Industry Committee on March 6th, 2023

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Okay.

You've been talking about the content or the impact of the bill. I want to come back, if I may, to this flexibility piece. How receptive would you be if this committee came up with some proposed amendments that would help the bill to be more reactive to changes as they come?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

I'm open to amendments that would make the carriers more accountable and make them more transparent about the kind of service they're selling to Canadians. That's the kind of amendment I'd be open to.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

That's going back more to the content of the bill and less to the flexibility or the ability of the bill to evolve responsively and quickly.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

When the CRTC actually launches these hearing processes, that's where there is an opportunity to be flexible as well. There's lots of latitude in this. It is a discovery process to figure out how Internet service providers are going to display or transmit their services for Canadians.

This is what this bill does that's different. Again, it's back to the policy directive path. The other thing is that it's a very transparent process as well. The directive policy did come from government. It came from cabinet. It's a few people in a back room saying, “Here—this is a good idea. Look at this.” Then they have a headline. This is legislation. As the House of Commons, we are all accountable for this.

Personally, I've heard very positive feedback from smaller Internet service providers, interestingly enough. I've had more positive feedback from them because it takes that noise away. I've called it false advertising. They can be very transparent and certain about what service they, as the smallest Internet service provider, are offering, which might be lots, especially in rural and sparsely populated areas. It does actually level the playing field for not only the consumer but the industry as well.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thanks very much, Dan.

I have a feeling we're probably out of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

You are right, Mr. Fillmore. Thank you very much.

Over to you, Mr. Lemire.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Mazier. It's nice to see you again and to have you here, at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

As you know, the committee adopted a report entitled “Affordability and Accessibility of Telecommunications Services in Canada: Encouraging Competition to (Finally) Bridge the Digital Divide” back in 2021. I was on the committee then, as were a number of my fellow members. It's no secret that the report was inspired by the first iteration of your bill.

I put forward a motion at that time. It was adopted by my fellow members and gave rise to this recommendation:

That the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission require Internet service providers to make information available to consumers on the usual download and upload speeds they can expect during peak periods so they can make more informed purchasing decisions based on accurate and transparent information, thereby improving the industry's competitiveness overall.

I would like to hear your thoughts on the recommendation. I'd also like to know whether you were satisfied with the government's response after the report was adopted.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you very much for pointing that out. That's exactly what I was referring to.

That was the first iteration of this bill, Bill C-299. The committee did see the importance of that. They're the typical upload and download speeds. I think that's a very important thing to remember. The committee nailed it. They did say, “Government, you need to look at this.” Unfortunately, this government chose to go the policy directive type of way. Industry did not step up and say that there was a problem here, so here we are. We're back here and introducing legislation.

I honestly believe that legislation is the way to go. It is more transparent. I think it's a chance for all of us as parliamentarians to really wrap our arms around this and tell the Canadian people that this is important to Canadians and we recognize that. We don't do that enough here—this whole non-partisan way—and we get stuck in these different conversations that trap us. This is one that I think Canadians are really hoping that we pay attention to, especially when it comes down to the transparency on what service you are being offered and what service you get at the end of the day.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Under section 37 of the Telecommunications Act, Internet service providers are required to submit a variety of information to the CRTC, including download and upload speeds. That means Internet service providers already have that information and would probably have no trouble making it available to their customers.

Can you explain how that works, technically speaking? Is it as easy as it sounds? Do telecommunications companies actually have the data, and could they really bill customers in accordance with those download speeds?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

They could, but they choose to put in language like “up to”. It's very misleading. I think Mr. Perkins referred to another word they use. That is the problem. We need to get rid of that language. What is the typical or average speed you could expect during peak periods? That would be the ideal.

When you want the Internet and you're paying for the service—and good money for that service—you expect that service to work. Meanwhile, you have this other little clause that says “up to” speeds, and do you know what? If Joe down the road needs it a little more than you do, or someone over there does, and they're going to control it a little more, you don't get to get on and talk to your kids tonight, or you don't get to go to that course when you're in a remote area and you're trying to better yourself. Those are the kinds of things they're stopping by not addressing what kinds of speeds you can expect while you're using it.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

It's very clear that the technology exists to bring the industry in line with what you're proposing.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Yes, it does. They report. This is the ironic thing. They report this information every year to ISED and their management. It asks for that and they say, “Here it is”, but they don't tell the consumer. This is the really ironic thing about this. I don't know how a telecom company can sit here and say, “Well, we don't have to.” I don't understand that.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

We've discussed this issue before, especially how the service affects people in rural areas. Companies advertise rates based on maximum service speeds, but in reality, people in the regions don't get those speeds. Until Videotron came along, it's safe to say that our region paid some of the highest prices in Canada for low-quality service. That's in a country where people already pay a lot for little.

How would your bill provide a satisfactory response in terms of creating a more competitive telecom environment in resource regions, as we like to call them in Quebec, or more rural regions? Greater competition would mean lower prices for consumers.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Any time that you can signal to a consumer what actual service they're buying.... You might realize that, hey, 50/10 is fine, and you don't need 100 by 100. Is that a cheaper service? The problem is that you don't even know what you're buying, and you don't know when it's being controlled. You don't know what to expect. It's like a game of Russian roulette. You do not have the information to make that informed decision.

When you do, you'll be able to make that decision, and you might not pick the highest package because it's so expensive or because you just simply don't need it.

When you're looking at different countries, it's quite interesting to see how they pan it all out and say that, if you're a gamer, you need this, and if you're just on Netflix in the evening watching movies, this is what you need. There are ways of doing it. The industry describes it all the time. It is there. They just have to start doing it.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Lemire.

Over to you, Mr. Masse, for six minutes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to MP Mazier for bringing this forward.

There are a couple of things to note.

With regard to the policy directive, you've highlighted a bit of it, but it really is subjective to any minister who provides that directive at any point in time and then to the interpretation of the CRTC. For such simple information that should be provided, I don't understand why it's difficult to get.

Maybe you can impress upon us the concerns about letting that vagrancy exist when, really, people should know what they're getting when they buy.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

That's a very good question.

The more I go over this, the more I don't understand why they're not simply providing this information when they do so to the CRTC and everybody like that.

Fundamentally, the consumer needs, for information, the typical download and upload speeds, which is what the bill directs. However, it's the legislation part of it. It's the actual directing, clearly directing the CRTC on what it needs to do. The other part of this, as well, is the public hearings process, listening and working with industry and consumers to understand their needs.

One of the biggest complaints we hear is cost, but it's also service. People just want to get the service, and there's nothing more frustrating than that. I think that setting expectations.... If you are in rural and remote areas, what are those expectations? They won't look the same as in infrastructure downtown or in some suburban, highly populated area, but what do they look like factually, not just theoretically? This bill will address that, and those conversations will be forced by the legislation.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Part of this, we have to understand, is that, when you're making a purchase-point decision for higher speed, it could be because you make your living, for example, by moving information quickly and faster, and it's an investment. When you look at electronic gaming, it's a huge industry. In fact, there's a South Korean cabinet minister for just e-gaming alone, and people make a living from that. There are even college courses at St. Clair College here in Windsor and at other places, where they compete internationally and so on. You could even cross that into my area, the tool and die mould-making sector, and other places, where they want to purchase the best service possible for not only the business but also when they work from home.

Doesn't it seem like a counterproductive move to not allow people to have the right to be fully informed about how they want to invest and what they want to spend their money on?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Yes, I completely agree. “Counterproductive” is a good word, Mr. Masse.

There is a simple fix to this. Just tell Canadians what kind of service you're offering. It's that easy.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I have another quick question.

The highlight is that the FCC.... This is interesting because I've often said that—as consumers—Canada is treated as a colony when it comes to some of the large corporations and the information that we get from the United States and other companies. When you look at the auto sector, we are actually in full regulation compliance with regard to safety, maintenance and emissions. At the same time, when there are recalls.... Some good examples are the Prius and Toyota recalls where the consumers benefited way more and they even had investment in their companies in the United States, because they were treated as a different element.

I don't understand why we would expect Canadians to have less, especially if the government is saying that we can't. With regard to Bill C-244, there were concerns over following CUSMA. In the meantime, we wouldn't have cross-comparison realities over here because it won't actually violate our trade obligations.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Part of the issue when you go down this policy directive is that it really doesn't have any teeth. At the end of the day, it's up to the CRTC to move it forward, so there's really no clear direction. This is part of the reason why we end up with policies like this in Canada. The government just washes its hands and is done.

This is why I, as a parliamentarian, brought this bill forward: to make a clear direction that Canadians expect better and that parliamentarians expect better and more from our industries, and that they should treat consumers better. I'm wholeheartedly agreeing that we need better legislation when it comes to this and what kinds of Internet services they are selling to Canadians.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Williams, the floor is yours.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Mazier, thank you for bringing this bill forward. I think it's a very important one.

There are a couple of lines I've heard you talk about and certainly I've seen in some of the paperwork for this bill. The most important one is to improve connectivity for Canadians. I think that's really important. I think all of us, as parliamentarians, have to agree that is our number one goal.

Certainly as we see more advancement in the digital era of communications, I think everyone knows they need Internet now. It's essential. It's not just something that's nice to have. We need to have it. Certainly one of the biggest problems we have in Canada is connectivity and making sure all Canadians are connected to the Internet. Second, Canadians need the speeds to be able to go to school, to work or to just communicate as a whole, be that using their cellphone or through the Internet in some way.

A word I know you have used—and I want to re-emphasize it—is “trust”. When we look at trust, it seems the number one thing is perhaps what you're talking about, which may be perceived as false advertising. It's about being able to trust that when you're buying something, you're getting what you've paid for. The second part of that is trust in performance, meaning we have to be able to trust that we can get the speeds we need to do the work or connect or watch TV or do anything we need to, essentially, operate in this 21st century and beyond.

There are a lot of smaller Internet providers that are trying to enter the space in Canada. We have a problem with competition, and certainly there are three companies that dominate the Canadian landscape. How would this bill impact smaller Internet service providers?