate summation, for people who are calling 911, probably fewer than 1% would be doing it over an IP phone.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Patzer, are you suggesting an amendment? What I would advise is maybe.... From what I'm guessing—and I haven't heard from the Liberals—the Conservatives seem to be opposed to the motion.

Mr. Généreux, I thought you said you would prefer to have Mr. Savard‑Tremblay's motion referred to the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Actually, I was just saying that it would be more appropriate. As our colleague explained, this motion does indeed fall within the purview of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

Now, I'd add, as was the case with the previous motion we just passed, I think it's important to set a timeline, to set some time aside for that. That's my suggestion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Please wait one second, Mr. Généreux. We'll get back to you.

Basically, Mr. Patzer, I was wondering if you were moving an amendment. If so, do you have wording for the amendment?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Before Mr. Patzer moves his amendment, I just want to see if it's actually necessary to move it.

First of all, I would point out that this is not a marginal issue. There have been articles on actual cases of calls from IP phones. There have been cases in our ridings. We've received reports to this effect.

That said, as far as we know, the 911 emergency call centre issue is only related to IP phones.

That said, if there are other cases that we are not aware of, we are open to considering them. I don't know if you want us to go further down that path.

I'm not aware of any cases unrelated to IP phones. If there are, obviously, we're not foolish, we wouldn't be opposed to looking at them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

In the context of the study, the motion may be broad enough for us to also look at other cases, if there are any.

Mr. Patzer, you still have the floor, if you have an amendment to make, in light of what Mr. Savard-Tremblay has just mentioned.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Can I ask him a question? Is that okay?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I will allow it.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Is this, then, in regard to the phone systems they are using in the 911 call centres, specifically? Is that what you are specifically requesting in the study?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I want to make sure I understand the question.

The way it's worded, we're trying to find out whether the measures promised in January are being delivered or will be soon, and to get a status report. There was a promise to act. As for the technical details, it won't be up to us to specify them; it will be up to the relevant authorities. We will find out where things stand. Promises were made in January, but, as we know, the matter remained unresolved last summer. Now, we have to see where things stand.

I don't know if that answers my colleague's question. I'm not sure I fully understood the specifics of his question.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

My concern is this. If it's simply because the 911 call centres use an IP phone, then, sure, let's study the impacts of IP telephony. However, there is a very specific.... This is a cellphone. It's not an IP phone. You know, it utilizes multiple technologies, but this is not an IP phone. The Cisco phones we all have in our offices are IP phones. The landline you have at your house is not an IP phone. It's a very technical thing. I'm kind of geeking out here, because I worked in the industry.

I'm just making sure there won't be any issues coming up in the study because we only narrowly prescribed it to IP telephony when, at the end of the day, most people don't use IP telephones. The call centres might, but the person phoning the call centre looking for help is most likely not using an IP phone.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

It's not—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Savard‑Tremblay, I'd ask you to be brief, because I don't want us to continue like this much longer.