House of Commons Hansard #430 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was internet.

Topics

Opposition Motion—TelecommunicationsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

You do not implement them. Where is the pharmacare? Where is the affordable housing? Where is anything?

Opposition Motion—TelecommunicationsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Order. I want to remind the member for New Westminster—Burnaby that he will definitely have an opportunity to ask questions or comment. He does not have to put out a fire anywhere. I would ask him not to yell and to hold onto his thoughts so that he does not forget them when it is time for questions and comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Opposition Motion—TelecommunicationsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, this is another initiative that my New Democratic friends decided to vote against. In our very first budget in 2016, $500 million were committed to expanding Internet access. It was supposed to be completed by 2021. The NDP voted against that. Those dollars are connecting well over 500 communities in all areas of Canada, yet they voted against that initiative.

On the one hand, the New Democrats say they want to reduce it by $10 whereas in many areas our government reduced it by $60 for thousands of families. They talk about wanting to see more expansion into rural communities, yet they voted against a budget that would allow that expansion to take place.

I would challenge my New Democratic friends to review some of their comments on the record, even the member who spoke just before me.

In response to a question, the member said that providers did nothing for indigenous communities. A few months ago Bell Let’s Talk donated $100,000 to the Bear Clan in the north end of Winnipeg. For those who are not familiar with the Bear Clan, it is a fantastic organization that has developed into an extended family. It gets residents in the north end of Winnipeg off the streets, residents who are some of the most challenging, some who are addicted to crack. The Bear Clan gets these individuals engaged so they can become part of a broader family. Bell Let's Talk recognized the value of this organization.

The Ma Mawi Wi Chi Itata Centre is an outstanding organization, a world-class organization, that reaches into not only the community of north Winnipeg, but into many different areas. It is is making a real difference in our indigenous community and beyond. Substantial dollars flowed to that organization.

The NDP is so preoccupied in trying to come across as the champions of some cause that it will throw anything and everyone under the bus.

I would agree that there are things the government can and should do to ensure there is healthy competition, that we do what we can to ensure, through that competition, we have reasonable cell and Internet access in Canada. That is critically important.

We need to recognize that Canadian wireless subscribers today enjoy the fastest average mobile download connection fees among all G7 countries, plus Australia, with twice the average download speed of the United States. This is the state of mobile network experience based on May 2019. Canadian wireless networks are now the second fastest in the world, 152% faster than the global average.

I am not here to defend the providers as much as I am to challenge the NDP to recognize that not all providers are bad people.

I cannot recall if I met with the organizations. I suspect the NDP might want to do a freedom of information request just to find out how many times I might have. In the last number of years, I might have met once or twice for a five or 10 minute exchange. I do not have lobbyists breaking down my door. Who own these companies? Chances are they are union members and pensioners. These are larger corporations.

I made reference to Ma Mawi Wi Chi Itata. Unifor teamed up with Bell on one occasion to provide over $100,000, recognizing it could work with providers.

We could have debated many things today. I am surprised the NDP chose this topic. I would have thought the New Democrats might have wanted to talk about the national pharmacare program. In the last couple of years, they have finally come on board, raising that issue after we put things in place that could lead to a national pharmacare program.

If the NDP members were true to their colours and were social democrats who were trying to see social improvement on a bigger scale, I would have thought that would have been more important. After all, this is their last opposition day between now and the next election. Instead, they have taken a consumer idea on cellphones. After all, we all have cellular telephones, so no doubt it is very popular to say let us reduce cellphone rates. This government has done that for thousands of people, far more than what the New Democrats are suggesting today. We did that a couple of years ago.

Opposition Motion—TelecommunicationsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Liberal

Ken McDonald Liberal Avalon, NL

They voted against it.

Opposition Motion—TelecommunicationsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

As my colleague from Avalon reminded me, the New Democrats voted against that.

When we look at connecting for families, the government announced that initiative in 2017 as part of innovations and skills. That helped bridge the digital divide for Canadian families that might have struggled to afford access to home Internet. Again, 14 Internet providers are voluntarily participating in the initiative by offering Internet service for $10 per month to eligible families that currently receive the maximum Canada child benefit. The program is being rolled out and close to 20,000 families are benefiting from the $10 a month Internet service. I believe well over 20,000 computers were ordered through the computers for school program.

I made reference at the beginning of my speech to MTS and when it was privatized in the province of Manitoba. One of the initiatives that this government authorized Innovation, Science and Economic Development in May 2016, through a GIC, denied Bell's petition to overturn the CRTC's decision to extend wholesale regulation to fibre home Internet services. This decision supported increased retail competition for higher speed Internet services. Average broadband and Internet prices offered by smaller service providers relying on wholesale regulations are up to 35% lower than those of the larger companies.

I think of the Innovation, Science and Economic Development fund. This affects the province of Manitoba, where the ISCD approved the transfer of the MTS spectrum licences to Bell and Xplornet Communications Inc. As part of the deal, Bell committed to spending $1 billion over the next five years to expand wire and wireless broadband networks to Manitoba. The deal also allowed Xplornet to expand into the mobile wireless market for the very first time.

That is a significant commitment. That commitment will see many communities having enhanced service for Internet. That is an initiative by working with MTS and Bell Canada, along with listening to other stakeholders. Manitobans will be better as a direct result of that.

Whether it is for the Province of Manitoba or that initial $500 million allocated to ensure rural communities would get enhanced services over the coming years, this government is clearly demonstrating tangible actions.

I have been listening to the debate on spectrum and the revenues generated. My Conservative friend is somewhat right. When we talk about the revenue that has been generated through spectrum because of the demand for it, it makes sense to auction it. That is how people get their best price, unless of course one's intention is to nationalize. If that is what the intention of the New Democratic Party is then it should be honest with Canadians and make that statement. If it wants to forgo the billions of dollars in revenue and nationalize, then it should say that.

The revenues that were generated and came into Ottawa, no doubt have been spent on a wide variety of things like health care or other types of social services. It would be incredible to try to track every dollar. I suspect most of it, although I do not know it for a fact, came in the form of general revenue. We have general revenue come in and government money goes out.

When I think of that spectrum auction and the money coming in, that is where I agree with my New Democratic friends. The Stephen Harper Conservative Party did not serve Canadians well by not supporting Canada's infrastructure. Had it supported Canada's infrastructure in the same manner that we have as a government, we would have a much healthier competitive climate for our providers today. It would have had more rural Canadians or rural communities engaged. I agree that the Conservatives were bad on that. Through our budgetary measures, we have taken a number of initiatives to ensure our rural communities are more connected through Internet services than ever before.

Opposition Motion—TelecommunicationsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Madam Speaker, in this debate, the member has made a number of points about the government introducing programming. The connect to innovate program, should be called the “connect to announce”. It announces so much but does not fund anything.

The minister's own office said this in response to an Order Paper question about improving community Internet connectivity through backbone infrastructure. It said that with regard to a first nations community in the Fraser, the Sts'ailes in B.C., $132,000 were announced and zero dollars were funded. On connect to innovate projects in Newfoundland and Labrador, over $24 million and zero dollars were funded. On connect to innovate projects in Nova Scotia, over $17 million were announced and zero have come through. On the Fort Severn and Peawanuk satellite backbone project in Ontario, again, $5 million-plus were announced and zero dollars have gone through. Last, on the Little Red River backbone project in Alberta, over $4 million were announced and zero dollars have gone through.

Why is the government so bad on delivering infrastructure such as roads, bridges and everything that it has to get even worse when it comes to funding these things through connect to innovate?

Opposition Motion—TelecommunicationsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, this is a great opportunity for me to highlight that one of Stephen Harper's greatest flaws was not recognizing how important it was to ensure rural Canada had the opportunity to connect. Many of my Atlantic caucus colleagues could tell us that through the program the member opposite just referenced, communities in rural areas were able to connect as a direct result of a federal initiative.

People in rural Canada know that for the first time in many years, under this administration, there is a government that is not only prepared to talk about this issue, but is also prepared to put forward money to ensure that change actually takes place. The program expires in 2021, and over the next number of years, more and more rural communities will become connected.

Opposition Motion—TelecommunicationsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Salaberry—Suroît, QC

Madam Speaker, I do not see what the government has to brag about, given that we know 63% of rural regions do not have access to high-speed Internet. This has been a source of frustration for years. Internet service is becoming a must for farmers, students and all rural business owners. Economies depend on it.

Fourteen municipalities in Salaberry—Suroît have written to us to say that the situation is untenable. High-speed Internet is available in the village cores, but further out in the country, service is intermittent, inaccessible or too slow. In Franklin, an Internet connection costs $90, and the big companies are under no obligation to serve rural residents.

In the 2019 budget, the government promises to invest millions of dollars until 2030, but it fails to require the big companies to serve small rural regions. Furthermore, co-ops like Coop CSUR get no regulatory assistance from the CRTC to deliver their services. Co-ops are motivated not by profit, but by a desire to help people. However, no one is helping them. The government has been aware of this situation for years, but it is not doing a single thing to fix it.

Opposition Motion—TelecommunicationsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, that is just not true. In my comments, I made reference to Bell MTS in my home province of Manitoba. Under this government, we were able to ensure that Bell will spend $1 billion in the province of Manitoba alone. We had a budget measure in 2016 that committed over half a billion dollars of government tax money toward ensuring that more and more rural communities get connected. I believe it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 600 to 900 rural communities.

The problem with members of the New Democratic Party is if we say we will do something, they will say it is not enough and that we have to do more. If we were to leave this up to the NDP, it would want a tower every 10 kilometres and would make that happen somehow.

NDP members need to enter the real world and recognize the contrast. They should compare the 10 years under Stephen Harper, during which there was virtually no investment, to the three and half years under this administration, during which hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested.

This government gets it. Accessibility to the Internet is absolutely critical, and we are ensuring that more and more communities are being hooked up to it.

Opposition Motion—TelecommunicationsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia Québec

Liberal

Rémi Massé LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's response. His answer was an important one. There are examples all across Canada. After a decade of Conservative darkness, my riding finally saw the light in 2016. As of next year, 98% of households in my riding will have high-speed Internet access.

I would like my colleague to tell us once again how our government's program has benefited his region of Winnipeg and Manitoba. I think this program is making a real difference in the lives of his constituents.

Opposition Motion—TelecommunicationsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, in two ways it has had a very profound positive impact for the residents of Winnipeg North and, indeed, for the province of Manitoba.

The connecting families initiative allowed for tens of thousands of residents across Canada to get access to the Internet for $10 a month. That is far less than even what the NDP could possibly imagine. However, having awoken New Democrats to that fact, they will probably suggest that it should be $5 a month. At the end of the day, that is one of the government initiatives that has made a big difference.

The other thing I will reinforce are the hundreds of millions of dollars in our very first budget, in which we made a statement saying that we want rural Canadians connected to the Internet. The government put money where its mouth is and we have seen tangible results. Whether it is in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies, B.C. or the north, we have seen tangible results. That is why I am quite happy with the way this government is dealing with rural access to the Internet.

Opposition Motion—TelecommunicationsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Madam Speaker, I am reminded of Shakespeare, much sound and fury signifying nothing. The member opposite gave a completely meaningless speech, attacking the New Democrats, but not offering any solutions at all.

He has not replied to the critical question that we have been raising all day of why it costs Canadians, in the one example we gave, $75 per month to get two gigabytes of data. It costs $75 per month in Canada and in all of the other examples we cited, including France, the United Kingdom, Italy and Australia, it is around $20 to $25.

His constituents know they are paying $50 a month too much, and yet the Liberals have proposed nothing, except slapping each other on the back, to what is the most egregious price gouging of consumers and families who are already hard hit. As we know, half of Canadian families are $200 away from insolvency in any given month under the Liberal government. It is the highest level of family debt that we have ever experienced in our history and in the history of any industrialized country. The family debt level is crippling Canadians and yet the Liberals offer nothing to push back against what is the most egregious price gouging of Canadians.

Why do the Liberals not have anything to offer? Why do they not have any answers? After three and a half years in power, why is this price gouging continuing?

Opposition Motion—TelecommunicationsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, the best way to respond is by once again highlighting the connecting families initiative. Although I do not know the hard number, it is enabling about 20,000 families across Canada to access the Internet for $10 a month. That is very significant. That is tangible.

Having said that, when we brought in that initiative, New Democrats voted no. They opposed it. I would ask the member opposite to explain to Canadians why they opposed that $10 fee. They voted against the budget, and not one of them, from what I can recall, stood and qualified it by saying he or she was going to vote against the budget, but liked the $10 fee for access to the Internet, not one of them. They all voted against it.

Opposition Motion—TelecommunicationsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the people of Sherbrooke to speak to an issue that is very important to me and to them. Today, we are talking about competitive pricing for telecommunications services, such as the Internet, cellphone services and data on our cellphones and tablets.

In 2019, these are essential services for most Canadians. People cannot do without them today. In fact, the government is increasingly asking Canadians to interact with it via the Internet, to submit forms or make contact, for example. Everyone therefore understands the importance of the Internet in people's daily lives and the importance of having affordable access to it. The service must be reliable, easy to access and competitively priced.

The people of Sherbrooke and all Canadians feel that telecommunications companies are taking advantage of them. They basically feel as though they are being robbed, and I know that is a strong word. Canadians are well aware that access to such services is much cheaper, faster and of better quality in many other countries, including the United States, our closest neighbours. Customers in those countries are paying less for the same services.

I will not repeat all the figures my colleagues have referred to today. My NDP colleagues have mentioned the price difference many times, and I know the people of Sherbrooke are well aware of it. All Canadians know that we are getting fleeced by telecom companies, and that is why the government needs to do something. We have waited long enough and have been giving these companies a free pass to rob our fellow citizens. The government needs to step in.

We are having a bit of a philosophical and ideological debate on the issue of government intervention in this area. We already know that the government is intervening on one aspect of the problem: releasing spectrum, which allows companies to reach consumers through the airwaves. The government already plays a key role. It holds auctions so that those big corporations can obtain shares of the spectrum in order to reach consumers.

Today, we are asking that the government play an even bigger role. We want the government to put an end to the highway robbery being committed by telecom companies. The government must be firm and tell them that we have waited long enough.

The Liberals will say that we need to let the market do its work and that market forces will correct the situation. As companies become freer they are more competitive. This means their prices will be more competitive, since the companies that want to stand out will lower their prices. These companies will reach more consumers and will therefore be successful. Laws and market forces make the difference and allow companies to offer prices comparable to other countries'.

We have been waiting many years for the market to do its work and ease consumers' pain, but it seems that the market forces have only made the situation worse. Canada is trapped with just a handful of telecom giants that abuse Canadians and consumers because they have an oligopoly, not to say monopoly. Sometimes, it seems that they set prices to steal even more from consumers.

It is time for the government to put its foot down and say enough is enough. Obviously, market forces do not work when it comes to this sector. The government must intervene to ensure that Canadians have access to this essential service and that this service is high-quality, fast and available to all citizens at affordable prices.

Today we are calling on the government to be more active on this file. It has to stop patting itself on the back and start doing more than just talk. It claims that good things have been done over the years, when the situation actually got worse.

We hear members across the way say that they have priorities, three in particular, and that affordability is one of them. They mention it in nearly every one of their speeches. However, not a single Liberal has managed to convince me that prices have improved over the past few years. On the contrary, we can see that prices have gone up over the years and that Canadians are not getting their money's worth.

I commend my colleague from Windsor West, who worked on drafting this motion. I commend him for all the research he did to make this proposal based on five points, which I will quickly outline:

The motion proposes a price cap. I repeat that the government needs to put its foot down and stop allowing companies to steal from Canadians. A price cap would be a good first step from the government to stop this highway robbery.

The motion then suggests that the government abolish data caps. All Canadians, including our viewers from Sherbrooke, know that data caps make consumers anxious. They are always worried about potentially using too much data, because as soon as they go over the maximum limit by a few bytes, their bills can get quite high. A number of people watching us, and even some of us here in the House, have been surprised by the exorbitant cost of a single gigabyte, which can reach dozens of dollars in extra fees. However, this is an essential service that we should all have access to. The government must therefore abolish the data caps often found in contracts, whether the contract is capped at two gigabytes, five gigabytes or more.

The motion also suggests that we eliminate egregious sales and services practices through a consumers' bill of rights. As we saw with airline passengers' rights, the government did something by establishing the supposed protection for consumers. it could do the same thing for telecommunications and provide even better protections for consumers than what is currently available.

As I was saying earlier, the government has an important role to play in the spectrum auction. We should revisit this structure to prevent the government from pocketing billions of dollars from these auctions without necessarily reinvesting this money in digital infrastructure to improve accessibility and availability in rural and remote communities.

Finally, the government should also direct the CRTC to cancel its broadband implementation policy. This policy does not work for indigenous and remote communities, which will be saddled with substandard services, unlike communities that are predominately located in urban areas.

Internet and telecommunications services are creating a divide between communities and between the standards they are entitled to.

Now more than ever, we must take action. The NDP is proposing to do just that and save Canadians up to $600 a year on their cellphone and Internet services.

I hope that we will have the support of members of the House of Commons to finally stand up to the telecoms and tell them that we refuse to continue to be victims of highway robbery.

Opposition Motion—TelecommunicationsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia Québec

Liberal

Rémi Massé LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that the minister's new directive means the CRTC must put Internet and mobile phone service consumers at the forefront of all its decisions. We want more competition, and it is working. In regions with competition, prices are up to 32% lower.

I would also like to remind my colleague that we created the connecting families initiative to improve access. We are working with 14 companies to give families access to Internet packages for $10. These are the kind of concrete measures that work. My colleague may be well-intentioned, but it does worry me that New Democrats voted against these measures. It is so disappointing. Yes, we still have work to do, but we already have a very detailed plan that is working well. Unfortunately, despite their lofty rhetoric, New Democrats decided to vote against these measures.

Opposition Motion—TelecommunicationsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed. I used to have a lot of respect for my colleague and I still do, but not as much now. As the Liberals often do, my colleague referred to votes on certain budget measures, but the truth is that we had to vote on the budget as a whole in a single vote. My colleague is therefore being intellectually dishonest by singling out one of those measures and saying we voted against all of them. Like us, he is surely capable of making a distinction between the two. He is smart enough to realize that sometimes we have to oppose an entire budget, even if we would have liked to support one particular measure.

My colleague may try to mislead Canadians, but they are not stupid. They know that a budget is more than a single measure. I will take no lectures from him. I could criticize the budget, but I would be here all day.

As for the CRTC directive, it does nothing to solve the problem, because competition is practically non-existent. There are only a few big players in the market, which is a serious problem. The measures that have been taken do not promote competition or foster new competitors. New competitors cannot enter the market because it favours the big players, which exploit the system and will do whatever it takes to keep it going. When the market is dominated by a few players, prices are very high, and this directive will do nothing to fix that problem.

Opposition Motion—TelecommunicationsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

NDP

Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Salaberry—Suroît, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his very informative speech and for calling out Liberal members when they are being disingenuous about omnibus budget implementation bills.

These days, in 2019, rural communities are extremely under-serviced. With all due respect to my colleague opposite, 14 municipalities in my riding have written us to say how hard it is for them to get high-speed Internet. Sometimes it is impossible. That is what Bianka Dupaul, director of Coop CSUR, told us. That co-op was born out of a need for Internet access in a rural region and the fact that corporations did not want to provide services in areas with sparse populations.

Thanks to Coop CSUR, 100 kilometres of fibre-optic cable was deployed in four municipalities in my riding. However, CRTC rules, which always favour corporations, make it very hard for Coop CSUR and other co-ops to have access to aerial infrastructure. Since that infrastructure is owned by the corporations it is hard for the smaller co-ops to access it. They have to negotiate with the corporations. The costs are exorbitant and the wait times for accessing the infrastructure are endless. As a result, the small co-ops cannot get off the ground, even though they do not seek to make a profit.

How could today's motion help small co-ops like Coop CSUR, which is run by Bianka Dupaul?

Opposition Motion—TelecommunicationsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her work. She knows her riding well and does a great job of representing her constituents.

The short answer is that we need to revisit the auction structure, as we said in our motion. That is a very important aspect that highlights the fact that large urban centres are well served in an oligopolistic market, but the same is not true for rural and remote areas. These companies have no interest in or respect for such areas because they will not make any money by providing them with services. That is a serious problem. The government sometimes has to step in to ensure that everyone has access to high-quality basic services in Canada.

Opposition Motion—TelecommunicationsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Georgina Jolibois NDP Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great appreciation for my colleague, the hon. member for Windsor West, for bringing this motion to the House today.

As members know, I have the honour of representing the people of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, which includes the entirety of northern Saskatchewan. My riding is about the same size as the nation of Poland, and people come from all walks of life. People live in bigger cities like Meadow Lake; they farm products like canola or grain and work in small businesses. On the east side of my riding, where I just had the opportunity to attend the high school graduation in Pelican Narrows, the story is very much the same, where people work hard to raise their families, practise their Cree traditions and protect the environment. In the far north, in communities like Fond Du Lac and Black Lake, communities gather together for feasts and celebrations while working in the resource industry.

However, what is true everywhere I go, whether it is Waterhen Lake First Nation, Hatchet Lake, Cumberland House or La Ronge, is that people want to be connected, just like everyone else in Canada. People in my riding want to use the Internet to connect with their friends and families, to connect with the world to know what is happening and to gain better access to education so that they can carry new skills into the working world.

Having a better connected north would mean that the north is able to attract new talent in doctors, new investments for companies, new jobs for our youth. Being better connected means that we can show the rest of Canada what makes us great. We can show the homegrown talent of jiggers in Île-à-la-Crosse, share photos of the beautiful Saskatchewan River delta, or sell our bead work and crafts so that a little part of the north can be present somewhere else.

Being better connected also means better support from the RCMP and community safety officers who could more quickly respond to dangerous situations. It means better ways of calling for ambulances in an emergency or contacting a neighbour for a cup of tea or a loved one who has gone into the city.

In fact, it may even be easier for people to contact their member of Parliament. In my office, far more people reach out to me through Facebook than by email or mail. For these reasons, I must support this motion to guarantee that northerners have the same level of service as many others in Canada at a much more affordable rate.

What I particularly like about this motion is how it recognizes the substandard service that communities across my riding are receiving. In my province, there are only two major Internet service providers in a province that has a dedicated Crown corporation that exists to ensure that everyone in the province can have service on their cellphone or Internet in their home. Many in my riding still do not get reception in their house or have come to expect long periods of time when their Internet does not work. With unreliable cellphone and Internet service, northerners are still paying significantly high bills each and every month.

I recently heard from several of my constituents over the past few weeks about their Internet and cellphone service. For many of them, the unreliability of the service affects them the most. Towns and villages in my riding are very spread out, and I often spend hours on the road driving between community visits. In between major population centres, there is virtually no cellular service, and along the highways, service is spotty and causes major anxiety for people who travel those roads every day.

I recently drove from Creighton to Pelican Narrows and for the two and a half hours of driving in the rain and mud, we did not have any cellular service and there were no gas stations if we needed help. Also, two of my constituents, Lyle and Muriel Sundbo, live in Candle Lake and they do not get any cellular service for 20 kilometres between their home and Prince Albert, where I am told many people go to buy their groceries or to visit their doctor. North of where the Sundbos live, there is no cell service at all.

While we speak a lot about sharing photos on Facebook or checking our emails, we cannot undermine just how essential being connected to the Internet or getting reception on a cellphone is. The world is moving faster than ever. Even though our small towns take pride in their charm and how unlike the big cities we are, that does not mean we do not need the services of the modern world.

Our northern communities are very quickly being left behind because of big corporations and governments that are unwilling or unable to see what our communities have to offer. It is not just the north that is suffering as a consequence. When the Internet has become an essential service in Canada, it is completely unacceptable that northerners have to settle for less or accept nothing at all.

What have we seen from consecutive Conservative and Liberal governments? Why is there such an urgent need to change the conversation about access to these essential services for northerners? So far, the answer from the Harper government and the current Liberal government has been that the market will decide a price, and access will be provided based on supply and demand.

Essentially, if there is enough demand in the north for better Internet and there is a profit to be made, my constituents will see better services. Without a doubt, the demand is there for better and cheaper service. What is not there is the profit, so companies will not invest the capital needed to build better cellphone towers or invest in Internet infrastructure. When they do, the rates that are charged to northerners are so high that many northerners cannot afford the services and all they are told is that it is the cost of doing business.

To address this, the government announced its intention to use the infrastructure bank to provide a minimal level of high-speed Internet for all Canadians including northerners. However, the government's plan once again relies on the goodwill and significant investment from the private sector in order to adequately fund better services. The Liberals' plan is to provide tax breaks to giant telecom companies to invest in infrastructure, but there is no guarantee that those investments will be made in rural or remote areas.

Budget 2019 also promised $1.7 billion over 13 years to go toward investment in telecom infrastructure to give Canadians better access to the Internet. However, the government's own estimate is that it would cost $6 billion to provide every Canadian with a broadband connection. From experience, I know that when services are underfunded, it tends to be the people in northern Saskatchewan and the people in rural and remote areas who are left behind by the Liberals and the Conservatives.

The status quo is to invest in northern communities so that Internet speeds of 50 megabytes per second are the new normal and that normal will be in place by 2026. In other places in Canada, like Ottawa, major telecom companies are offering service plans of 100 to 5,500 megabytes per second. In many homes, speeds up to one gigabyte per second are now available.

Seven years from now, northern Saskatchewan will still be at a level of service lower than what is available today, while service will only continue to get faster and better for people in more populated areas. People in my riding will always be playing catch-up to the technology of urban centres, but they will continue paying as if they already have the best service.

It does not have to be this way. We can do better. We in government can call for better consumer protections by ending predatory sales practices. We can invest in infrastructure to provide our communities with services at internationally recognized levels. By doing so, we can create jobs for northerners, who are always willing to work hard to better their community. We can set price caps to ensure affordability because price gouging is immoral and does not lead to the investments we expect.

Northern Saskatchewan is looking for better service, and we have the ability to help so many families and workers in the north. The NDP, through this motion, has shown we have the will to help northerners because it is time to treat the north with the respect it deserves.

Opposition Motion—TelecommunicationsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats have talked about instituting a price cap. I wonder if the member is in a position where she could provide a sense of that to Canadians who might be following the debate. When the New Democrats say they are going to put in a price cap, do they have a number in mind, or is their intention to mislead people to get them to believe that the New Democrats are going to reduce the rate? Is there a number? Is it a percentage cut? What is the cap that the New Democrats are specifically looking at putting in place?

Opposition Motion—TelecommunicationsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Georgina Jolibois NDP Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite speaks about misleading Canadians. Every day, members in this House, including the member opposite, are continually misleading. Under the Liberals' plan, every Canadian, especially people in the north of provinces, do not have access to the $10 per month service that he is talking about. The majority of communities in the northern part of provinces are excluded. Therefore, the Liberals are the ones who are misleading Canadians across Canada.

Opposition Motion—TelecommunicationsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's contribution to this debate today. There are a couple of inherent contradictions within the NDP motion today, and I would like to ask the member's opinion on this.

First of all, there are some criticisms about the CRTC $750 million fund to ensure that remote communities can have access to connectivity. That money, that $750 million, comes from Canadians. It is charged, obviously, by the industry and passed on to the CRTC. However, the member's party is talking about a price cap. The Auditor General was quite clear that tens of billions of dollars of investment would be required to have access to places like the territories or northern communities such as those in Saskatchewan or Manitoba.

How does the member propose to actually be able to pay for those things when she is advocating for a price cap, which would kneecap those activities?

Opposition Motion—TelecommunicationsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Georgina Jolibois NDP Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK

Mr. Speaker, on both sides of the House, the Liberals and the Conservatives had consecutive governments, going back and forth.

Both have shown where their priorities lie, with corporation—

Opposition Motion—TelecommunicationsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

An hon. member

Why can the member not answer the question?

Opposition Motion—TelecommunicationsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Georgina Jolibois NDP Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK

I am answering this question. The NDP is the people's party. Both parties, when they were in government, have given millions and billions of dollars to corporations and to support big companies, but never to the Canadians who need the support.