Senator Martin: The CIBC estimates that the Trudeau government is not counting about 250,000 international students pursuing their education in Canada. Last month, the new Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Sean Fraser, told the media that a cap on international students is “one of the options we ought to consider.”

Leader, the housing crisis is not the fault of international students. They have simply followed the rules put in place by the Trudeau government — yet there are reports of international students who are homeless, living under bridges or in cars. Everyone in Canada deserves safe and affordable shelter. Instead of always looking for someone else to blame, when will the Trudeau government accept responsibility for the housing crisis it has created?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, according to The Globe and Mail, members of the Trudeau government’s cabinet attending a retreat in Charlottetown last month were told that roughly one million more non-permanent residents live in Canada than the government’s official estimate suggests. This briefing to ministers — by an economist from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, or CIBC — included a warning that by undercounting the number of people in Canada, the Trudeau government is also underestimating the number of new houses required to meet our country’s needs.

Leader, this occurred under the watch of the previous minister responsible for immigration, who is now the new minister responsible for housing. How is it possible to lose count of one million people in our country?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I note that this item is at day 15. I would like to adjourn the debate for the balance of my time.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Patterson (Nunavut), seconded by the Honourable Senator Tannas, for the second reading of Bill S-228, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (property qualifications of Senators).

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) moved second reading of Bill C-288, An Act to amend the Telecommunications Act (transparent and accurate broadband services information).

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak as the Senate sponsor of Bill C-288, an Act to amend the Telecommunications Act (transparent and accurate broadband services information). Bill C-288 is timely and necessary, as too many communities in this country — particularly rural communities — still lack connectivity to broadband.

I would like to begin by acknowledging my colleague in the other place, Member of Parliament Dan Mazier, for his tireless work and dedication to ensuring all Canadians have equal access to communication technologies.

In 2019, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, launched an eight‑month inquiry into a host of complaints from Canadians over the harm caused by misleading sales tactics by Canada’s telecommunications companies. Some of the unacceptable practices the report pointed to included call centre employees at major telecommunications companies adding services to a customer’s account without permission, retail store employees fudging contract details and door-to-door salespeople misrepresenting contract prices.

Some of the key recommendations included the CRTC creating a mandatory internet code of conduct that could include price protections during a contract, similar to those that exist for cell phones under the Wireless Code; requiring service providers to allow a cooling-off period so customers can cancel services if they don’t match what they were offered; broadening the mandate of the telecommunications mediator — the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-Television Services, or CCTS — so it can investigate complaints about misleading and aggressive sales tactics; and conducting nationwide secret shopper tests to ensure retail sales staff aren’t misleading customers.

It is worthwhile to mention that the report did not differentiate between telecommunications companies that were engaged in these misleading practices and those that were not. In advance of the inquiry, the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-Television Services sampled 441 complaints to identify sources of customer frustration. The CCTS found that more than half — 53% of the complaints — reported a mismatch between expectations at the point of sale and subsequent experiences. In 41% of the complaints, consumers claimed they weren’t told their contracts include a clause that allows for unilateral price or service changes. Canada saw a 57% spike in complaints in 2017-18, most of them involving wireless providers. This was despite a revised Wireless Code, which is meant to protect consumers. It came into effect in December 2017. Just a few of the cases are as follows.

A customer from Laval, Quebec, agreed to obtain a bundle of home phone, internet and TV services for $111 per month, but was then billed $131 per month. The provider told her that she was not eligible for the offer priced of $111 per month. A customer from Langley, B.C., received an offer from her service provider of a new mobile device, which included a device protection plan. The customer paid $280 for the device and believed she was on a month-to-month agreement. The device broke, and she received a refurbished replacement. When she reported her dissatisfaction, she was told she was locked into a 24-month plan with a $500 cancellation fee.

A customer from Saskatchewan subscribed to internet service delivered through a satellite system. The service functioned properly for a few days, until the internet speed decreased, particularly when used for gaming or watching Netflix. The provider said a new plan would be necessary to get those speeds.

“Marketplace,” a consumer protection program on CBC, did a hidden-camera investigation in 2018 and found that door-to-door telecom sales representatives were promising “forever prices” on internet services, fictional promotion prices and made false speed claims. Furthermore, many customers were misled on claims that they would be able to access fibre-optic technology right to their homes, where they were still relying on copper cabling from their homes to a fibre-optic node several streets away.

That brings us to the need for Bill C-288. In articulating the reasons for this bill, MP Mazier said the following:

Access to quality Internet is essential, and rural Canadians, in particular, understand the devastating impacts associated with poor Internet service across our nation. . . .

He correctly stated that:

. . . If members of the House were to speak with Canadians across our country, they would realize that many feel cheated, misled and ripped-off by Internet companies. This is because millions of Canadians are frustrated to learn that the Internet quality they are paying for is nowhere near what they expected.

Consumers make purchasing decisions based on information. When it comes to the Internet, Canadians expect the highest quality of service. Unfortunately, when consumers are making decisions on what Internet provider is best for them, they do not have access to the most accurate and realistic information.

As Mr. Mazier said, “Canadians deserve to know what they are paying for,” which is why he introduced Bill C-288. Bill C-288 addresses the concerns of Canadians, especially those in rural communities who buy expensive internet services only to realize that they do not receive the speeds that were advertised to them. The speeds that customers see when they go to purchase internet are not guaranteed, and they are rarely minimum or average speeds.

Currently, the government allows internet companies to advertise maximum theoretical speeds. Such words as “up to” are used in those advertisements, leading consumers to believe that an internet service is better than it actually is.

Bill C-288 addresses that by providing customers with accurate and transparent information on fixed broadband services. Simply put, it clarifies what an internet service customer is buying.

First, this legislation would mandate internet companies to provide Canadians with typical download and upload speeds, and not maximum theoretical speeds. Bill C-288 also provides Canadians with quality metrics during peak usage times. Internet users want to know what their speeds will be at peak times, not in the middle of the night, when people are sleeping. This puts consumers first by empowering them with the knowledge they need to make the right decisions for their personal and business use of the internet.

Last and most important, Bill C-288 will be properly enforced. Thanks to a Conservative amendment at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, public hearings must be held by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to ensure compliance, monitoring and enforcement.

Honourable senators, this bill is about lifting the veil and providing honest information that enables consumers to make well-informed choices about the internet services they are purchasing.

OpenMedia, an organization that works to keep the internet open and affordable, agrees with that objective. In a statement, it said:

When you sign up for an Internet plan, you deserve to know what you’re paying for. It’s a simple matter of truth and transparency. If an Internet provider is advertising certain speeds, consumers have the right to know BEFORE they buy if those speeds accurately reflect average network performance.

As I mentioned earlier, Bill C-288 will amend the Telecommunications Act to require that internet service providers, or ISPs, give consumers accurate information regarding the quality and speeds of internet services during peak usage periods, and not based on theoretical possibilities or best‑case scenarios. Such words are misleading for consumers, who are then fooled into believing that they will receive a certain level of service under all scenarios, when, in fact, the best-case scenario might never be achieved.

According to an expert, the CRTC explicitly excluded restrictions against misleading advertisements of service quality levels in the development of its 2019 Internet Code, and this bill will potentially mitigate what can be viewed as an error in developing the Internet Code.

You may ask yourself this: What are the consequences of an absence of accurate information during purchasing decisions?

The principal concerns are that consumers will be overpaying for services and probably not purchasing the best service that fits their needs. In our interconnected world, where many people increasingly work from home, this has serious potential implications for those who run home businesses that might be competing globally.

Canadians currently pay some of the highest costs for internet and wireless telecom services in the world, while access to high-speed broadband internet and wireless telecom services is also among the lowest for developed countries. According to the CRTC’s data, 38% of rural and remote communities have inadequate access to high-speed broadband internet services. Among Indigenous communities, that drops to less than 30%, whereas the all-Canada average, including urban centres, is well over 80%.

Full coverage of rural and remote Canada is promised by 2030, by which time download speeds of 50 megabytes per second and upload speeds of 10 megabytes per second might be woefully inadequate for the functions of broadband that will be enjoyed in cities. It might also be completely inadequate for rural home businesses that are seeking to stay competitive.

I believe that Bill C-288 will improve accountability and transparency in Canada’s telecom sector by lifting the veil so that Canadians know the quality of the broadband services they are purchasing. The bill will not have a direct impact on improved access to high-speed broadband services in rural and remote areas, but it will at least improve accountability and transparency. That will hopefully lead to more competition while improving consumer choice.

A report by the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on Industry and Technology echoed how important the objectives contained in this bill are. That report noted that the CRTC should require internet service providers to make information available to consumers on the usual download and upload speeds they can expect during peak periods so that they can make more informed purchasing decisions based on accurate and transparent information.

Witnesses at the House committee also testified that Bill C-288 would bolster the CRTC’s new policy direction to ensure competition and consumer rights.

Honourable senators, this gap in rural and remote connectivity has been with us for too long. In 2021, the Conservative Party election platform stated:

As technology continues to advance, the infrastructure of the future — broadband and 5G — will be increasingly critical to job creation.

The platform proposed to:

Build digital infrastructure to connect all of Canada to High‑Speed Internet by 2025 . . . .

It also proposed to:

Accelerate the plan to get rural broadband built.

Speed up the spectrum auction process to get more spectrum into use and apply “use it or lose it” provisions to ensure that spectrum (particularly in rural areas) is actually developed . . . .

I am pleased to underscore the support that this bill received in the other place.

As Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, stated on the bill at third reading, “For me, it is all about consumer awareness and protection, and that is the reason I am supporting it.”

Mr. Bryan Masse of the NDP in turn said this:

I congratulate the member because he has a specific thing here to fix broadband services and bring greater accountability to their advertising and what they are promoting, which is critical in a couple of contexts. One is obviously truth in advertising. This bill would give more expectations and oversight to ensure that when services are advertising certain speeds, consumers actually get that. That is important for making purchasing decisions.

Before I conclude, honourable senators, I would be remiss if I did not mention the Honourable Senator Patterson’s Bill S-242, An Act to amend the Radiocommunication Act, or as he calls it, “the use it or lose it” bill. Bill S-242 complements Bill C-288 by ensuring that Canada’s spectrum is available for Canadians to deliver important wireless services like the internet and not exploited by larger companies that hold licences and turn them around at staggering profits.

To quote Senator Patterson:

Canadians in rural, remote and northern communities deserve connectivity. Senators know that I have long railed against Canada’s spectrum policy, which prioritizes urban competition over rural connectivity. Communities anywhere from 15 minutes outside of Calgary to those in the Far North — such as Grise Fiord, Nunavut — are deprived of connectivity. While there are many factors that contribute to the lack of connectivity, one reality is that some communities lack access to sufficient internet connectivity thanks to spectrum that remains unused.

I believe Bill S-242 will prevent spectrum squatting and, coupled with bills like C-288, will usher in a new age of rural entrepreneurialism — a new economy that is being created because of the global pandemic — where Canadians are and will be working from home more than ever before. This, then, is where Senator Patterson’s and MP Mazier’s bills are very useful in establishing a level playing field for Canada’s rural and Indigenous communities.

Honourable senators, this bill has passed through the other house with strong support and is now before us in the Senate. I ask for your support at second reading of this bill and to send it to committee where we can hear from Canadians who are directly affected by this issue and help ensure equal and fair internet access for all. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Downe, for Senator Patterson (Nunavut), debate adjourned.)