SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 133 - Nov/23/22

Nov/23/22 5:39:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, I want to say what we often hear in question period, that I thank my colleague and commend her for her excellent work. What a great question. All joking aside, I completely agree with my colleague. She raised an important point. Her husband is a police officer. He experiences these types of situations. I experienced them myself as a lawyer. Many of us have, in various capacities, regardless of our respective careers, or as litigants. I know how frustrating it can be for an officer of the court, a police officer or anyone else to see how much money is being needlessly wasted the morning of a hearing. I can guarantee that it is just as bad for the litigants in the room, who may have travelled in a snowstorm, and who are told that the hearing they prepared for is being postponed. They also often have to pay their lawyer who prepared for the hearing the evening before and who showed up at the courthouse in the morning. If such situations can be avoided, then everyone will be happy about Bill S-4 being passed.

189 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Nov/23/22 5:41:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-4, although I have to place it in the category of “better late than never”. This legislation responds primarily to what we learned as a result of court delays during the pandemic. How quickly we forget that the court system in Canada essentially shut down completely, sometimes for weeks and sometimes for months in different parts of the country, as a result of widespread illness and the fear of illness. Essentially, we had a collapse of the court system looming. Therefore, in this Parliament, through all-party agreement, we enacted quickly some measures that allowed the courts to keep functioning during the pandemic. Most of those measures are now appearing here to become permanent, because they were adopted on a temporary basis. They would now be made permanent in Bill S-4. We also tend to forget that this bill was on the Order Paper before the unnecessary election. Most of my constituents have completely forgotten we had a 2021 election. People talk to me about the last election as though it were 2019. However, this bill was one of the casualties of the Liberals' calling that election during the pandemic, and it died on the Order Paper. Therefore, I am glad to be back here today talking about Bill S-4 and how to address delays in the court system. It is very clear that we already had delays before the pandemic. In the period between the Supreme Court decision called “Askov” in 1990 and the decision called the “Jordan decision” in 2016, we had more than 50,000 criminal cases dismissed in the province of Ontario alone because of delays of the court system. This included literally hundreds of cases of sexual assault that were dismissed because of court delays. Therefore, it is important that we tackle this in the long run and not find ourselves back in that situation where delays deny justice to the victims of what are quite serious and horrendous crimes, in many cases. With the Jordan decision, the Supreme Court specified that depending on the seriousness of the case involved, a reasonable time to get to court is something between 18 months and 30 months. That is a deadline that we face in our court system. If we do not have the system functioning for that, we will see dismissals of cases again. We have large backlogs in the system as a result of the pandemic, and we are in danger of seeing more dismissals of cases again in the future if we do not get moving. That is why Bill S-4, which would improve the efficiency of the court system, is really important. The other thing about delays is that they affect public confidence in the justice system, both for those who have been accused, who would like to see their case dealt with in a reasonable time and who have a right to that under our Constitution, and also for victims of crime, who do not want to see cases drawn out for months and years. Victims of crime do not want to have this necessity of reliving the trauma and having what happened to them come back again and again over long periods of time, so we have this important task in front of us to try to reduce those delays. There are some obvious obstacles that would cause delays in court. I will give credit to the government that it has tried to tackle one of those obstacles, which is filling vacancies on the bench. In doing so, the government has paid a lot of attention to making the judiciary look a lot more like Canadians as a whole, and that is a good thing. However, there is another way of reducing delays that the government would not take up the NDP proposal on, which would be reducing the number of things that we consider criminal offences. One of the things we did was put forward the proposal that we decriminalize the personal possession of drugs. This would have taken literally hundreds of cases out of our court system in which there is no victim to the crime. Also, for cases in which we are talking about the use of very serious drugs, it would help get them into the health care system instead of the criminal justice system. Therefore, the government has not always taken our advice on the best way to reduce delays, but we are glad to see the changes that are coming forward here. I want to talk quickly about two major changes and then two other changes in this bill. Probably the change that is most important for the elimination of delays is the change with respect to remote appearances. Previously, there was no provision in our system for the accused to appear by video in preliminary inquiries, in trials, for lodging pleas or for sentencing, so a lot of time was spent moving accused individuals around, back and forth to the courts, so they could appear in person. The changes here will remove the necessity that was there to make sure someone was always in person for what was sometimes two minutes of a routine proceeding, for things like lodging a plea. It will also make a change to allow those who have been selected for possible jury duty to make their appearances by video or remotely and reduce the inconvenience to members of the public who might be called to jury duty. That is an important section of the bill, to allow the greater use of technology and remote appearances. The second part, probably not so publicly visible but related to efficiencies in the court and policing system, is the provision for updating telewarrants. Our law before the pandemic envisioned that for a narrow range of criminal cases only, a judge could be called by phone. What we found during the pandemic was that we could use remote technologies to expand the range of cases in which a warrant could be obtained through remote methods. Again, the bill provides for a wider variety of cases where a wider variety of technologies can be used in order to get warrants. This will save the time of both judges and police in our system. I have a couple of things I want to mention quickly. One is the changes in case management rules for the unrepresented. One of the problems we have in our court system is that while people have the right to appear in court unrepresented, a lot of people are not exercising some kind of right. Rather, they cannot afford a lawyer to assist them in their case because they do not qualify for legal aid. Perhaps they earn just enough money to be out of the range of legal aid programs. I think it is a significant improvement, both in terms of case delays but also in terms of justice for ordinary Canadians, who cannot always afford to get a lawyer. This would allow court administrators to provide a lot more assistance to the unrepresented. The justification is often the court delays, but I think there is a second justification that is important there, and that is improving access to justice for those who are unrepresented. There is obviously a better solution, and that would be to expand legal aid, so that people do not end up appearing in court on serious matters unrepresented. Again, though, that takes a lot of federal-provincial co-operation, something that is sometimes in short supply in our legal system. The fourth thing I want to talk about, and I mentioned it briefly, is the provisions that make it easier for the public who are called for jury duty to participate remotely. Here is an area in which I think we have a lot more to do. We need to make sure jurors are not in fact penalized by serving on a jury. In our federal system, most of the rules about compensating jurors are in provincial jurisdictions, even though they are sitting on cases under the federal Criminal Code. We need national standards on how we compensate jurors and what kinds of things they are compensated for. When we look at how people are compensated for jury duty right now, it ranges usually between $40 and $100 a day. Very few people have compensation in terms of getting paid leave from their employers. It increases people's resistance to serving on juries. There are lots of other expenses that are covered in various ways in various provinces. Are meals covered? Is parking covered? The one that is most important to me, which is rarely covered, is child care. The Province of Quebec allows compensation for child care on a case-by-case basis. I think it is on the basis of application. That is also true in Nunavut. I believe that is the only other place where there is compensation for child care. If we really want to make sure juries represent the breadth of Canada and the face of Canada, then parents quite often are going to be very reluctant to serve if they do not have compensation for the child care that is going to be required. Some people might say they would already be going to work so they would have child care, but we have a lot of parents who make choices about who is going to stay home and do child care. If that person is summoned for jury duty, that is a big expense. That is something that is not in the bill, but I look forward to our taking this spirit of co-operation we have on this bill and maybe making some progress on what I would call a national standard of how jurors are compensated for serving in this country. I want to say again that we have broad agreement on the bill. That is a good thing. It took a long time to get it here, but maybe now that we are in gear it will not take so long to get it out of here and into committee, and maybe it will not take so long in committee to get it back to the House. I share the optimistic suggestion of my Conservative colleague, who wanted to see us get this done by Christmas. I think that would be a good thing, and I think we can all work toward that. We do not always co-operate well in the House. Sometimes our divisions keep us from dealing expeditiously with things that are real problems. I think delays in the court system are a real problem, and I am very happy all parties have come together to try to address this in Bill S-4.

1813 words

All Topics

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Nov/23/22 5:52:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for his learned presentation. I think there are some very important elements there. I wanted to just pick up on the issue of access to justice and how this bill would expand that. I know it has been one of those challenging issues that, across provincial jurisdictions, we have had to deal with. Can he maybe talk about his province of British Columbia and how it has been able to adopt this, how that has impacted access to justice and how that has informed Bill S-4?

102 words

All Topics

Mr. Randall Garrison

Nov/23/22 5:52:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, I am going to have to say that I cannot speak extensively on that. I know that certainly the previous provincial attorney general, David Eby, and the current Attorney General in British Columbia have both had access to justice front and centre, and I know they have expanded access to legal aid as one of the main concerns about people having to go to court unrepresented. Also, it is not just in criminal law, but also in family law, where we have a large problem in all provinces. Quite often one partner of a dispute, and it is usually the husband, has access to much greater legal resources than their partner in those kinds of cases. I know British Columbia has been both trying to encourage mediation processes in family law to tackle that problem and trying to right that balance between parties in those difficult cases.

149 words

All Topics

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Nov/23/22 5:54:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, I think one thing we all agree on across all party lines is the need for justice reform. Sometimes we may disagree on where that reform should be, but we need a system that protects the rights of victims and survivors, and also makes sure those who are being accused have access to justice and justice in a fair manner. However, one of the issues that comes up again and again in Canadian society is overrepresentation of racialized communities, and particularly indigenous communities. The courts are being used to handle situations that could be handled better within community and other alternate structures, so that we are not creating a class of criminals, but actually pulling people out of some very sometimes toxic relationships or sometimes bad behaviour. The community can actually help restore and bring people back within their communities. I would like to ask my hon. colleague, from his extensive work, about the steps he thinks we need to take to start looking at the powers we can put in place to make sure those who should not be in jail can be taken out of that system and put on a better track.

197 words

All Topics

Mr. Randall Garrison

Nov/23/22 5:55:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, I think the first thing we need to address is that many first nations have their own ways of dealing with things we tend to send to court and prison that are much more effective than the methods we use. The problem is that those traditional communities and traditional systems are under-resourced, so we need to make resources available to first nations that wish to pursue their own justice initiatives, which in the end would be far more effective than the adversarial and correctional system we tend to support as a whole.

95 words

All Topics

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

Nov/23/22 5:56:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague gave a well-researched and well-delivered speech. I would agree with him on one thing and that is that access to justice in Canada is getting harder and harder. In my opinion, and in my experience as well, access to justice depends more and more upon accessing a system through money. When he talks about people not being able to access that justice system and the requirement for lawyers, he is hitting the nail right on the head. I want to congratulate him for that. Does he see that the system itself has gained so much weight in the middle that it is just being run by the people who are making money from the system? Is there a way through this that does not mean that one can only get there through lawyers, a more streamlined system of solving our disputes in Canada, so we do not have as much strain on our legal system?

162 words

All Topics

Mr. Randall Garrison

Nov/23/22 5:57:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his compliments. I do not think I share the same view of the system. I do not think there are a lot of people within the system who are there just to make money. In my experience with the legal community, certainly in my own community, there are some who make more than a good living out of the legal system, but most people are there because of their commitment to justice, whether they are working as prosecutors or as defence attorneys. However, I do agree with the hon. member that, as I just said about first nations, there are alternative methods to the traditional arrest, send to court and send to prison process that we have tended to overly rely on in Canada. That is appropriate for some people. That is the only way to deal with some criminals in our system, but for most people, that is not the underlying problem and not the real solution. I agree with him that we need to look at alternative methods of dealing with things such as drug addiction and poverty, which cause a lot of people to end up in the court system.

201 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/23/22 5:58:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts on how the legislation would ultimately provide more flexibility, and how, by providing that additional flexibility, it would make the system more just, more efficient and more effective at delivering justice. Could he provide his thoughts on that specifically?

51 words

All Topics

Mr. Randall Garrison

Nov/23/22 5:58:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, I think the question brings up an important point. In this bill, we are looking to adopt a broader use of technology, not just for the sake of a broader use of technology, but to provide greater access to justice, as part of this, and that flexibility. I think we had the important suggestion made by the member for Timmins—James Bay about how sometimes using technology allows victims to participate more freely in these kinds of systems than if they have to appear in front of someone who has caused them great harm in person. I think that there are lots of advantages, in addition to the efficiency advantages, in Bill S-4.

117 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/23/22 5:59:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to an important piece of legislation. I had the opportunity to ask a couple of questions of a number of members on Bill S-4. It is a piece of legislation that was in the House previously, but in a different form. It originated in the House of Commons, where there was a great deal of discussion about it, and it has been reintroduced to the House in the form of a Senate bill, with very few substantial changes. Having said that, I look at the legislation as a form of modernization. I do not say that lightly. I recall a couple of instances from years ago when I was a justice critic in the Manitoba legislature. There was a great deal of talk about how we could utilize technology to ensure that our judicial system was more effective. One thing that used to really frustrate me was, when I would drive to the Manitoba legislature from home, I would pass the courts and see all the police cars parked there due to police waiting for trial, many of whom would never even get to testify on that particular day and would be called upon to come back another day, or I would be at another facility where there was serious police traffic, all court related. I remember talking to law enforcement officers who indicated it would be far better to capitalize on some of the technology, such as video conferencing, and the positive impact that would have. I believe it would be quite effective. When I heard about the legislation coming from the Senate, legislation that originated in the House and was then reintroduced through the Senate, I looked at it from the perspective that, at the end of day, Canadians want a system that will be there in an independent fashion, independent of politics. We very much believe in the rule of law and judicial independence, but there is still a role for legislators and parliamentarians to look at ways to improve the system. That is what we are seeing here. This legislation that the government brought forward would ensure better accessibility. It would make the system more efficient and, ultimately, more effective. As was cited earlier, we hear a great deal about the importance of getting justice as quickly as possible. There are certain things we have learned from the pandemic. We often heard, when the pandemic was at its peak, that we should look for ways to learn from the pandemic to improve our systems. The technology can easily be brought into our judicial system. We should at least provide the opportunity for its usage. I like to think that providing that opportunity would make a difference. Bill S-4 proposes a range of reforms that would make court proceedings more flexible while protecting the rights of all participants. The reforms would flow from important work that was done and conducted by the Action Committee on Court Operations in Response to COVID-19, co-chaired by the Minister of Justice and Chief Justice Richard Wagner. When we look at the tangible things coming out of the legislation, we see one would allow an accused person to appear by video conference at a preliminary inquiry, on consent of the parties and where the court considers it appropriate, including when evidence is actually being presented. In addition, it would allow an accused person to appear by video conference for trial for a summary conviction offence, on consent and where the court considers it appropriate, including when evidence is being presented. Another important point to recognize in the legislation is that it would allow an accused person to appear via video conference for a trial for an indictable offence on the consent of parties and where the court considers it appropriate, including when evidence is being presented, except in the case of evidence before a jury. I have two more points to highlight. It would allow an accused person to appear by video conference and audio conference for making a plea on consent of the parties and, where the court considers it appropriate, a plea by audio conference. This would only occur when the court was satisfied that video conferencing was not readily available, and the court could still inquire about the conditions of accepting a guilty plea under subsection 606(1.1), despite not being able to see the accused person, which was proposed in clause 715.234. The last point I would make to Bill S-4 is that it would allow the offender to appear by video conference or audio conference for sentencing purposes, on the consent of the parties and where a court considers it appropriate. Sentencing by audio conference would only occur when the court was satisfied that video conferencing was not readily available, as proposed in clause 715.235. I do appreciate the importance of video conferencing. My New Democratic friend from James Bay—

833 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Nov/23/22 6:07:28 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

15 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Nov/23/22 6:07:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, if the member is going to say something nice about me, he needs to say, “the member for Timmins—James Bay, who has brought such wisdom to the House”. It is a simple thing. I do not know why we have been—

48 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Nov/23/22 6:07:40 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member knows very well that is not a point of order. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

17 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/23/22 6:07:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, in fairness, I had made a note, and the member for Timmins—James Bay does on occasion say something interesting when he rises. On this occasion, he recognized the important role that video conferencing can play for victims. Mr. Charlie Angus: I was the only one who thought of that. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, yes, he was one of the only individuals who mentioned it today. In the past, I, and others, have had the opportunity to recognize the importance of victims and how we can be there to support victims. I appreciated the member's comments. We are taking a look at ways we can use technology, and this would not only make our courts more efficient, but it would also assist victims who have been put in difficult positions. If we can make it easier by working through the courts and getting that consensus to ensure that person can appear via video conference, then we should take advantage of that situation. I was quite encouraged by what appears to be unanimous consent to go forward with the legislation. That is very encouraging. When the legislation comes before us next, I will continue on that point, recognizing that we do have an opportunity to hopefully get Bill S-4 to committee. I respect what the members from the Bloc were saying, that the Quebec legal bar association is looking at ways it can enhance or improve the legislation. I suspect there could be some amendments coming forward. I look forward to its ultimately passage, and I will conclude my remarks the next time this comes before the House.

273 words

All Topics

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ)

Nov/23/22 6:10:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-288

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak at second reading of Bill C‑288, and I will take this opportunity to make references to what I experience in Laurentides—Labelle. This bill will, I am sure, have an impact on Quebeckers, including people in my riding, Laurentides—Labelle. The riding that I have the honour to represent is vast and rural. Anyone who knows our region knows that accessing high-quality, reliable and stable Internet service is a challenge that affects a good number of my constituents. The Bloc Québécois's work on the issue of Internet service is based on three levels of intervention. The first is providing access to as many people as possible. We are almost there. There have been a lot of initiatives in our ridings, and I commend some of the small municipalities, such as Labelle, where my sister lives, which has had broadband for several years now. The second level is ensuring high-quality service throughout our territory. Access is one thing, but there is also quality. The third level is to encourage competition among the various Internet service providers. In recent years, I have worked to substantially increase and improve Internet availability in my riding, enhancing speed and expanding coverage. In this day and age, we all agree that the Internet should be available everywhere. I am very proud to say that, in my riding, our elected representatives, our 43 mayors, took action and signed a letter calling out the lack of access. That sped up the process. We have seen numerous undertakings, including a new telecommunications co-operative that made it possible for my own home to connect to broadband a few months ago. I am very proud of that. As I said, the Internet is an essential service, now more than ever. Unfortunately, there are still lots of places that lack quality service. I find that hard to believe. Anyone who travels abroad and compares our service quality and access to what is available elsewhere knows that we have a long way to go. It is a question of security, development, economic vitality, geographic equality, social cohesion, quality of life and I could go on. Now is the time to expand access, and Bill C‑288 allows us to do just that. Unfortunately, as we see day in and day out, inflation is dragging on. That is why it is so important to facilitate competition in the very closed and monopolized world of Internet service providers. It is a matter of offering a breath of fresh air to Quebec families, who greatly need it. As legislators, we need to ensure that the information on connection speeds is exactly what is advertised by the large media conglomerates, that is, our Internet providers. If consumers are told that they will get a certain speed to ensure capacity, that information must be consistent and transparent. Consumers should not be fooled by claims of maximum download speeds that are ultimately very theoretical. It fails to tell the whole story about the service that people are paying for. Workers have been teleworking on a permanent basis for several months now throughout Quebec, including Laurentides—Labelle. The pandemic has not been easy for employers, who had to implement teleworking for their employees as quickly and efficiently as possible. However, employers are now demanding quality from their teleworking employees, and this is non-negotiable. This means that download speeds need to be optimal. I want to talk about Simon, a constituent of mine. He made arrangements to work from home during the pandemic. He did what many people did and managed to create an extraordinary quality of life. These days, in 2022, he should be able to work from home. Internet providers told him that he had everything he needed to do his job in the video game industry, so he settled in during the pandemic, only to find out shortly afterwards that the megabits that he was expecting from the Internet providers did not pan out, and this had a negative impact on his work. I experienced that too during the pandemic. We know it when it happens to us: When everyone wants to use the service at the same time, we have to choose who gets the connection, even at home. That is behind us now, because we are back in the House. How can we trust what we are being sold when there is still talk of theoretical speed, but not the real speed, meaning the 80% of speed we actually get when browsing online? This can have a direct impact on employment and quality of life, which goes back to what I was saying about Simon. Let us get back to the content of the bill. Thanks to the establishment of a comparable, standardized format, these guidelines would help see the real speed but would also allow the providers to adjust. This is a prime example of needing to walk the talk. In their advertising, Internet service providers claim that they are the best, the fastest and the top-performing. That may be, but when I use the Internet, the upload and download speeds may not be exactly as advertised. It is very important that there be transparency in that regard. Increased competition among the big players would directly and inevitably reduce prices. I am not making this up. None other than Joseph Stiglitz, a U.S. economist who received a Nobel Prize in economics, stated in 2011 that a competitive telecommunications sector opens up a whole world of possibilities. Competition can reduce prices, increasing access to the Internet for the least well-off. Many of us are also victims. Do my colleagues agree with me that lower prices would be most welcome for a good number of Quebeckers and for every person living in Canada? We must work together to ensure that there is real competition. We see it in other countries, and we must take action so that consumers have a range of providers to choose from. As consumers, how can we really believe these businesses? Requiring them to be transparent will increase competition. I hope that we will have a consensus so that we can do more to address quality and access across the country.

1057 words

All Topics

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Nov/23/22 6:20:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-288

Madam Speaker, It is a pleasure to participate in today's debate on this item of private members' business, Bill C-288, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act (transparent and accurate broadband services information). I want to start by congratulating and thanking the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa for his initiative. It is a good example of a member using wisely their private member's slot, because the bill comes from work that I was fortunately part of at the industry committee, where all parties supported a recommendation. I want to congratulate the member for finding a piece of legislation that, on the surface, not only would help protect consumers but is very important for our economy. I will get into more of that later. It would create more competition accountability, which is necessary in this industry, and it would drive our economy in a significant way. I want to start by reading one of the recommendations we had from 2021 at the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. We had a report called “Affordability and Accessibility of Telecommunications Services in Canada: Encouraging Competition to (Finally) Bridge the Digital Divide”, and this was our 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. The member was really wise, in my opinion, to table this type of bill in the House of Commons, because we did get a response from the government saying that it agreed with our all-party recommendation. However, we have not seen any activity on it. It is one of those things that I think we can find some consensus on in the House. Given the fact that we have had some recent issues with regard to our telecommunications industry and the practices that we need to catch up on regarding consumer rights, it is very timely. In general, Canada is basically treated as a colony when it comes to consumer rights, often from international firms and organizations that are doing business here. A quick example is the auto industry and the recalls in the Toyota file and others. Consumers in the United States got preferential treatment. They got hundreds of millions of dollars in investment because of terms and conditions when consumers were abused, whereas Canada did not get any of that. This came about from a number of different problems, but it is a good example showing that many times we are behind on common products that are sold across the border. This brings me to the thrust of our Canadian industries. There have been significant challenges to get competition running in the system. We should take note, as the member has, that other countries have advanced legislation on this. Australia has a very keen interest in this and has developed a very influential pattern that can be followed. The United States has more information. The United Kingdom and the European Union also have better performance standards in terms of reporting. Let us go to the surface of where this comes from at a base level with regard to letting consumers decide. It is fair to respond that if we look at some of the consumer products that are most frustrating and confusing for consumers to purchase, we would probably put in that category everything from insurance to purchasing a car to picking out which data plan a person and their family should have. Then there are all the promises, the subsets of conditions, the changing factors and the confusion. All of that is necessary to consider as people become experts, basically, to try to protect their consumer interests, with quite significant consequences. This is very important, because we cannot see it through the lens of basically accepting that we cannot download a movie quicker. The reality is that what we have seen over the pandemic and even prior to that, as the New Democrats have argued for over a decade now, is that Internet service reliability, access in rural and urban areas and affordability are actually essential. Our strategy, which I will touch on later in terms of the Canadian market economy, has been a poor one. However, the reality is that as people make these decisions, they do not have a chance to advocate for themselves and their family as consumers, and there is a consequence. With children going online, with people working at home going online and with a series of different types of interpersonal connections in business, in education and on social platforms, this has significant consequences. What the member is asking for is a regular reporting system that would actually allow consumers to have greater accountability. When we look at the different plans that are out there, it can be quite confusing, and the time frames of when the plans are accessed when using the product, being Internet access and the downloading speed, can vary significantly. We should have the right to choose the advantage of either putting more money towards a service that might be more reliable, versus that of an advertiser that does not have the same type of follow-through, and then have a consequence later on. This is significant, because we are spending hundreds of dollars per family for this type of service. As was mentioned before, it is essential because it affects everything going on in our lives. As New Democrats, we applaud this piece of legislation, because we feel it is going to also be significant for the economy. What I mean by that, which I do not think gets a lot of attention, is that coming out of the pandemic, Canada actually has an advantage with our network reliability. If there is more competition and lower pricing, if we change our spectrum auction to be more general in terms of access to the market and also a lower price threshold, we are going to take an advantage. For example, what is taking place now is that many people are getting jobs in Canada to work internationally without even going over to those countries. They can work from home, and they can do a number of occupations now while maybe visiting once in a while, or predominately working in their homes. That brings a significant income stream into the Canadian economy. It brings us innovation and skilled labour that is domestically developed. We should be looking at our network systems at the highest potential possible, which is why I want to touch on how bad our system has become with regard to the previous and current governments' use of the spectrum auction. Usually, people's eyes roll back when we talk about the spectrum auction and what it is, but we need to think about it as a pure asset we have that does not have any type of encumbrance on public cost. The spectrum auction is where we sell off the air rights. Consider it the same as water and land; it is completely open for development. What Canada has chosen to do is set up a spectrum auction, getting as much money back to the government as possible. The problem with that strategy has been that the companies, the traditional ones and the start-ups, have had to borrow a lot of money, encumbering them with the costs, which they pass on to Canadian consumers. However, other countries would have used the spectrum auction to facilitate higher-speed Internet service and development and lower costs, which is where New Democrats believe we should be going. The government, right now, has raked in over $30 billion with regard to the cost it has brought back in, and that has been passed on to consumers. We have to get that under control. We need to have greater access and lower costs, which means there has to be give and take in that relationship. When we look at a bill like this, it would also provide some extra competition from a number of different sector proponents and also straighten out some of the myths behind some of the costing platforms. It would show some of the vulnerabilities in the systems we have that I think we need to address, which I really think might be one of the more underrated aspects of the bill. It might be less about the fact that one wants to pay and get what one deserves, which is critical and should be a basic right no matter what. Second to that, it could be really helpful to know where our weaknesses are in rural, remote and even urban settings, which are underperforming and which are actually declared and supposed to have certain service requirements. That actually affects economic development, education and social integration. For all those elements, we will have to look at shoring up or seeing where the real problems are, and having the CRTC and the capabilities of that reporting made public is critical. I will conclude by thanking the member for bringing forward a very thoughtful bill during a minority Parliament where we want to get things done. I think all members should rally around this, because at the basic level it is for consumer protection, and beyond that for economic development, which is necessary, as well as for social integration and social justice for inclusion.

1591 words

All Topics

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

Nov/23/22 6:30:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-288

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise once again in the House and to be able to speak to what I think is a fantastic bill by my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa in Manitoba. As a result, we are continuing the conversation about reliable Internet access. There have been many speeches and questions in the House on this issue, and there are many members from different parties all across the country who care about the issue. The government has made announcements and promises over the years, but progress has been slow. Bill C-288, however, is doing something more than talking about a problem; it is taking some practical steps forward that will make a real difference for Canadians. To begin this debate at second reading, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa did a great job of laying out the three pillars of this legislation. The first is a requirement for Internet service providers to provide Canadians the typical download and upload speeds they offer, not just the maximum theoretical speeds. The second is a requirement to provide Canadians with the quality metrics they can expect during the peak periods, when people are most likely to use the service. For people at home who wonder why that is so important, the first reason in particular is that it deals with mostly what people would think of with their cellphone. A lot of the cellphone companies will talk about how their LTE speed on their cellphone could be up to 80 megabytes per second, or it could be 100 megabytes per second. The reality is that people are going to realize those speeds only if they are standing within 100 metres of the tower, with nobody else connected to the tower. That is the only time they are going to theoretically get that 100 megabyte speed. As technology has advanced and moved along, we are slowly getting to the point at which more people might be able to realize speeds closer to that, but it does not change the fact that for years people have been told that they could theoretically get that, without ever actually coming close to getting it. The second metric that I mentioned is especially important when we think about companies that are providing service via satellite, or maybe via a wireless-to-the-home connection. They are told they are going to get x amount of speed, but the reality is that as more users are utilizing the system, it is going to drag that speed down to a point at which it almost becomes unusable. As we all saw over the last couple of years with people doing school from home and people working from home, it has become almost impossible for a lot of people, particularly people in rural Canada, to be able to participate in the economy and to be able to participate in school. That is why I think these are a really good first couple of steps with this bill. The third pillar is to begin a consultation process with the CRTC and develop a framework that can work in the public's best interest. These are three simple things that are meant to work together so customers can have accurate and transparent information about the services they are paying for. It sounds like this should be something basic to the experience of buying anything, but in this case it is not, and certainly not for millions of Canadians. I want to make sure everyone understands the situation with Internet service in our country, which this bill is trying to improve. Let us start with some data that will help to put it in perspective. Last year, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority, or CIRA, released a report called “Canadians Deserve a Better Internet”. Here is what it had to say about the performance of quality experienced by customers. It states: ISPs market their service tiers as “up to” certain speeds, but when asked how often they feel they receive those speeds, only one-third of Canadians said it was most of the time or all of the time. If only one-third consistently reach those advertised speeds, what does that say about the remaining two-thirds of Canadians? That would make for a strong majority of customers who do not believe they receive the quality of service they are paying for. With a number like that, it is clear something is not working for members of the public, and this creates a lack of trust, which weakens the industry itself. This is the problem Bill C-288 has in mind. A key part of the solution is transparency and, more importantly, accuracy. That is exactly what the first two points of this legislation would provide. As the report noted, Internet providers market their service packages in a given area by saying they go “up to” a certain speed. This is called the maximum theoretical speed. It is a positive spin that sounds good to the potential customer and helps with making sales, but many do not realize the actual speed they are going to get does not match up with what they were told. For some people, it is obviously annoying and inconvenient, but they can still get by, and that is bad enough, because they still feel like they are not getting what they paid for. For others, however, depending on where they live, it could make a more significant difference. They might be paying for Internet in theory, but it almost does not exist in practice. That is something that is a common occurrence in rural areas and that many members of this House have brought up, either in this debate or in other debates when we talk about broadband access. Either way, those people are likely to get a different impression as a customer if they are told about the typical speed on average and what the speed is during peak periods. It is a better reflection of the quality they will get when they are using the Internet, and it could affect the decision they might otherwise make when purchasing the product. Without having this information for more context, it is misleading in too many cases. I proudly represent a rural riding myself. Over the years, I have heard from many people who have this problem with their Internet, and I actually saw it first-hand in my career prior to being a parliamentarian, when I worked as an Internet service provider technician. It was my job to not only install but also repair and fix people’s Internet services. As someone who had to deal with people who were told that they were getting one thing, but the reality was that they could only possibly get a fraction of that, I saw that it caused a lot of confusion and headache. I can tell members that, for an installer, this legislation would make life a lot simpler, knowing that customers have the accurate and appropriate information prior to either signing a contract for service or purchasing equipment for their services. For a lot of these paying customers, as well as for those of us working in the field, but especially for those customers, it would have been easier for everyone involved if there had been realistic information from the start, which, again, is what this bill would be doing. Bill C-288 would require that to be made available to Canadian consumers. This is in line with what the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology recommended in a report last year. I know that the member who spoke before me already mentioned this recommendation, but I am going to say it again for the context of my speech. It recommends: 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. It would be simple enough to do it, and I think all parties can see the benefit. After this recommendation was put forward, the government side has tried to say that it announced a proposed policy directive to the CRTC earlier this year. In reality, it is not the same thing. Its proposal is vague, and it does not mention the issue with typical speeds or peak periods. That is what we need to see happen, and the sooner, the better. We do not need to wait around for the lagging speed of government to catch up. It is good to see the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa bring forward a bill trying to get it done. We need to act on this like it is a real priority. As of last week, we have seen progress from the FCC in the United States. It will require broadband providers to display easy-to-understand labels with key information. This will include typical upload and download speeds, as well as typical latency. For years now, Australia has had standards for advertising for typical speeds during peak periods. As a result, going back to 2018, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has found benefits for consumers. It has also improved the industry by strengthening market competition. We can learn from them and do the same thing. We can encourage more innovation. This is something that will benefit all Canadians, not just those in rural areas. I want to make sure that this point is clear to everyone. Part of the problem we sometimes have in this place is that there are different ideas of what “rural” actually means. For one of the government's programs for rural connectivity, I once asked for a definition, and I was told that communities of 30,000 people or less were eligible. The largest community in my riding, for example, is only 18,000, so it is interesting to see how that fits in. We are dealing with the population of a city, at least, as I have mentioned to members, it is where I am from. Another example we had was that the definition of “rural” could be described as any community that uses oil and gas or agriculture as its main economic driver. I think of some of the cities that we have out west, such as Edmonton and Calgary, which would be more than happy to say that those are some of the driving forces of their economies. I think that we would also agree that Calgary and Edmonton are not rural communities. When it comes to Internet access, there was a recent news article published online with this headline: “Internet services in rural GTA ‘like living in the dark ages’: Oshawa residents”. People who live near urban areas of the GTA are describing problems similar to what I hear from my constituents back in rural Saskatchewan. One of the residents said, “We are within minutes of a shopping center and yet no internet”. That does not sound like someone living in the middle of nowhere. Another person spoke about paying “an exorbitant amount of money for service that is less than adequate.” She continued, “We’ve tried almost every service provider available, and the end result is the same – spotty at best internet connection.” My plea would be for everyone to consider supporting Bill C-288 because it would get the job done for getting accurate reporting for Canadians.

1954 words

All Topics

Ms. Anju Dhillon (Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, Lib.)

Nov/23/22 6:40:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-288

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to talk about the importance of Internet services and the need for consumer protection in the telecommunications industry. The Government of Canada knows that now more than ever Canadians rely on telecom services for work, school, finances, health care and just staying connected to one another. All too often I hear Canadians' frustrations regarding their telecom services. I will continue to hold Canada's telecom service providers accountable and keep Canadians updated on the work our government is doing to strengthen the reliability of our networks as well as increase affordability, competition and consumer protection in this sector. We are here today to discuss private member's bill, Bill C-288, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act regarding transparent and accurate broadband services information. I support the intent of the bill and agree that consumers need access to clear information about how broadband services are performing, so they can be confident that what they are paying for is what they are actually getting. In fact, consumers also need more information about the cellular coverage provided by mobile services. Our government is already taking action. We will work to ensure the actions we have already taken to address this topic work in tandem with this legislation to improve outcomes for Canadians and can be implemented quickly. I firmly believe that consumers must have access to clear information about how broadband services are performing, so that they can be sure that they are getting what they are paying for. In fact, consumers also need more information about the mobile services that provide cellular coverage. In May our government tabled in both Houses of Parliament a draft policy direction to the CRTC on a renewed approach to telecommunications policy. The proposed policy direction is legally binding and directs the CRTC on a range of issues. These include putting in place new rules to improve competition, enhancing the rights of consumers and their access to information, speeding up the deployment of high-quality broadband networks, and promoting lower prices and better telecom services for Canadian consumers. The policy direction also asks service providers to collect, publicly report and make available to consumers information on the services they offer. It also requires them to test the technologies that are used the most in rural regions, such as fixed wireless. What is more, we are asking the CRTC to develop and implement a standardized and robust approach for reporting mobile wireless coverage. Another key part of the proposed policy direction would require the CRTC to take measures to promote clarity and transparency of pricing information and service plan characteristics in marketing materials. This will allow consumers to better understand their choices in the Internet market. The CRTC has worked on that. For example, it introduced a program called measuring broadband Canada, which involved testing a number of broadband performance metrics, such as download and upload speeds, the impact of peak periods and latency for Internet service providers that offer the highest subscription fees. The program was flawed, however. Participation was voluntary, and the study did not take into account the reality of rural regions. Internet services using fixed wireless technology were not included in the tests, which left many Canadians, especially those in rural and remote regions, without any information on the performance of their Internet service. Our government understands that the CRTC needs to ensure that it is not only testing broadband performance generally, but addressing the gaps in the previous tests. We have measures under way to make sure this happens. We are in agreement that the CRTC needed additional direction to ensure consumers are fully protected, and the binding policy direction will achieve that in parallel with the new legislation. The proposed direction was tabled in both chambers of Parliament on May 30, 2022, for a minimum of 40 sitting days and has been the subject of extensive public consultation. I will soon present the final version, which takes into account what we heard from the Governor in Council. It will then be published in the form of a decree that will be legally binding for the CRTC. The policy direction requires that testing be done on a regular basis and clarifies that participation is mandatory for ISPs. It also captures more technologies by including mobile wireless in addition to broadband Internet. The direction will soon be finalized and the government will be able to easily update it as the market and technologies evolve. If new technologies emerge, we can ask the CRTC to take measures to test them. I think that everyone here recognizes that this is a very important issue. We want to show Canadians that we are working with our colleagues to improve the telecommunications sector's response to consumers' needs. For these reasons, I am also supporting adjustments to the proposed policy direction text so that it takes into account language from this bill and makes clear that we recognize the importance of regular, mandatory broadband performance testing. This approach will demonstrate that Parliament is working together to progress diligently toward important goals for the telecom sector. The direction contains many other important initiatives that will encourage competition and benefit consumers. For example, it will eliminate regulatory uncertainty for small competing service providers and strengthen their business case so that they can offer more services on the market. It will also order the CRTC to improve access to telephone poles and similar infrastructure, which we know is important for the construction of new broadband networks. The policy direction also instructs the CRTC to increase the public's awareness of the telecommunications complaints organization so that consumers have recourse if they are treated unfairly by a telecom provider. It will require the CRTC to proactively and systemically improve the accessibility of telecommunications services for Canadians with disabilities. I am pleased that the policy direction can work together with the proposed legislation to make progress in this area for Canadians.

1001 words

All Topics

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

Nov/23/22 6:49:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-288

I have a great audience tonight, Madam Speaker. I hope I will be able to concentrate. Stephen Hawking once said, “We are all now connected by the Internet, like neurons in a giant brain.” In this giant brain, good Internet is equivalent to a high IQ. It lets us go further in life. The issues in the Internet service market involve both the providers themselves and the legal framework in which they operate, and can be summed up in two points that are intrinsically linked. The first is the inadequate service quality and download speeds, and the second is the exorbitant rates that Quebeckers and Canadians pay for their telecommunications services. This bill seeks, among other things, to give consumers the ability to make an informed decision when choosing an Internet service provider. In other words, Internet providers will no longer have the right to advertise the highest theoretical speed possible, but will have to indicate the average speed, especially during peak periods. That is a good start. We should note right from the outset that the proposed measures apply only to fixed broadband service and not mobile phones, even though everyone knows that cell phone rates in Canada are much higher than elsewhere in the world, but let us move on. This bill will contribute to improving the situation, but other actions will have to be taken. As I will explain, there needs to be a discussion on competition and the market power of the telecommunications giants. I would like to begin with the importance of having access to high-quality Internet. This service is beyond essential. The quality and affordability of Internet services are closely linked to the economic performance of Quebec and Canada. Let me share a quick story. In my former life as a consultant, I had a contract in the Republic of Palau. It is a small island paradise in the middle of the Pacific, and I was able to help its finance department improve their environmental, social and accounting standards so they could receive money from foreign funds. The Island of Palau does not really have Internet. My stay went very well with a bit of an Internet connection, and therefore less work, potentially, but ultimately, we can see that Palau's economic development has suffered a great deal due to this. I experienced that. The trend has been moving towards digitizing the economy for several years now, and the pandemic only accelerated this. The massive shift to telework and people's ability to work remotely should encourage the development of the regions of Quebec and Canada. Unfortunately, the Liberal government is struggling to keep up with technological developments and the digitization of the economy. Its outdated policies mean that Canada often lags behind on telecommunications affordability. We cannot talk about economic development without considering the quality of Internet access. It is as important to economic development as the power grid was in Quebec in the 1960s. The Quebec government is working hard to improve Internet access, particularly in remote areas. High-speed Internet access for all eligible households in Quebec is a priority for the Quebec government. Furthermore, it has invested huge amounts of money in this area. To date, the Quebec government has budgeted $1.3 billion to get households connected faster to high-speed Internet. In comparison, the Government of Canada has invested $1 billion this year, bringing its total investment to $2.75 billion. In Quebec, the amount is about $150 per person. In Canada, it is half that, or only about $75 per person. Now let us look at what is happening internationally. Every year, The Economist compiles data on Internet services in about 100 countries. Although Canada scores well for quality of infrastructure and literacy, which is Canadians' understanding of and ability to use Internet services, its rank is rapidly declining because of its competition and affordability scores. If the government really wants to bring telecommunications costs down and improve service quality, it has to use the Competition Act. Canada has a frustrating tendency to tolerate and sometimes even encourage monopolistic practices. In many of the country's markets, including telecommunications, a handful of companies dominate the entire market. The upshot is that providers have a lot more leeway when it comes to deciding how much to charge. Time for a quick economics refresher. In an ideal market, the price of a service is equivalent to the marginal cost, that is, the cost that the supplier pays to provide the service. It is quite easy to demonstrate, and this has been studied by economists, that in Quebec and in Canada, we pay a price that is much higher than the marginal cost. There are people who agree. For example, Bell, Rogers, Shaw and Telus collectively account for 71.7% of Internet service revenues. That is what we call an oligopoly, a market dominated by a small number of suppliers. For cellphone services, it is even worse. Three companies, Bell, Rogers and Telus, hold nearly 91% of the market. As a general rule, increasing the number of companies in a market does two things that benefit consumers and are ultimately good for the economy. Healthy competition in a market tends to lower the prices paid by consumers. In addition, companies often improve the quality of their services to attract and retain customers. While this rule is not absolute, it applies particularly well to telecommunications markets. Let us look again at what is done in other countries. Telecommunications prices are much lower in Europe, where there are a large number of telecommunications service providers. In The Economist's list, France, Spain, the Netherlands and Sweden all rank higher than Canada on the Internet affordability index. This summer, the Liberal government passed a competition reform that does not do enough to result in real change. The Liberal government's competition policies are outdated and not very well suited to the reality of the digital economy in Quebec and Canada. In practical terms, some sections of the Competition Act, which dates back to the 1980s, are obsolete and due for a serious update. It is not just the Bloc Québécois that is saying that. The competition commissioner is, too. In fact, in January, he published a list of recommendations to modernize the Competition Act. One of them involves removing the provision on the efficiency gains argument, which allows one company to merge with another on the pretext that it will be more efficient. Let us acknowledge right off the bat that this provision is an anomaly. It does not exist in the rest of the world. It exists in Canada and it is putting many consumers at a real disadvantage, so it should be removed from the act. This very argument could be made in the transaction between Shaw and Rogers, which is currently before the court. Let us recall that two out of the four companies that make up the oligopoly on Internet telecommunications want to merge their services. When this provision is invoked, the Competition Bureau cannot block the transaction, even if it is anti-competitive. In a market that is already perceived to be run by an oligopoly, this transaction should not go through. Speaking before the Competition Tribunal quite recently, an economist from Dalhousie University, Mr. Osberg, said that low-income Canadians who are already dealing with inflationary pressures would be the most affected if the cost of telecommunications increases in the wake of the merger. The last thing we need right now is to further reduce competition and guarantee that prices increase even more. The other thing the commissioner recommended as an important change to the Competition Act is related to the fact that the Competition Bureau does not have the final say on a transaction. A minister, an elected official, someone who is anything but neutral, can make a decision that goes against the bureau's recommendation. That is what happens. In the case of the Shaw-Rogers merger, the Minister of Industry intervened to defend the transaction. Yes, he is defending the deal, suggesting that part of Shaw be acquired by one of the other four providers instead. Guess what the bureau's response was. It said no, that is not a good enough solution. Unfortunately, it is not up to the bureau to make that decision. The minister will have the final say. In closing, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-288, because it will allow consumers to make more informed choices about Internet packages. Consumers need to be able to see the actual download speeds they will be getting, rather than the theoretical highest speed. Since speeds are lower at peak hours, it is important that consumers get accurate information about the service they will receive at those times. In short, the bill is a step in the right direction, but it clearly does not go far enough. As my leader likes to say, the Bloc Québécois is never against apple pie. However, I know that apple pie alone does not make a nutritious dinner. We need more. I hope that I demonstrated, in a short amount of time, the importance of in-depth reform of the Competition Bureau, real reform that will stop the telecommunications giants' lobbyists from abusing their position of power and ensure that consumers, honest citizens, are finally protected.

1580 words

All Topics