44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 6, 2023
- 03:45:31 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Good afternoon.
I call the meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 60 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 30, 2022, we are studying Bill C‑288, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act (transparent and accurate broadband services information).
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022.
We are fortunate to have with us today the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, Dan Mazier, who is here to discuss Bill C‑288, which he is the sponsor of.
Thank you for being here today, Mr. Mazier.
Without further ado, I will turn the floor over to you. You have 10 minutes.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:46:19 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you, Chair.
I want to thank the committee for inviting me to discuss my private member's bill, Bill C-288.
As you know, Bill C-288 passed second reading with unanimous support. I was proud to see us come together, put politics aside and put consumers first in an important issue for Canadians.
As I've said before, many Canadians, especially those living in rural, remote and indigenous communities, don't feel they are receiving the Internet speeds and quality they are paying for. The speeds that customers see when they go to purchase an Internet speed are not guaranteed speeds. They are rarely minimum speeds or average speeds. Instead, Internet companies advertise maximum theoretical speeds. Words such as “up to” are used in these advertisements and lead consumers to believe that an Internet service is better than it is.
Technically, Canadians receive what they pay for as long as their speeds are lower than the maximum theoretical speed, but this information does not accurately reflect the service quality that potential consumers can expect. That's why it is no surprise that data released by the Canadian Internet Registration Authority revealed that only one-third of Canadians believe their household receives the “up to” speed included in their home Internet package all or most of the time.
Bill C-288 addresses this by providing potential customers with accurate and transparent information, a concept that we can all get behind.
The first pillar of this legislation will mandate Internet companies to provide Canadians with typical download and upload speeds, not just maximum theoretical speeds. Instead of providing customers with best-case scenarios, let's give them a realistic expectation so they can decide if the service fits their needs and their budget.
Secondly, this legislation will provide Canadians with quality metrics during the time when they are most likely to use the service. Of course, service quality will be better when no one is using the Internet, but knowing what the speeds are at 7 p.m. is more relevant than knowing what the speeds are at three o'clock in the morning.
Finally, this legislation will initiate a consultation process that allows industry, advocacy groups and the public to develop a model in the public's best interest.
Canadians need to trust the information given to them. These proposals will help close the gap between what Canadians expect to receive and what they actually receive.
For those who say these decisions should be entirely left to the CRTC and policy directives, I say that the issues relating to connectivity are too important to be kept away from legislators. Yes, there are technical aspects to be left to the regulator, as Bill C-288 does, but I believe that as parliamentarians we have a duty to improve connectivity for Canadians. This includes legislating clear guidelines and requirements on this matter, as Bill C-288 does.
The proposals in this bill are not new and have been successfully implemented in other countries.
Since my bill was introduced, the United States Federal Communications Commission announced that they will mandate a broadband service label, an initiative that reflects the content of Bill C-288. This was a direct result of a legislated bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Australia implemented clear standards for advertising with typical speeds during peak periods. In the United Kingdom, Internet service providers state the average speed that at least 50% of the customers receive during the highest usage hours.
I think we can all agree that more competition is needed in our telecom sector. To improve competition, we must allow Canadians to compare accurate information.
In closing, I want to remind the committee that, in June of 2021, this committee published its seventh report and recommended the following:
That the [CRTC] 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.
Not one party dissented on this report. The committee now has the opportunity to act on the recommendation and codify it into law. Canadians deserve to know what they are paying for.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
718 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:50:57 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you very much, Mr. Mazier. It's much appreciated.
We'll now start the discussion with MP Perkins for six minutes.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:51:05 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Mazier. To help all of us, including me, understand the purpose of this bill, one of the things I did was to go to the websites of the Internet service providers, the big guys—Rogers, Bell and Telus—to try to find out how they market this. I think this is obviously what you're trying to get at.
When I go to Rogers, for example, on this 2.5 gigabit package for $135 a month, they say, “up to 2.5 Gbps download speed”, and when I go further on to their other packages that cost less, they say, “up to 500 Mbps download speed”. I went to Bell's, and they use similar but different terminology throughout their various options. They talk about maximum download speed, and Telus does the same.
First of all, a consumer is required to have a basic understanding of what the heck that means at that speed, which I'm not sure most average everyday people do, but it does impact the price they're charging.
Second, the maximum speed is probably in a perfect world. Is this what you're trying to get at—the fact that Internet companies market using terminology like “up to”, which is sort of like saying “almost” or “perhaps”?
231 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:52:47 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Yes, that's exactly what I'm trying to get at. This bill directly addresses this idea of “up to” speeds and has very clear language indicating that the CRTC has to actually define what typical upload and download speeds consumers can expect rather than “up to” speeds. Really when you stop and think about it, one is below 10, so if it's “up to 10”, then, according to that contract and according to that wording, one is acceptable. That is exactly what we're trying to get away from so that consumers can make an informed decision.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:53:33 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Yes. The “up to” could be anything from zero up to that level, which means they're charging you increasing amounts of money but really have made no commitment to meet that speed level.
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:53:43 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
3 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:53:44 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
In the past we used to see maximum and minimum speeds on the Trans-Canada Highway. That even used to be advertised on the highway when you were driving, but nowhere that I can find does it say that you can expect between this and this speed, but in a perfect world, there is this speed.
Have you looked at the idea that there should be some minimums in these packages, or how do you see that working?
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:54:14 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I think simply telling consumers what they're buying would be a huge step forward here in Canada. When I go out and talk about this bill, people can't believe that this is actually legal in Canada, that they can actually sell you a service in theory.
I was racking my brains last night trying to figure out where else in the world you would buy this kind of service. Can you imagine going up to a gas station and saying, “Okay, I'm going to get up to 50 litres,” and then you only end up with 35 but you pay for 50? That was what the language said, and you agreed—yes, I'm going to get up to 50 litres.
This is the same kind of thing we're talking about. It's very misleading, and it's time for the Canadian industry to step up and start doing what it can do.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:55:00 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
The only comparable I would have to that perhaps would be the theoretical gas mileage on your car. When I read about the telephone and the Internet companies, they seem to be operating in the same way with a theoretical thing. I've heard that they'll push back and say that one of the reasons they can't do that is that they're not in control of the kind of router you have or they're not in control of the number of people who are on at one time. They have a lot of “the dog ate my homework” types of excuses as to why they're not delivering.
Is that what you are hearing—that it's in a perfect world? Do we know anything about what the average or normal speed is that you would get in a normal household with these packages, or do we even have that kind of information for consumers?
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:55:55 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
This is the other part this bill addresses. They have to report to the consumer, to the user. Right now, they report that information to ISED, but they don't report it to the actual user or the person buying that service. Under this bill, they have to actually say, “Here's what you can expect”, even if it's the average or expected typical upload and download speeds during peak hours. If a consumer was armed with that information, they could clearly decide what kind of service they needed.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:56:32 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
If I'm a Rogers customer buying this 2.5-gigabyte package at $135 a month, that's a lot of money. I should be able to expect 2.5 gigabytes of speed whenever I need and use that. Is that your contention?
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:56:54 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Does it have upload and download speeds? It says that the upload is 10 or 50 or 2.5 or whatever the number you're referring to—
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:57:01 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Yes, it has upload and download options. When they market it that way, that's what I should expect, but it isn't necessarily what I get.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:57:11 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
That's correct. It's when it's good for them.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:57:14 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I might be paying $135 a month and getting an $89-a-month package, essentially.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:57:21 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
That is where we talk about the clear language, so that a consumer is informed about that decision. Maybe they don't need that much service. It helps in terms of what price point or how much speed they actually need for their usage.
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:57:38 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
3 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:57:40 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you.
Go ahead, Mr. Fillmore.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:57:45 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you very much, Mr. Mazier, for joining us today and for the hard work you've put into this bill. I think we all understand the hours it takes and the conversations and the collaborations, so thank you for all of that.
Just to start, I'm sure you know that earlier this year Minister Champagne announced a policy direction to the CRTC that has a lot of attributes similar to your bill. For example, the policy direction is a binding policy direction. It covers a range of issues: to put in place new rules to improve competition; to enhance the rights of consumers and their access to information; to speed up the deployment of high-quality broadband networks; and to promote lower prices and better services. Specifically, the direction also requires the CRTC to implement broadband performance testing requirements.
I'm just wondering if you could characterize the coexistence or the overlap of any conflict between the two—between the policy direction and your bill.
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
