THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 28, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference this day at 9:01 a.m. [ET] to study Bill S-242, An Act to amend the Radiocommunication Act.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, honourable senators. I’m Senator Leo Housakos from Quebec, chair of this committee. For those who are watching online, I would like to invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator D. Patterson: Dennis Patterson, Nunavut.
Senator Simons: Senator Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne, Quebec.
Senator Cormier: René Cormier, New Brunswick.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement, Ontario.
[English]
Senator Harder: Peter Harder, Ontario.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
Senator Cardozo: Senator Andrew Cardozo from Ontario.
Senator Dasko: Senator Donna Dasko from Ontario.
Senator Wallin: Pamela Wallin, province of Saskatchewan.
The Chair: Honourable senators, we are meeting to begin our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-242, An Act to amend the Radiocommunication Act.
Before we begin with clause by clause of the bill, I would like to remind senators of a number of points. If at any point a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. I want to ensure that at all times we’ll have the same understanding of where we are in the process.
In terms of the mechanics of the process, I wish to remind senators that when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in order of the lines of a clause. Therefore, before we take on an amendment in a clause, I will be verifying whether any senators had intended to move an amendment earlier in that clause. If senators do intend to move an earlier amendment, they will be given the opportunity to do so.
If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, I would remind you that in committee, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but, rather, to vote against the clause as standing as part of the bill.
I would also remind senators that some amendments that are moved may be consequential in other parts of the bill. In the spirit of the statement, it would be useful for this process if a senator moving an amendment identified to the committee other clauses in this bill where this amendment could have an effect, otherwise, it would be very difficult for members of the committee to remain consistent in their decision making. Staff will endeavour to keep track of these places where subsequent amendments need to be moved and will draw our attention to them.
Because no notice is required to move amendments, there can be, of course, and have been no preliminary analysis of the amendments to establish which one may be of consequence to others and which may be contradictory.
If committee members ever have any questions about the process or about the propriety of anything occurring, they can certainly raise a point of order. As the chair, I will listen to arguments, decide when there has been sufficient discussion of a matter or order and make a ruling.
The committee is the ultimate master of its business — as you all know, colleagues — within the bounds established by the Senate, and rules can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.
As chair, I will do my utmost to ensure all senators wishing to speak have the opportunity to do so. As you know, I’m a stickler about that. For this, however, I will depend upon your cooperation. I ask all of you to consider other senators and to keep remarks to the point and as brief as possible.
Finally, I wish to recommend, honourable senators, that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll-call vote, which obviously provides unambiguous results. Senators are aware that any tie vote negates the motion in question.
Are there any questions before we proceed to clause by clause?
Senator Cormier: I want to inform the committee that I will have to leave at 10 because I’m appearing before the Rules Committee, and I have four short observations that I would like to table — I think it was distributed — and I wonder how we do that. I know we usually do that at the end of the clause by clause, so I need your advice on this.
The Chair: As we all know, usually observations are at the end of clause by clause, but committees are masters of their destiny here. So if there is a willingness, as a chair, I am open if the committee is to move the observation section of the clause by clause at the beginning, if there is consensus from the committee.
Senator Harder: I’m not uncomfortable with that as long as we’re dealing with all of the observations together because I think we ultimately want to come out with a consensus.
The Chair: I think there is agreement to that.
Senator Cormier: You received four observations. I’m doing these observations according to the testimony received. The first observation is:
The committee notes that according to the information and testimony received, there is no official database of all unemployed spectrum in Canada.
That comes from testimony of Professor Church, who told us that. That would be my first observation. I don’t know if I should go through the four observations.
The second one would be:
The committee recognizes that Canada does not have a system to ensure transparency in the secondary market of licences. Better regulation of the secondary market would be one way to address spectrum deployment issues in Canada, especially with respect to licences already issued that are not covered by Bill S-242.
That comes from the testimony of CanWISP.
The third one:
The committee observes that the spectrum management system by auction, based on a competitive system, would be less adapted to the Canadian reality.
That comes from Georg Serentschy, expert, Europe proregulation.
The last one is:
The committee observes that reserved licences seem to be one of the clauses of spectrum speculation, high prices for telecommunications services and a low work quality of service position.
That comes from Mr. Church, the research and Dr. Howell. Those are the four observations I would make.
Senator Simons: I’m wondering if there is a problem with the translation. I don’t quite understand observation 3. I think it’s a tense question.
Do you mean the special management system by auction, based on a competitive system, is less suited to the Canadian reality? Is that maybe what —
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Yes, in French we would say, “serait moins adapté,” but that means “it seems to us it is less adapted to the Canadian reality.”
Senator Simons: Because that doesn’t really work in English.
[English]
We currently have a spectrum management system by auction. Because when you say “would be less adapted,” it implies that we don’t have it.
Senator Cormier: Yes, it is less adapted. That’s what I mean.
Senator Simons: I think less suited.
Senator Cormier: Suited.
Senator Simons: Yes.
Senator Cormier: If you agree with that, I’m willing to change that, of course. That’s the intention.
Senator Simons: I thought so. And then Senator Patterson was whispering in my ear “by Canadian reality.”
Senator Cormier: What do we mean by that?
Senator Simons: Do we want to put in something about our geography or the geographic realities of Canada?
Senator Cormier: And the economic reality, also of the regions. That is what I mean by that, the economic — that’s what we heard —
The Chair: Senator Simons, could you repeat the changes so we can make full note of them.
Senator Simons: The committee observes that the spectrum management system by auction, based on a competitive system, is less suited to the realities of Canadian geography and economics.
Senator Cormier: Exactly.
The Chair: So is less suited to the — repeat that?
Senator Simons: Is less well suited to Canadian economic and geographic realities.
Senator Harder: I’m not sure I agree with that. In fact, I don’t. It’s how we have used the competitive process. Instead of using the resources garnered by the competitive process of bidding to invest in expanding underserved areas, we’ve used it for the Department of Finance. So it’s not the system, it’s the policy surrounding the system, which is why, frankly, I prefer the language of Senator Clement’s observations because they put it in the policy area — it’s not the auction itself; it’s the policy issues attendant to the auction.
Senator Cormier: I don’t disagree with what you’re saying. I will just quote Georg Serentschy who said:
. . . competition is a proven economic tool to stimulate investment and innovation and lower consumer prices. However, the success of using this tool in urban areas in Canada has in some ways obscured the role of competition and led to a widespread misbelief that competition is a kind of silver bullet to solve all problems. Competition, however, is an economic concept that works only in cases with an economic basis. In the case of rural connectivity, the economic rationale for expansion is commonly lacking, and therefore pro-competitive measures do not help in these cases.
Senator Simons: Okay.
Senator D. Patterson: I think we have some very good contributions for observations, not just from Senator Cormier.
I did find observation 3 to raise some questions and — I’m just thinking out loud here — perhaps we can quote Serentschy here to really give more meaning to the intention behind 3. We can do that in observations.
With observation 4, Senator Cormier, we’ve have a recommendation from Senator Clement to basically improve Indigenous communities’ access to the internet and allocation of dedicated spectrum to Indigenous communities as was done in the U.S. and New Zealand.
I mention that because in your observation 4 — and I wasn’t quite sure what you meant by reserved licences in number 4 — if you’re talking about set asides, and perhaps you’re not, we want to make sure that if we accept Senator Clement’s suggested observations and something I put in mine, which is dedicated Indigenous spectrum, then we don’t want to have another recommendation that seems to go against that.
I wasn’t quite sure if observation 4 was consistent with that concept that seems to be acceptable to committee members.
Senator Cormier: Just as a matter of clarification, once again, I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, but I will quote in French.
Mr. Church says:
[Translation]
Mr. Church’s research has shown that the reserved licence approach was introduced to foster healthy competition in the wireless industry. However, this same researcher observed the opposite effect, namely an increase in costs and a decrease in quality for incumbent providers.
We should take a cue from what was done with telephony, specifically, subsidizing to ensure proper deployment and, when there are enough providers, establishing a system based on competition. Allowing the three largest providers to deploy spectrum in Canada would have reduced price and connectivity, restricting access to smaller entrants.
Mr. Howell stated the following:
[English]
One of the issues, particularly in the Canadian space, that has contributed to the high values here is the spectrum fragmentation, because the spectrum is more valuable to an operator that is adjacent than to one who isn’t. And that leads to this area where prices can be bid up off the fragmentation that exists. Again, part of the problem why it might appear worse in Canada is because of the set-asides and the fragmentation. If that is removed, then the potential opportunities for arbitrage and prices being bid up high are also reduced.
That was the context of this observation. I mean, I don’t disagree. If Senator Clement’s observation deals with this, I don’t disagree that we put that together.
The Chair: Senator Patterson, you made a suggestion about adding to the quote. Is that a motion? And again, there are a couple of opinions here that can be cobbled together. The question is how to do it. We want spend all morning here on how to wordsmith this. I’m waiting for direction from the committee how to do it.
Senator D. Patterson: We have some thoughtful contributions to observations. I think they all have merit.
It’s hard for a committee to do that work. One option, without wanting to shortchange this conversation, would be to go through the observations, get some comments, there are several other inputs, and then have our steering committee blend them all together.
The Chair: If that is the wish of the committee.
Senator Dasko: I actually think that’s a very good idea. I also point to what would be a contradiction between the third clause of Senator Cormier’s observation and also the observation by Senator Patterson with respect to competition, because Senator Cormier says that competition essentially is not good for the system. Senator Patterson is saying that we must foster competition.
We can’t do both.
Senator Wallin: I don’t think he said it’s not good for the system. He said it’s not working.
Senator Dasko: The spectrum management system would be less adapted to the Canadian reality. To me that’s saying it is unfavourable to the system.
Senator Wallin: It is less suited to the Canadian geographic and economic reality. You can’t have competition in a town of 200 people.
Senator Dasko: Going to what Senator Patterson is saying, the government should develop incentives and policies that foster competition.
Senator Wallin: Right.
Senator Dasko: Anyway, I think there are contradictory notions and themes.
Senator Simons: I wasn’t here in person for that day of testimony, but as I understand it, the witness was saying that competition is great where you’ve got urban populations but is less well suited to serving really far-flung parts of the country where two competitors are never going to enter a market in Rankin Inlet.
What we need is a system that fosters competition where it is most effective. It’s just like our airline industry. We need more competition, but there are certain parts of the country where only one airline will ever serve it, and the airline needs to be subsidized to do that.
I gather that was what the expert was saying — that competition is great in a more densely populated region.
Senator Dasko: All I’m saying is that our observations put it at the level of a generality. It’s either not good or it’s good, and we can’t have both.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I agree with the idea of looking at this as a steering committee, but we have to avoid ideological generalities here by saying “for or against competition,” because that will get us nowhere. We have to be careful and say that it’s possible in some places in Canada, but not in other places, because otherwise it can look like we’re taking an ideological position — which is something we definitely don’t want to do in this committee, where there are different opinions on all sorts of things.
I wanted to add a couple of things, namely an observation, which is actually a fact. I don’t think it will be all that controversial. The committee is disappointed that the major telecommunications companies, namely Bell, Rogers, Vidéotron and Telus, refused our invitation to testify before the committee. I am one of the senators who was beyond disappointed, because we needed —
The Chair: I’m sorry, senator, before continuing with the observations, since there are quite a few of them, I would like to propose something to make our work easier.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Do I withdraw that?
[English]
The Chair: I would like to propose to the committee that we go through each and every one of the observations without debate or else we’re going to be here for a week. If there is any particular observation that the committee finds unacceptable, we cross it out. Observations we find palatable as per the recommendation we’ll send to steering in order to blend them, because many of them overlap. Based on the few I’ve read so far, a lot could be blended. Then we can finish the wordsmithing, as I said, and come back — maybe next week — with a final draft. Because if we start debating one by one, we’ll be here forever.
What I suggest we do is go through them. Senator Cormier has gone through his. They’re noted. We will go through all of them in sequence.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Could I add something, or will that considered as debate? In Senator Clement’s observation, I would add one piece of information that I thought was essential when I listened to the Auditor General yesterday, who said that only 40% of Aboriginal communities had internet access. That’s a very telling number. People can say there is a problem with Indigenous peoples, but when we see that 40%, it really puts the problem into perspective. I would add this sentence. I can send you the reference. It was in her press conference yesterday.
The Chair: To be clear, we are now dealing with Senator Cormier’s four observations.
[English]
Senator Clement: I’ll read mine. I’ll just say this: I appreciate the comments and references to the observation. I thank Katie and Béatrice from my office for their invaluable assistance. I agree with Senator Harder’s point that this observation is really linked to policy, and that’s how we wanted to address it.
I am slowly starting to enjoy the work of being a senator. It’s a process. Drafting by committee is not something I like at all or ever will like, so I appreciate the comment that it will go to steering to deal with overlap. My observation is as follows:
The study of Bill S-242 has increased our awareness that connectivity is a major problem in Canada. The world has become increasingly reliant on connectivity, and the pandemic heightened this reliance. Access to quality internet and self-service is essential to education, health care, news, safety and security networks and other essential services. This committee recognizes that Indigenous communities are greatly affected by the lack of connectivity, which is a significant concern in Canada’s reconciliation process.
The committee has been inspired by learning about other jurisdictions’ spectrum initiatives to improve Indigenous communities’ access to internet and wireless services such as the allocation of dedicated spectrum to Indigenous communities in the U.S. and in New Zealand.
Bill S-242 is a good contribution to the spectrum discussion, and this topic has been neglected in political discussion for far too long. The committee witnesses have pointed out that Bill S-242 is a small piece of the puzzle. Many of the valuable suggestions from witnesses fell outside the scope of this bill.
Here is what Madeleine Redfern, who spoke to us on March 21, 2023, said:
. . . we need to almost put a hard brake on while the status quo is what it is and figure out how we really deploy the spectrum and the resources through policy and through funding specifically in rural, remote, northern and Indigenous Canada . . .
In recognition of the work done at this committee, we call on the Parliament of Canada to undertake an exhaustive review of spectrum policy in Canada to assess whether it achieves what we intend and how it advantages and disadvantages Canadians, with an emphasis on Indigenous communities.
Specifically, we ask for the following: Examine the spectrum licensing auction model and licensing requirements; update the 2007 spectrum policy framework; in consultation with Indigenous communities, develop an Indigenous spectrum strategy with specific consideration given to Indigenous dedicated spectrum.
Thank you.
The Chair: Is there any debate?
Senator Harder: I very much endorse how this has been expressed. For my part, I would suggest we use this as the basis for adding the observations that have been made elsewhere that might be relevant to be inserted into this. I appreciate how the senator has expressed this.
Senator Cormier: I do agree with Senator Harder. I just have one question.
[Translation]
For the second point at the end, Senator Clement, specifically “update the 2007 spectrum policy framework” — I believe this is already being done, according to what Gregory Taylor, one of our witnesses, told us. He already talked to us about it. I’m not sure if that was the exact wording, but I understand the objective, to update the policy or ensure it’s updated. Has the fact that this is already under way been taken into account? That’s the only comment I have.
Senator Clement: I don’t see a problem with adding a note to that effect. We weren’t told precisely where we are in the process. I have no objections to adding a note that something is being done.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: At this point, since this is the whole purpose of the bill, could we not only update, but also accelerate the update? Would you agree?
[English]
Are you following me? Should we try to put a time reference to accelerate the update — a word that says it has to be done in a timely manner?
Senator Harder: It’s an observation, so I think we should talk at some point about what process the committee might wish to undertake to take further action. Before we commenced, the chair and I talked about the committee having an informal discussion with the minister on this subject. I think that would be more productive than putting in an artificial deadline that might or might not get attention.
What we’re really trying to do here is have an informed policy discussion launched by the minister and embraced by the department as to how we modernize this. I would prefer that, personally.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Okay. Right.
Senator D. Patterson: Just a minor point. It’s all good. I think that the phrase, “We call on the Parliament of Canada” doesn’t work for an observation. I think it should be, “We make our recommendations to the government.” That probably should be reworded.
But this is all good, and I endorse what Senator Clement has in mind. Thank you.
The Chair: Very good. Thank you, colleagues. Senator Patterson, we move to your observations.
Senator D. Patterson: Mr. Chair, I tried to keep this brief. That was the suggestion when we discussed this in committee. There are just three paragraphs here:
The Committee recognizes that this legislation is narrowly focused on addressing the issue of undeployed spectrum. However, it also recognizes that there are a myriad of additional issues that must be addressed to ensure equitable connectivity for all Canadians.
The Committee heard compelling evidence of a strong need to improve rural and remote connectivity and lower costs. The Committee agreed that in setting objectives and criteria in administering spectrum auctions, in addition to requiring proponents to utilize spectrum granted at auctions without unreasonable delay as is outlined in this legislation, there is a compelling need for additional government policies and incentives to encourage proponents to serve rural and remote regions.
The Committee heard witnesses who emphasized the importance of connectivity in providing vital services such as health and education, including the enhancement of language and culture in remote Indigenous communities. It also agrees that access to the internet is a basic human right in today’s digital age. The Committee agrees that particularly in these areas, Indigenous — led participation should be sought and supported. The Government should develop incentives and policies that foster competition and facilitate the entry of Indigenous proponents, which may require additional supports such as alternative access to capital.
Thank you.
Senator Harder: Just an observation on my part. Referencing access to the internet as a human right, in my mind, goes a bit far and it diminishes what are real human rights. I do think it’s a right of citizenship in Canada, but it comes from who we are as a country and how we treat our citizens. I prefer our human rights to be aligned with the international human rights convention, otherwise we risk diminishing those human rights.
The Chair: I echo that view of Senator Harder. We shouldn’t be bandying around the words “human rights” as easily as that. It has to be something that’s extensionally applied to every human being around the world and we have to be consistent with this. I do agree with Senator Harder.
Senator D. Patterson: Yes, I’m easy on that. It was the UN that made that declaration, and perhaps it was excessive. I’m fine with taking that out or describing it as a right to citizenship.
What’s in this observation I drafted was really elaborated upon by Senator Clement. The two would work together under the capable editing of steering. Thank you.
The Chair: Can you imagine the UN being excessive, Senator Patterson?
Colleagues, if there are no more observations, we will send all of these to steering and put them in a blender and make sure that they reflect the spirit of everything that has been proposed here.
It is agreed that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the observations being appended to the report, taking into consideration today’s discussion and with any necessary editorial, grammatical or translation changes as required. Is that agreed, colleagues?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: So carried. Thank you.
Now, honourable senators, it is agreed that the committee proceed to clause by clause in consideration for Bill S-242, An Act to amend the Radiocommunication Act.
Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Senator D. Patterson: I move that:
That Bill S-242 be amended in clause 1, on page 1, by replacing lines 7 to 15 with the following:
“paragraph (1)(a)(i.1) that the holder
(a) must deploy the spectrum to provide service to at least 50% of the population within the geographic area covered by the spectrum licence, within three years of the licence’s issuance; and
(b) must, in respect of the utilization of radio frequencies within a Tier 1 to 4 service area as described in Canada Gazette notice DGSO-006-19, Decision on a New Set of Service Areas for Spectrum Licensing, published on July 23, 2019, deploy the spectrum to provide service to at least 50% of the population within any Tier 5 service areas located within the geographic area covered by the spectrum licence, within three years of the licence’s issuance.”.
May I speak to that, Mr. Chair?
The Chair: You may.
Senator D. Patterson: Tier 5 areas are smaller geographic areas that fall into four categories; metropolitan, urban, rural and remote. I’ve argued that the exclusion of Tier 5 based on the use case as opposed to a geographic area, that is, we argued that the application for Tier 5 licences is generally for higher frequencies that are used in limited applications and require condensed infrastructure to carry the short-range signal. An example would be the type of spectrum used for autonomous vehicles along a stretch of highway. However, discussions with CanWISP helped us to reframe that position.
If taken strictly as a geographic area, having the proposed deployment of condition of 50% of the population in each Tier 5-served area within three years would ensure that those buying Tiers 1 to 4 licences would not be able to meet deployment conditions by simply deploying to the urban areas within those large tiers, but also to service the smaller, rural and remote areas nestled within.
This approach would also facilitate other amendments further down that will be proposed in the bill that focuses on creating a type of use-it-or-share-it regime and place an emphasis on the use of subordinate licences or sublicences as a solution to meeting the deployment conditions.
It would also give the minister the flexibility to decide whether to revoke the entire licence or to reallocate Tier 5 areas within the licence to other providers who are ready and able to service the underserved areas.
This makes the baseline of 50% in three years achievable, as it is much easier to meet the conditions in a smaller defined area and would be a response to the one-size-fits-all criticism that we’ve heard.
The Chair: On debate? If there is no debate, it is moved by the Honourable Senator Patterson:
That Bill S-242 be amended in clause 1, page 1 by replacing lines 7 to 15 with the following —
Shall I dispense?
Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: So carried.
Senator D. Patterson: Thank you, colleagues.
I move:
That Bill S-242 be amended in clause 1, on page 1, by adding the following after line 15:
(1.12) If the holder of a licence issued under paragraph (1)(a)(i.1) sells that licence within three years of its issuance, the holder must include the condition set out in subsection (1.11) as a condition of sale of that licence.”.
Mr. Chair, this would clarify the intent to ensure licence holders cannot sell the licences up to and including three years minus a day and avoid penalty. It is the direct result of conversations with CanWISP that had raised that concern. Thank you.
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Patterson:
That Bill S-242 be amended in clause 1 on page 1 by adding the following after line 15 —
An Hon. Senator: Dispense.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: So carried.
Senator Harder: I move:
That Bill S-242 be amended in clause 1, on page 2,
(a) by replacing line 17 with the following:
“graphic area covered by the licence, or any portion thereof, to be assumed by an-”;
(b) by adding the following after line 18:
“(6.1) The Minister may, pursuant to an arrangement referred to in subsection (6), issue a licence to a third party under subparagraph (1)(a)(i.1) that is subordinate to the licence that is to be revoked if
(a) the Minister is satisfied that the issuance of the subordinate licence would allow for the condition set out in subsection (1.11) to be met within three years of the subordinate licence’s issuance; and
(b) the holder of the licence that is to be revoked is in compliance with all the terms and conditions of their licence other than the condition set out in subsection (1.11) and with any other applicable prescribed requirements.
(6.2) If the Minister issues a subordinate licence pursuant to subsection (6.1), the notice of revocation provided under subsection (3) is deemed never to have been provided and the period of three years referred to in subsection (1.11) applicable to that licence is deemed to have begun on the day on which the subordinate licence was issued.”.
If I could briefly speak to this, it was predicted in the amendment we just agreed to, to provide the flexibility of subordinate or subsection competition.
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Harder:
That Bill S-242 be amended in clause 1 on page 1 —
Senator Harder: Dispense.
The Chair: Honourable senators, are you in favour of this motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: So carried.
Senator D. Patterson: On clause 1, page 2, I move:
That Bill S-242 be amended in clause 1, on page 2, by replacing line 30 with the following:
“tion (3) or surrendered due to the holder’s inability to meet the condition set out in subsection (1.11), the Minister must, within 60 days of the effective”.
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Patterson that Bill S-242 be amended in clause 1 on page 2. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: So carried.
Senator D. Patterson: Again, in clause 1, page 2, I move:
That Bill S-242 be amended in clause 1, on page 2, by replacing line 32 with the following:
“tive bidding or other reallocation process to select the person to whom the licence will”.
If I may speak to that, Mr. Chair, previous opposition to the 60-day period put forward was based on the difficulty of smaller proponents raising capital required to participate in the competitive bidding process. An alternative reallocation process could be a first-come/first-served model that would not require a deposit to be paid by the successful proponent and so would be achievable within the 60-day period.
Our witness Georg Serentschy, the former head of the Austrian Regulatory Authority for Broadcasting and Telecommunications and former vice-chair of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communication, stated in his March 7 testimony:
I reviewed the discussion in the Senate on February 8, when this was a highly contested thing, whether 60 days is too aggressive or not. My opinion is: It is not about setting up a full auction; it is about a licensee who is not able or willing to fulfill its obligations. So the regulator claws back the spectrum and gives it to somebody who is better suited to do that. You are not preparing an auction; you don’t need to run a consultation. You can do that via a simple, sealed-bid auction with a secondary price rule, which I’m very much defending for this because then it’s easier that no bidder overstates the value of the spectrum. And you can do that easily in 60 days.
A senator had asked whether this would apply to licences that were revoked or surrendered and it’s clear that in the suite of amendments that a person who surrendered their licence would be able to bid in the spectrum reallocation process because that’s basically a good-faith situation. But if a licence was revoked, that proponent would not be able to bid in the spectrum reallocation process. Thank you.
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Patterson:
That Bill S-242 be amended in clause 1, on page 2, by replacing line 32 with the following —
Some Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Senator D. Patterson: I think I spoke to this amendment a little prematurely. The amendment is on clause 1, page 2:
That Bill S-242 be amended in clause 1, on page 2, by adding the following after line 33:
“(9) Neither the person whose spectrum licence has been revoked under subsection (3) nor any of their affiliates is eligible to participate in the reallocation process used by the Minister under subsection (8).”.
This would avoid a company from repetitively relicensing spectrum in order to limit competition or stop others from licensing spectrum in a specific geographic area. The addition of the reference to “or its affiliates” also ensures that no company can rebid under a different name when that entity is owned by them. That does happen in my region where NorthwestTel operates in the North but is actually owned by Bell. As I just said, this clause would not apply to folks who had surrendered their licence, but only to those whose licence has been revoked, which is usually kind of in a bad-faith situation.
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Patterson:
That Bill S-242 be amended in clause 1, on page 2, by adding the following after line 33 —
Some Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: So carried.
The Chair: Shall clause 1 as amended carry, colleagues?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Wallin: As amended?
The Chair: No, we did that one already.
Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make necessary technical, grammatical or other required non-substantive changes as a result of the amendments adopted by the committee?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Senator D. Patterson: Mr. Chair, you referred to bringing the observations back next week, but, as you would know, the Senate will be in recess next week.
The Chair: We moved a motion where the committee agreed to give steering the authority to put together the amendments as per the debate and attach them to the bill; so it will not be coming back to committee.
Senator D. Patterson: My concern is that ideally, it would happen this week.
The Chair: That is ideal. We’ll see if it’s possible. We’re talking about three days; so I don’t know how quickly we’ll be able to get that done. It’s going to be a challenge, to be honest.
Senator Simons: I think you should do it in 20 minutes.
Senator Wallin: We can take an hour out of the chamber and do it.
The Chair: I will consult with the clerk and our analysts and see if it is possible.
Senator D. Patterson: There is a package of public bills going to the Senate for third reading this week, and I would love this bill to be included. It is my respectful advice, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
The Chair: I hear the advice and will try to heed it, but it will require getting this work done, and it would require steering getting together to validate and verify it has been done appropriately.
Senator Quinn: I echo the suggestion that we take Senator Clement’s observations as the foundation because it covers a lot of turf, and we absorb in those outstanding issues, which aren’t big. I agree with my colleagues that this shouldn’t be a big exercise.
The Chair: Noted. Is it agreed that I report this bill as amended with observations to the Senate, colleagues?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We will do that as soon as humanly possible. Thank you, colleagues.
(The committee adjourned.)