THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 7, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day with videoconference at 9 a.m. [ET] to consider Bill C-288, An Act to amend the Telecommunications Act (transparent and accurate broadband services information).
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: My name is Leo Housakos, and I am a senator from Quebec and the chair of the committee.
[English]
I would like to have my colleagues please briefly introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Simons: I’m Senator Paula Simons. I come from Alberta, from Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo from Ontario.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn from New Brunswick.
Senator Martin: Good morning. Yonah Martin from British Columbia.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
The Chair: Today we continue our study of Bill C-288, An Act to amend the Telecommunications Act (transparent and accurate broadband services information).
For our first panel this morning, I am pleased to welcome representations of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC. We have Mr. Scott Hutton, Chief, Consumer and Research; and Nanao Kachi, Director, Social and Consumer Policy.
Welcome, and thank you for joining us.
We will first have opening remarks from our guests from the CRTC for five minutes. We will follow that with Q and A.
Mr. Hutton, you have the floor, sir.
Scott Hutton, Chief, Consumer and Research, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission: Good morning. Thank you for inviting us to appear before your committee.
Before I begin my remarks, I would like to thank the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people for having me here as an uninvited guest on their unceded, unsurrendered territory. I would also like to thank them for being stewards of the land and waters in this area since time immemorial.
[Translation]
I am joined today by my colleague Nanao Kachi, Director of Social and Consumer Policy.
As you know, the CRTC is an independent, administrative tribunal that regulates the Canadian communications sector in the public interest. We hold public hearings on telecommunications and broadcasting matters, and make decisions based on the public record of those hearings.
In the telecommunications industry, our work focuses mainly on internet and cellphone services. We promote choice and affordability for Canadians, encourage investment in reliable and high-quality networks, and work to improve access to telecommunications services in Indigenous, rural and remote communities.
[English]
These goals were brought into greater focus in February 2023 when the government issued a policy direction to the CRTC to renew its approach to telecommunications. It directed us, among other things, to act quickly to provide clarity to the market and to consider how our decisions would promote competition, affordability, consumer interests and innovation.
We know it is not just the market that needs clarity. Canadians need clear, concise and easy-to-understand information that empowers them to make informed decisions and choose plans that fit their individual needs best.
Let me share what the CRTC has been doing to ensure that service providers are giving Canadians clear information and to make it easier for consumers to switch cellphone and internet providers.
[Translation]
In 2013, we created the Wireless Code to ensure that each customer receives a copy of their contract from their provider. This must include a Critical Information Summary, which is a two-page breakdown of all the key contract terms. The prices and terms — including what voice, text and data services are included and any limits on those services that could trigger overage additional charges or fees — must be clear. In addition, wireless contracts cannot lock in customers for more than 24 months, and customers must get a notice 90 days before the end of the contract. Contracts must also remind them that they can switch plans or providers without penalty.
Since then, the CRTC applied similar obligations to internet service providers, requiring them to provide their customers with clear and easy-to-understand information in their contracts.
Despite these measures, disagreements can occur between a customer and their service provider that they cannot resolve themselves. That’s why the CRTC set up the independent Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services, the CCTS. I understand the committee heard from the CCTS last week. They handle thousands of complaints by customers every year and can require companies to reimburse their customers.
[English]
The CRTC continues to take further action to strengthen consumer protections in Canada. We are always looking at best practices in other countries, and we will soon be launching a consultation on whether we should implement something similar to the broadband labels that the Federal Communications Commission — or FCC — has required in the United States. The labels, which have a common look and feel to nutritional labels, provide easy-to-understand and measurable data on internet speeds and network quality.
We intend to examine how to measure service quality and typical download and upload speeds during peak periods. We want to make sure that Canadians can compare apples to apples when shopping for internet services. We are also mindful of the accessibility needs of Canadians, so we are working diligently to ensure that everyone has equitable access to that information.
Any action that the CRTC takes will build on the foundation of protections already in place. The CRTC has a solid track record of taking action to make sure Canadians can benefit from lower prices and more choice, while promoting investment in telecommunications networks. Additionally, we are making sure that Canadians have the information they need when shopping for services. We look forward to continuing this important work.
Thank you again for this opportunity to appear, and we look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you. Colleagues and panellists, because of the limited time we have this morning with our guests from the CRTC, if we could have the questions remain concise and the responses remain concise as well.
Senator Simons: I have a technical question and then a larger one.
One of the concerns that my office has found with the text of the bill is in the notification requirement timing, because in subclause 24.2(2) it says the bill will apply to internet providers immediately on the day the bill comes into force, but the actual requirements of the notification won’t be determined until after you at the CRTC hold public hearings as described in subclause 24.2(3).
How are carriers supposed to know how to follow this obligation when the bill comes into force if it is predicated on the CRTC’s decision making? When we see the timelines for some of your things — I’m thinking about Bill C-11 — what are carriers supposed to do in the meantime?
Mr. Hutton: As you know, Bill C-11 is more on the broadcasting side, on that front. It’s a different team of people, although I am closely involved on that front.
As indicated in our opening remarks, we are going down the path of implementing broadband labels and very much in alignment with what is being proposed by the bill. We will be conducting a public hearing. We are about to launch these processes imminently. Hopefully, we will be aligned by the time we all get to promulgation of this bill.
Senator Simons: You think you’d be able to conduct public hearings in a timely enough fashion that carriers will be able to — right.
This rolls into my bigger question: Do we need this legislation, or do you feel that the CRTC is going to accomplish the same thing with its truth-in-labelling policy, and how will that be enforced?
Mr. Hutton: I think we are very much in alignment with the objectives of the bill on that front. Certainly, we are normally takers of legislation, and then certainly the House has already voted unanimously on this front.
It certainly does provide us with the policy cover to go down this path on that front and make it clear that we can achieve these objectives, if I can be so blunt and put it that way.
Senator Simons: This bill is fairly narrow in its application. You are saying the philosophic substrata of this bill would allow you to also expand truthful labelling in even more areas?
Mr. Hutton: That is certainly something on our work plan to apply, likely to mobile services next and other services going forward. You have highlighted an issue with this bill, being very specific about home internet services, saying that it may hamper expansion later. That’s certainly something for you as legislators to consider, to make sure we have the flexibility to go beyond home internet.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
Senator Cardozo: Welcome, Mr. Hutton and Mr. Kachi. As an alumnus of the CRTC, it’s always a delight to be able to talk about the issues you deal with. I’m well aware of the consumer aspects that the commission is charged with and that you have performed over the years. In doing that, I think the commission has often gone to significant lengths to make sure you hear from consumers, because the industry, by and large, has a real focus and is better funded in terms of the people who come before you and put views before you. In a sense, the consumer aspect is left to a relatively small number of people or groups and to you as the commission that is charged with that.
You seem to be saying in response to the questions of my colleague Senator Simons that this bill, in a sense, provides you with almost the plans that you’ve been thinking about as well? Subclause 24.2(3) talks about the commission holding public hearings to go through. Do you have any trouble with any of the steps here? Are those the kinds of things in subclause 24.2(3) that you would normally be following when you do the hearings?
Mr. Hutton: Those issues will certainly be part of questions. As you know, we can’t forecast. Commissioners make those decisions, as you well know, on that front. Certainly, we are forecasting to be looking at all of these questions in our upcoming public proceedings, which will include a public hearing on that front and other forms of engagement. For example, with respect to Canadians living with disabilities, a public hearing is not always the best way. There are different ways to go about reaching out to those communities on that front. We want to maximize how this product ends up facilitating everyone’s ability to shop and get better prices.
Senator Cardozo: I just want to clarify, if this bill comes into effect, you will be required under subclause 24.2(3) to carry out certain hearings. Are you planning a set of proceedings separate from this, or are you looking at something that would dovetail with this?
Mr. Hutton: What we are planning is to dovetail with this. It would be one public proceeding that may have various components including a public hearing going forward. If there is one slight issue — being very specific here — it is that highlighting the public hearing probably — we intend to go down the path of a public proceeding, which will include a public hearing, because it is important to discuss these matters in public. We need to make sure that Canadians truly understand the new label so that it is effective for them. We will have that, but certainly, by being very specific on a public hearing, that can potentially cause some issues.
Senator Martin: Thank you very much for your presence this morning. It’s good to hear that this legislation aligns with the work that you are doing and undertaking and the direction you are going in. Thank you for that confirmation.
You also mentioned best practices and referenced the label as similar to nutrition labels. We did see an example of it. Is that the best practice, or is that one of the best practices that you are looking at? Are there others that you have also identified?
Mr. Hutton: MP Dan Mazier scooped my prop. I wanted to bring one of those to you today, but he obviously did that.
We are a commission. We are issuing a public notice. We will be considering all of the options. If there is a “best” best practice out there over and above this one, certainly that’s what we will be looking at and working on. In our proceedings, we want to clearly evaluate and understood the concept of broadband labels in that proceeding.
Senator Martin: And that it is a recognizable format — something that we’re used to seeing. I thought that was interesting. You mentioned that as well.
Mr. Hutton: And can probably fit on your cellphone when you look at it.
Senator Martin: Yes. That’s another good point.
I am an urban dweller and have been my whole life, but I know that connectivity and access to services are not equal across our nation. It is very complex. I am curious whether the CRTC has any recent analyses or studies regarding consumer satisfaction with internet services, particularly in our rural, remote and Indigenous communities?
Mr. Hutton: We are in the process of conducting studies that will be used in the context of this proceeding on the barriers to switching. We don’t have the full results yet, but I believe we have over-provisioned to make sure that we clearly understand the needs of rural, northern and Indigenous communities.
Senator Martin: Yes. This bill is making me appreciate the access and the speed at which we can access information in an urban centre, but I know a big part of our nation is in rural and remote communities, so I’m glad that you are looking at that.
Lastly, you mentioned the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services, or CCTS, and that you are handling thousands of complaints. Is this something that, again, is accessible to everyone? What do you do to ensure that this information or this service or office is something that everyone can have access to?
Mr. Hutton: We put in great efforts. We put in place this office. It is essentially an ombudsman, but I will probably ask Mr. Kachi to give more details about the ongoing activities that we have with them. As we can as an independent tribunal regulator, we work to market that approach and put in place various measures to encourage the providers and carriers to promote that to their customers. It is accessible to everyone, and it is quite — as you met with them a couple of weeks ago — an effective operation.
Nanao Kachi, Director, Social and Consumer Policy, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission: As Mr. Hutton noted, it is something that the CRTC has put into place. It is a free service. The service providers are required through the various codes of conduct we have put into place to make their customers aware of the CCTS. The CCTS, as part of their participation agreement, also have conditions of participation.
We are also monitoring the effectiveness of that communication. Currently, it is an “as you need it” type of communication. As your complaint is escalated through a complaint process, the requirement is for the service provider to let the complainant know that the CCTS services are available to them. We are also monitoring that through a series of research and public opinion research processes to make sure that it is still being effective so that when we take a look at CCTS as a whole and other protections, we have an understanding of what Canadians experience is with that service and others have been like.
Senator Martin: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Quinn: Thank you for being here this morning. At our last meeting, we had a very brief discussion about costs and the up-to-10 megabits, or whatever. If somebody buys that and they are not receiving that, is that a way of forcing them to choose a higher package and therefore more costs? You mentioned just now that this initiative will help bring down costs. How will this help bring down costs?
Mr. Hutton: We’ve been working on many different fronts to bring down the costs of both cellphone and internet services, and with the recent pricing data available out there, as everything else is increasing, those efforts are paying off.
How we view this will help with prices is by providing Canadians with clear, precise, concise information that allows them to shop, compare and contrast the offers out there to make those decisions. “No, I do not need the higher-level package. I can go with the less expensive package and actually benefit from the lower prices that are on the market now.” That’s the concept behind this project.
Senator Quinn: What factors cause Canada to be considered among the highest in the world for these types of services?
Mr. Hutton: Canadians certainly do deserve good and better prices on that front. We are encouraging a competitive market. We have taken action by introducing the MVNO regime on the cellphone side, and we are currently running a proceeding for, basically, the home internet side where we have taken some initial steps to seek to reduce the costs that competitors pay the incumbents to access those networks, and we certainly are looking at issues with respect to fibre access going forward to allow more people to compete for those prices on that front.
Canada is certainly a large country. We do have to balance in our approach the need for investment and the need for deployment. There are a lot of rural areas that still don’t have high-speed access.
We do very well on deployment of high-quality networks. Canadians deserve that. We do very well on coverage, certainly in respect of the population size and land mass that we’re dealing with. We have to work more on prices, and we are on that.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
Senator Dasko: Thank you for being here today. My question is one that I asked last week. It has to do with advertising and promotion.
Obviously, these providers do a lot of advertising, a lot of marketing. It seems to me that there is nothing that would stop them from advertising and promoting their services, saying up to 50 or whatever. Correct me if I am wrong. They can still do that in terms of their advertising and promotion, but require information in the fine print that their customers will then have as part of their contract.
Am I right in saying they can still do that? That’s a specific question with respect to this bill.
The larger question is: What role does the CRTC take in monitoring?
I’m just hearing that your consumer activities are not nearly as extensive as your regulatory and other activities that you take on. To what extent does the CRTC monitor advertising and marketing, or is it purely a complaint process? How does that work in a general sense?
Mr. Hutton: Just to be careful, advertising and deceptive practices, are matters for the Competition Bureau and not the CRTC. What we are looking at and to the specific issue of “up to,” they are permitted to advertise that way. But over the years, we have been putting in place a measurement activity. Not only do we poll Canadians, we have a “secret shopper” approach to when you are purchasing or trying to change service.
We also have a project that independently measures the speeds that Canadians are getting. Certainly, we are applying those to those networks or those styles of technologies where it is shared much more.
Quite frankly, Canadians are getting what they pay for when they are looking at the high bandwidth services that are certainly less shared. If you are on older technology or using some of the wireless technologies, there is a greater struggle because it is a shared technology on that front. But we are actually putting in place independent measuring activities to be able to make sure that Canadians are getting what they pay for.
Senator Dasko: Yes, I understand that.
Mr. Hutton: We are also in the field right now, going out and purchasing over-the-top data to be able to also map that out and truly understand that you are getting what you need.
Senator Dasko: I’m back to advertising and marketing. On this topic specifically, you are saying that there is nothing that prevents the companies from advertising and promoting “using up to” or any of those kinds of promotions?
Mr. Hutton: That’s correct.
Senator Dasko: So they can still do that. Generally, when it comes to the review of marketing and advertising, you don’t actually monitor that on an ongoing basis, so the companies can just say whatever they want?
Mr. Hutton: They have to have contracts. When they sign their deals, we look at it through that approach, and we measure to make sure that Canadians are getting what they are paying for.
This project here, the broadband labels, part of what we are looking at is also implementing a measuring regime so that the broadband label is clear on what you should be receiving, and we will then be able to measure and test that going forward to address the very issue that I think you are concerned with.
Senator Dasko: Yes, advertising. Thank you.
The Chair: I’d like to thank you both for appearing before our committee this morning.
For our second panel this morning, I am pleased to welcome officials from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. We have with us Mr. Mark Schaan, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Innovation Policy Sector; and Andre Arbour, Director General, Telecommunications and Internet Policy Branch.
Welcome to you both. You will have five minutes for opening remarks and then I will turn it over to my colleagues for Q and A. You have the floor.
Mark Schaan, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada: Good morning, Mr. Chair, and thank you for having me here on the unceded traditional territories of the Algonquin Anishinaabe peoples. I’m joined by my colleague, Andre Arbour.
I would like to begin by thanking the committee for the opportunity to be here today. I am pleased to discuss the bill as well as provide context on some complementary work that is under way.
[Translation]
Canadians need accurate information about the marketplace to make informed purchasing decisions. In the context of broadband internet services, the quality of the connection is an important consideration when choosing among different plans and providers. It is also important for policy-makers in assessing the overall performance of the marketplace and whether telecommunications service providers are delivering the quality of service needed to participate in the digital economy.
[English]
The government supports Bill C-288 as it will help advance these objectives. It would also reinforce some existing initiatives under way.
In particular, in 2023, the government issued a policy direction to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission on a renewed approach to telecommunications policy. A draft of the direction was pre-published in 2022 for consultation and tabled in both Houses of Parliament before being finalized.
The direction is legally binding on the CRTC and covers a wide range of issues on competition, affordability, consumer rights and universal access.
[Translation]
Most relevant to today’s discussion, it instructs the CRTC to regularly collect, and report publicly on, broadband performance information, as well as to improve the clarity of plan characteristics in marketing materials. It also requires that service providers regularly participate in performance testing and to test services that are based on commonly used technologies with a focus on rural areas. Other related requirements include a provision for the CRTC to develop a standardized approach for measuring mobile wireless coverage.
The CRTC is now implementing the direction. They have completed or launched activities concerning wireless competition, internet competition, rural funding and reducing the costs of building networks, with more to come this year.
[English]
Another initiative is a project the CRTC launched in 2015 called Measuring Broadband Canada. It involves detailed testing of broadband performance by installing special hardware in a representative sample of households for the relevant service providers. The hardware then conducts tests at regular intervals, controlling for confounding factors. The CRTC then publishes a report summarizing the test results, including during peak periods.
The CRTC published the results of phase one 2016, and phase two in 2020. They looked at wired technologies more prevalent in urban areas. The results were positive in showing that service providers were generally delivering the speeds advertised. The CRTC has since been working on phase three, which focus on wireless technologies.
[Translation]
This initiative is positive but has some limitations. In particular, it is voluntary, so some service providers decline to participate. It also would benefit from more frequent testing and measures to publicize results, so consumers know what they are buying. The provisions in the policy direction were meant to address these issues and will be implemented by the CRTC. Bill C-288 will further reinforce these activities.
That concludes my remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions from the committee.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
Senator Simons: If you were in the room when I was speaking with the representatives of the CRTC — I assume you were — about this concern about a lag time between the immediacy with which the bill takes effect and the time it will take the CRTC to carry out the necessary hearing.
Am I being too fussy about this? Do you think the drafting of legislation works or can be made to work as it is?
Mr. Schaan: I’ll start and turn to my colleague. As you heard from the CRTC, there is quite a bit of activity under way as it relates to speed testing for internet services in Canada and ensuring that there’s a panoply of opportunity for providers to verify their results to Canadians. The fact that there is a concurrent set of activities under way at the CRTC will time nicely with Bill C-288 to allow for the coming into force to be commensurate with the results of the activity at the CRTC, leaving providers with a pretty robust set of instruction as to how they should conform to the requirements of the act. I’ll let Mr. Arbour add in.
Andre Arbour, Director General, Telecommunications and Internet Policy Branch, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada: I would add that subclause 24.2(2) puts the ball in the CRTC’s court and says as specified by the CRTC. There are no requirements that come into effect without the CRTC being involved, shaping or determining them before there are obligations on service providers.
Senator Simons: At the moment, I don’t believe there are any non-Canadian carriers in this space.
Mr. Arbour: Actually, the Telecommunications Act was amended in 2012 to allow for foreign-owned carriers to exist in Canada. There are a variety that do exist, either because they’ve entered the market on their own or they’ve been acquired. Xplore, for instance, is owned by American investors, and Starlink is certainly well known as American.
Senator Simons: The requirement notification says it only applies to Canadian carriers. Is that a concern?
Mr. Arbour: That is the existing phrasing within the Telecommunications Act, and “Canadian carrier” refers to being a carrier, which means owning facilities and operating in Canada. Under the existing terminology of the act, a Canadian carrier can be foreign-owned and there are specific criteria there. That’s fine and it is not a drafting error.
Senator Simons: I just wanted to be 100% certain. Thank you very much.
Senator Richards: I’m sorry I’m late. I didn’t get the French translation, but I think I got enough to know what’s going on. Thank you for being here.
I asked a gentleman last week about this, and it’s the same question I probably asked the former guests. In the rural area in New Brunswick that I come, it’s always a problem of getting internet that is standardized so that it’s good at 8:00 in the morning and it’s good at 8:00 at night. It might be good at 7:00 or 8:00 but late at night, you can’t get on. Not always. You do get on, but it’s a rough go.
How can you alleviate that? How can anyone alleviate that? These are local guys doing local work with local poles and local connections. They can always come back and say to you that it’s your fault. They’re not trying to be duplicitous, but they can say the trees are in the way, if you had a higher tower in your house, or if this happened or that happened, then you would get better service. So it’s not our fault, it’s your fault. This happens all the time in rural Canada. How do you alleviate that kind of unwarranted duplicity in the selling of the internet?
Mr. Schaan: Thank you for the question. I’d note a few things about how we are trying to work on this issue. One is that we share the goal that Canadians need and deserve standardized, consistent access to 50/10 universal broadband as a function of their continued existence in society and in the economy. That’s why there’s been so much effort placed on overriding the market failure of a lack of investment in rural broadband by trying to facilitate that. In New Brunswick, there has been over $73 million in public Universal Broadband Fund commitments to try to ensure that New Brunswickers can engage in 50/10. I would say 50/10 remains a work under way, particularly in New Brunswick. In New Brunswick, it’s only 90% of New Brunswickers that currently have access to 50/10.
This piece is sort of an additional holding to account in some ways, which is to say we’re doing lots on the upfront side of trying to make sure Canadians can access 50/10, we are putting funds in place to partner with the public sector, provinces and territories to make sure Canadians have access and it’s built out across rural Canada. This is one additional step that says, when that happens, let’s make sure it’s real. To your point, it’s not real if it’s only when there are one or eight users on the network at 7:45 in the morning but not when there are 100 users on the network at noon. This testing requirement will help provide trust and affirmation to Canadians that what we’re helping to build is actually real.
Senator Richards: Thank you. Senator Simons mentioned Starlink. We’re fine in the house we have in Fredericton, but in our summer place, where we spend a lot of time, this has been a problem. I’m on the internet all the time because of my work, and people suggested I go with Starlink because they don’t have a problem.
Is this going to be part of the way to facilitate people to get this international thing going? It seems not to be a problem when you have Starlink is what I’m trying to say.
Mr. Schaan: We remain open to the many modes through which we’re going to reach our broadband targets of 100% for 50/10 connectivity by 2030. That includes a mix of fibre to the home, existing cable internet and satellite in a number of cases. In a number of geographic areas in Canada, satellite will be a very reasonable and important part of the mix because the reality of getting fibre to those homes is simply too expensive and not market worthwhile. Our approach does contemplate all of the modes of getting to 50/10, including satellite in some instances.
Senator Richards: Sure, but the access always comes down to the basic dollar, doesn’t it? That’s what’s happening in rural parts of Canada, not just in New Brunswick.
Mr. Schaan: That comes, then, to the competitiveness pillar of our work on telecommunications, which is to ensure there actually is robust competition for those folks, including ensuring that when we’ve done things like allocate spectrum, we’ve thought about regional players, the inclusion of set-asides for more competitive local players that often introduce that dynamism, and hopefully bring down the costs, particularly for rural Canadians, as it relates to the costs they have to pay for home internet.
Senator Richards: I hope it works out. Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: First, on the speeds: One of the points that the proposer of this bill, Mr. Mazier, was making is that a provider can promise up to a certain speed, like 50/10, but that’s not available all the time.
How do we get to the point where that speed is available all the time? It is flowing from the discussion you just had with my colleague, Senator Richards. What is the role of the CRTC, and what do the providers have to do?
Mr. Schaan: I’ll start and then turn to my colleague. The goal is consistency and ensuring a recognition of the fact that there are peak periods but that the 50/10 shouldn’t be an aberration. The 50/10 should be a reachable goal and an actual outcome for Canadians in the average situation.
There are various ways in which the CRTC and others can potentially contemplate how they set out those obligations on providers, and I’ll turn to my colleague for that.
Mr. Arbour: I would start by saying that there are two types of scenarios where we can have issues. In urban areas, the testing that the CRTC has done shows that people are getting the advertised speeds between 95% and 110% of the time, even during peak periods. Where they’re experiencing speed issues, usually their home Wi-Fi is in a closet that’s blocked internally; it’s not the external network issue.
The CRTC has information resources, and maybe there are ways to help consumers there. The “up to” is the speed that people are getting. Maybe there’s just more of a consumer education component there.
There are a few providers in urban areas that don’t participate in this testing, so having mandatory testing and reporting will help us confirm whether it’s the same for those that have declined.
Anecdotally, and with some available data that we have, the biggest problem is in rural areas, where you have much bigger divergence between what is advertised and the speeds experienced. It’s highly variable. In some cases, it’s great, but in some cases we know there’s a big divergence. There, the “up to” does not reflect well on what the average consumer can typically expect. We’ve heard from Senator Richards on that, for instance. That’s where having prescriptive rules from the CRTC in terms of what information is given to consumers will be important.
The best form of that is best left to a public hearing, the way the bill contemplates. There’s a lot of consideration about what’s too much information for the consumer and what’s information overload versus giving them enough to make an informed decision. Having a public process where consumer groups can participate and the issue can be looked at in detail will help inform the final rules.
Senator Cardozo: My other question was around the issue of an act versus a cabinet directive. I think I know some of the answers, but it’s been a while since I worked at the CRTC. Could you give us a sense of the weight of a directive? I suppose partly it relates only to the government in office — maybe or maybe not — but an act is for all times until it is revoked.
My question is this: Why do we need this? Why doesn’t the cabinet just provide a directive to the CRTC? Can you explain that to us?
Mr. Schaan: Yes. The Telecommunications Act furnishes the minister with the opportunity to send a directive to the CRTC to essentially be an interpretive guide — and a legally binding one — that they then have to follow up with as they carry out their regulatory function.
Senator Cardozo: So it’s just a ministerial directive, not a cabinet directive?
Mr. Schaan: It’s a Governor-in-Council, but it furnishes the minister, through the GIC, the capacity to be able to do so. We’ve had a few in the history of the Telecommunications Act in recent eras. You’re right; it is legally binding until it is either repealed or replaced by the government, but there is flexibility available to the government to replace existing policy directions or to add to them.
By embedding speed testing in the legislation, it would require the work of the legislature to overturn that codification and obligation. There are varying views and approaches as to what you set out in a semi-flexible instrument like a policy direction and what you codify in law. Sometimes, if you get too prescriptive on codification in law, you end up with non-technology-neutral or specific obligations that may not stand up over time.
In general, we’re supportive of this, in part because the broad construct of allowing the CRTC to set this out through a public hearing, and then be able to continue to iterate, allows for that flexibility while suggesting that the broad concept of speed testing is something that should exist in the legislation.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Senator Dasko: Thank you for being here. I wanted to follow up, Mr. Arbour, on your comments about divergence, and going back to my question to the previous panel about advertising.
You talked about the divergence between advertising and actual service. Can you expand on this, a bit? I’m wondering what kinds of providers or which providers or anything about the characteristics of providers who might be advertising using language that diverts from the actual service they’re providing.
Can you shed some light on that: any of the patterns you’ve seen and any of the providers who are particularly egregious, shall we say, in florid, untruthful or exaggerated advertising versus service?
Mr. Arbour: I appreciate the question. I would say that, within Canada, we are more fortunate in that there are some soft industry norms to deliver the speed that is the up to maximum but actually to be consistent in that. That is because the Canadian market has a strong proportion of cable technologies. Other technologies in the U.K. or Australia don’t have that same consistency and there’s much more variability.
Because our reports are more anecdotal and we don’t yet have data, I’m reluctant, as a representative of the government, to call out individual providers. We do know that there’s more variability in rural areas and with fixed wireless and satellite technologies.
This can vary quite a bit. You can install the fixed wireless and it’s great for the first six months, but as you load more and more customers, you can run that network hot and then you have congestion. So it’s not necessarily at a point in time, and that’s why a more rigorous analytical approach would help to be more definitive in this zone.
Senator Dasko: When you say “anecdotal,” you mean hearsay or whatever?
Mr. Arbour: Yes. We hear complaints. The other thing the department did as part of our mapping for assessing eligibility for universal broadband funding is a modelling exercise specifically for fixed wireless networks. We looked at not only the stated claims of the network capacity, but our internal engineers did some modelling on whether there was enough capacity to support subscriber growth over the medium term to deliver 50/10. We ended up taking a haircut to certain networks, at least from a mapping standpoint.
The service providers will say, “Well, I can deliver 50/10 today,” and we say, “Well, it’s not just about today. We’re about planning over the medium term.” All this to say, they would dispute some of the findings we made. But we look forward to having rigorous measurement of this and having data, and ultimately consumers will benefit.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you to our panellists for being here with us today. We very much appreciate it.
For our third panel this morning, we are pleased to welcome, from the Canadian Telecommunications Association, Mr. Robert Ghiz, President and Chief Executive Officer; and Mr. Eric Smith, who is with him, Senior Vice-President. Welcome before our committee.
We’re also pleased to welcome, via video conference, Mr. Paul McLauchlin, President of Rural Municipalities of Alberta. Welcome, and we will begin with opening remarks, five minutes from Mr. Ghiz, followed by five minutes for Mr. McLauchlin before proceeding to Q & A.
Mr. Ghiz, you have the floor, and welcome.
Robert Ghiz, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Telecommunications Association: Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Honourable senators, we appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss Bill C-288.
Let me start by saying we support transparency. Advertising should be accurate, and when it comes to advertising internet access service speeds in Canada, it is. This is not our conclusion. It is the conclusion of a series of internet speed studies commissioned by the CRTC.
In 2015, the CRTC found that the performance of internet service providers, or ISPs, was largely consistent across all regions with the vast majority achieving between 104% and 110% of advertised download speed. In its 2016 report, the CRTC found that the majority of ISPs were delivering speeds above their advertised rates, regardless of the access technology in use, including during peak periods.
Again, in 2020, the CRTC found that all major Canadian ISPs are delivering users with average download speeds that exceed maximum advertised rates. As the regulators’ studies show, ISPs’ advertising of internet speeds is accurate. If a customer encounters issues with their internet access service, our members work closely with the customer to diagnose and resolve the issue.
This leads us to the obvious question: Is Bill C-288 necessary, especially when we already have the Competition Bureau Canada and the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services, or CCTS, to address concerns about advertising or unresolved service-quality issues. As we heard earlier today, the CRTC already has plans to hold a public consultation on this issue.
[Translation]
With all due respect, I think the bill is aimed at resolving a problem that does not exist. There are many other real and pressing problems with high-speed internet access in Canada that need to be tackled. Canadian network operators invest billions of dollars every year to expand and improve their infrastructure. Thanks to these investments, Canada boasts some of the best-performing telecommunications networks in the world.
[English]
According to independent network analyst Ookla, Canada’s median fixed broadband download speed is 110% faster than the global median. Notably, it is 91% faster than the U.K. and a remarkable 233% faster than Australia. Not only are Canada’s fixed broadband networks fast, but they are also available to a greater percentage of the population than most of our G7 peers and Australia, especially at the higher-speed service tiers.
While record investments were being made to expand and enhance coverage, Statistics Canada internet service price index declined by over 15% in the last year alone.
As impressive as this is, we know that more work needs to be done. While access to high-speed internet in rural communities increased by 65% between 2018 and 2022 and in 60% of First Nations reserve areas, not every Canadian household has reliable high-speed internet service. Bill C-288 will not help close the digital divide. Only the private sector’s continued investment in network building, supplemented by strategic government funding, will realize the goal of connecting all Canadians.
Unfortunately, as in other countries, Canada faces significant challenges when investing in critical infrastructure including high borrowing costs, network costs, climate-related risk and increased regulatory requirements.
To sustain investment in telecom networks in Canada, Parliament must resist the urge to impose new regulations that add to the cost of doing business without a corresponding consumer benefit. Bill C-288 presupposes a problem that the CRTC study shows does not exist. Moreover, false or misleading advertising laws exist under the Competition Act, and the government has directed the CRTC to continue collecting and reporting information related to fixed internet services to the public. For these reasons, we respectfully ask this committee to recommend to Parliament that Bill C-288 not proceed.
If it does proceed, we ask the committee to adopt the following amendment. The definition of “fixed broadband service” should be amended to remove the words “high-speed data transmission service provided to a fixed location” and replace them with “fixed internet access service.” “High-speed data transmission service” is a broad, undefined term that could unintentionally expand the bill’s scope. “Fixed internet access service” is well understood by the commission and the industry.
Thank you again for inviting us here today, and we look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ghiz.
Mr. McLauchlin, you have the floor.
Paul McLauchlin, President, Rural Municipalities of Alberta: Thanks for having me today. I come from Treaty 6 territory. I am president of the Rural Municipalities of Alberta, or RMA, and Reeve of Ponoka County. I represent 85% of the land base, 15% of the population who contribute 28% of the GDP of Alberta. Definitely, I have a rural lens, and I want to share a rural perspective on internet speeds, how they’re advertised and how those advertised speeds might be misleading consumers and, ultimately, policy-makers.
To begin, I support the bill’s inclusion of a variety of internet distribution technologies. In rural Alberta, few houses and businesses are served by a wired connection. Rather, most consumers get their internet through wireless access from a tower or potentially from a satellite. It is important that these types of services are considered to ensure that the outcomes of this bill apply to rural customers.
I understand this may be the topic of future public hearings held by the CRTC, should this bill be passed. If hearings are to determine if certain types of distribution should be exempt, RMA would be glad to participate and share our position on the types of broadband distribution services that rural areas should or should not be excluded. Doing so would put rural Albertans at a disadvantage to their urban neighbours. This would happen if rural consumers would not have access to the same information about their internet service plans as urban consumers do.
We support the intent of the bill which we view as giving consumers more detailed information on their choices. Between 2020 and 2022, we ran an internet speed testing project that saw rural Albertans complete over 35,000 tests. In our final year of testing, our results showed a median download speed of 15 megabits per second and an upload speed of 2 megabits per second. Our testing included a voluntary option for users to tell us what the advertised speeds of their plans were.
As a reminder, the Government of Canada established a universal standard of 50 megabits per second download and 10 megabits per second upload. For many of our tests, the advertised download speed was 25, 10, and in some cases only 5 megabits per second. Concerningly, these tests frequently showed that even these significantly subpar advertised speeds were often not being met. Our testing project demonstrates the gap between the advertised speeds and what the real experience is.
Switching gears, I also want to speak on how advertised speeds play a role in public policy discussions. If advertised speeds are significantly higher than what is achieved in reality, it creates the perception that an area does not require access to funding or that the government programs would not be available in that area to increase internet speeds.
We know that testing is used to inform government policy. However, advertised speeds play a role in shaping perceptions. From this perspective, we support more accurate advertising of internet speeds as well.
Thank you for your time today. I appreciate this discussion.
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
Senator Simons: I have to start off with a question for Mr. McLauchlin because he and I know each other a bit.
When you have heard other witnesses testifying that this bill will not help rural broadband — we had the previous witness saying that maybe people put their modems in their closets and that’s why they are not getting the advertised speeds — what do you make of this? We talk and talk about the crisis of rural broadband, but it never seems to actually get fixed.
Mr. McLauchlin: Thank you for the question, Senator Simons. Imagine I am a power user. I am actually talking to you on a fibre tower installation, but I also have Starlink as a back-up due to reliability issues. We have a stark reality that the data that’s out there, unless you have constant monitoring, which I do know has been occurring, for most of the people I talk to reliability is poor, access is poor, and, again, the congestion problems are out there.
One of the things we have learned is that the investment in the new technology is not occurring in rural areas because the business model isn’t matching that, so you do get congestion. Electronics do age out, especially under heat. At the same time, we are just not getting those investments in the technology, so the advertised speed degrades because that’s just what happens to electronics, and definitely changes in technology as well.
Senator Simons: So your main concern in testifying to us today is just to send a message to the CRTC: Don’t exempt things that are essential to people getting connectivity in rural communities?
Mr. McLauchlin: That is correct, Senator Simons. I live in a cow pasture right now, and I am talking to you folks in Ottawa. It is raining hard today, and I am very joyful for the rain, but I would not be able to talk to you without that technology.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you, Mr. Ghiz and Mr. Smith, for coming here. I will start with the point that Mr. McLauchlin made in terms of his view that speeds are not reliable in rural areas, but your findings are quite different. Could you give us a sense of the difference of these two views?
Mr. Ghiz: First of all, I’m not sure about the research, and I don’t have access to the research that Mr. McLauchlin used. We are just going by the information, the research, that the CRTC was provided. But I also agree that there is more work to be done to get rural Canada up to the speeds they need and to be connected like urban Canada. We know it is an economic driver for GDP.
I went through the stats where, yes, we have improved quite a bit between 2018 and 2022, but there is still more work to be done. If we look at the North, we are still at 57.5% connectivity there. In rural areas in Canada, we are getting close to 70%. On our First Nations, we are at a little over 50%. Now, those have improved, but there is a lot more investment to be made.
If you heard from everyone, part of the issue is there is not a business case to be made in some of these areas and getting technology to those areas is extremely expensive. That’s why I think it is important that the provincial, municipal and federal governments all have a role to play in partnering with our industry where it does not make economic sense. Progress is being made, but there is still more to be done.
Senator Cardozo: You said the key part of the solution is private sector investment. What would make that happen, or what would incentivize that to happen?
Mr. Ghiz: That is a great question. Number one, right now, I’ll say that my members invest approximately $12 billion a year in connecting Canadians. That’s in spite of Canada having some of the highest spectrum costs in the world. When it comes to spectrum auctions, some of the highest in the world.
When it comes to regulatory intervention, having a regulatory environment that is predictable into the future and does not constantly change is something that’s important. All my members want regulatory stability so that they understand the rules going forward to help them make long-term decisions. With a lot of these spending decisions, they are not looking two or five years down the road. They are looking at 20, 25 or 30 years down the road. So that regulatory stability is also important.
Senator Cardozo: You said we have some of the highest spectrum costs. Why is that?
Mr. Ghiz: There are a number of reasons.
Senator Cardozo: Is that what the market creates, the highest price?
Eric Smith, Senior Vice-President, Canadian Telecommunications Association: It could also be the way auctions are designed as well and how much spectrum is made available. It is a scarce resource, so there is less spectrum for providers to bid on.
Senator Cardozo: It is the government or ISED that makes spectrum available, right?
Mr. Smith: Yes.
Senator Cardozo: Is it your feeling that they are not making enough spectrum available for the needs that are out there?
Mr. Smith: We, as an association, have to be somewhat cautious in approaching that question, because different members, different carriers, have different philosophies or opinions on how spectrum should be allocated, but there is no doubt that whatever structure is adopted for spectrum auctions, it can influence the price of that spectrum. It just so happens that the evidence shows that we have among the highest prices in the world.
Senator Cardozo: Is that what you would say creates some of the highest consumer prices in the world for mobile?
Mr. Smith: The ISED recent pricing report that came out last week shows we are cheaper than the U.S. We have structural problems in terms of the costs to build networks, and spectrum is one of those. Obviously, the more expensive it is to build the network, some of those expenses do get reflected in prices.
Senator Cardozo: Mr. Ghiz, if you could just go over the amendment you were suggesting and just explain that a little more.
Mr. Ghiz: I will ask Mr. Smith to do that.
Mr. Smith: It is just a small thing.
Senator Cardozo: What section are we talking about?
Mr. Smith: It is proposed new subclause 24.2(1), where it describes a fixed broadband service as any high-speed data transmission service. In talking to our members, we were confused as to exactly what that means.
If you look at, for example, how the CRTC has their internet code that applies to internet services, they just used the term “fixed internet service,” and that’s similar to what you see in some of the other countries that have some advertising rules that were talked about at earlier hearings: the U.K., Australia, et cetera.
Our suggestion is that this would be a simpler way, so that it is a common understanding, because that’s not a defined term, I don’t believe. I have seen the definition of it. It is unclear exactly what that encompasses.
Senator Cardozo: We are talking about subsection 24.2(1), the words in the second line. You would take out “high-speed data transmission service”?
Mr. Smith: Yes. And it would be “fixed internet access service.”
Senator Cardozo: The conundrum for us is always when we at the Senate amend legislation. It has to go back to the House. I don’t know if you have seen the House lately. It is not as calm, cool and collected as we are here, so there is always a concern about sending stuff back there and never seeing it again.
Mr. Smith: I will say this isn’t a hill to die on. We believe that this bill, if it passes, provides the CRTC with enough latitude to determine what services — if they decide to issue guidelines or regulations around advertising, it gives them enough flexibility to decide exactly which services this applies to. In looking at it and in talking among ourselves, we could not come up with a common understanding of what this meant, so we are offering that as a simplification.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you very much.
Senator Martin: I am glad you responded at the end that this is not the hill to die on. We did hear from the CRTC and ISED just before this, and they both expressed their support for the legislation in terms of what is already under way, the clarity that Canadians need, and that it will be in good hands. The sponsor of this bill is from rural Canada, which, for me, is hard to fully understand and appreciate because I grew up in Vancouver. Mr. Maizier’s riding, Dauphin, has 8,368 and Swan River has 4,049.
My question is actually for Mr. McLaughlin. You mentioned that you are bringing a rural perspective, a rural lens, and I think that’s something we have to really understand and appreciate. Considering the unique challenges of rural communities in receiving quality and reliable internet access, how are the increased transparency and compliance measures proposed by Bill C-288 essential for improving the consumer experience in these regions? I would really appreciate your perspective on this.
Mr. McLauchlin: Thank you for that question. Advertised speeds that have little asterisk on there, and that little asterisk is really what the discussion is about. What exactly is the performance? In many cases, people are buying a package, but if there is a spring break, congestion can change your service where people are relying on it from a business perspective. I grew up in a rural community and I knew that it was a spring break because my internet quality would drop, if not actually fail. It’s important to recognize that we have a situation where we just don’t have the infrastructure.
One of the conversations that was happening earlier — and I don’t want to change lanes here — was talking about spectrum. We have been supporting the concept of “use it or lose it.” A lot of spectrum bought in Alberta, and rural Canada is not being deployed. It is bought as an asset, and there is no investment. We believe spectrum should be “use it or lose it.”
One thing, which I think is the most exciting part, is the mom-and-pop service providers. These are the mother-daughter, father-son, small family businesses that are actually finding some opportunities. I am actually served by a small family company that’s providing my internet service. Those exist throughout Canada. They do need some help. In their ability to access data, there are barriers, but there is a tremendous opportunity to increase competition in rural Alberta with a little bit of help and a little bit of red tape reduction.
Things have definitely gotten better, and you’ve heard that today from some of the witnesses. We have a long way to go. Hopefully, we can get there in short order, but we can only do so by working together to get rid of some of the barriers that exist in rural Canada specifically.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. I have asked questions about advertising and promotion before, and I’m really getting a different story. I think you are saying that the industry has done a very good job and there’s not a lot of divergence between advertising and the actual services. Yet the bill is actually based on the opposite premise that there is a divergence. Looking at different sets of data, how do we come up with these different analyses of the situation? Do you have any comment on that?
Mr. Smith: Yes, absolutely. Thank you for that question. Obviously, the internet and internet access are not the simplest topic to explain or to understand. The testing done by CRTC — and it has been the same methodology used in places like Australia, the U.K. and the United States — uses a third-party testing providers who measures the speed of the ISP’s network.
Basically think of it to your door, because that’s what the ISP controls — the access service. Inside your house, there are all types of external factors that are outside the control of the ISP that impact what speed you experience on your device. If you are on your laptop and your home Wi-Fi, for example, and you use a third-party speed testing app, and you say, wait a minute, this is lower than what the ISP says the speed is, it is because it is not just testing the ISP, it is testing the speed of your device, through your home network, past any protective barriers or interference in your home, then to the ISP access service and back again. Even your device itself may not be capable of processing the speed that the ISP provides. If you have an older laptop, it may only be able to process a speed of 300 megabits per second, but you have home internet of one gigabit per second.
The testing methodology is important, as well as understanding what is within control. For example, we have talked about the U.K. and Australia. The reason the U.K. brought in their advertising rules was because the ISPs were advertising speeds where only 10% of their subscribers could actually get that speed. The CRTC studies show that most people are getting more than the advertised speed, even at peak periods. It is an incredible divergence. That’s why we are saying that we don’t have the same problems these other countries have. We already have advertising laws under the Competition Act, and we have the CCTS that are able to resolve any concerns or disputes.
It’s that additional layer of regulation. For the very small wireless internet service providers that Mr. McLauchlin mentioned, this will be more of an imposition on them than the national carriers, because they will have additional disclosure requirements, potentially additional testing requirements, they may have to adopt a methodology that they don’t currently use. We are saying that additional regulation may not be necessary.
Senator Dasko: It is a little far in the process to turn back.
Mr. Smith: I understand, but we want to address those misconceptions or myths that the problem is to the extent of what people are suggesting. There is always room for improvement, but we have very good, accurate advertising for the most part in this country.
Senator Dasko: As a consumer, I can’t help but note the aggressive marketing done by the providers. I haven’t paid a lot of attention to the details. There is nothing wrong with marketing, of course, but there is a different story going on here. Thank you very much.
Senator Richards: My question is for Mr. McLauchlin. Thank you for being here. I also have mom-and-pop people providing us. There were two towers that we could have had and one tower is completely overburdened, so we are at another tower, which is about 30 miles away. We don’t get the internet that we would like to. I’m talking about our rural house in New Brunswick. I’m sure you have faced some of the same kinds of difficulties. I don’t think urban Canada realizes how this can frustrate and block internet access to rural Canada.
Technology is always becoming more sophisticated and more advanced, and I am wondering if these problems wouldn’t be ironed out with something like Starlink within the next 10 years in rural Canada. These problems of towers and wait times and everything might disappear.
Mr. McLauchlin: Thank you, senator. One of the ways we actually look at this is not to pick a horse to win a race but to look at a blend of technologies. I’ve been on Starlink for quite a few years now. Starlink has experienced some congestion as well. I have had to upgrade my hardware, and in order to do so it was quite complex. My wife had to make sure I didn’t fall off my roof. In rural Alberta or rural anywhere, it is a little harder to get the service providers — I can’t expect my 80-year-old neighbours to put up a satellite dish.
I think it’s that reinvestment in technology that is a big issue. People may not understand. My nephew lives in Airdrie; he’s got 2-gigabits service, and I’m sitting here today in front of this Senate hearing bragging about my 50-megabits service. That’s a huge gap between those two, and I’m a power user. Understand this, that 50/10 is probably, truthfully, too low based upon the internet of things, the investment that’s going on. Forty-four per cent of the capital investment in Alberta right now is going to rural Alberta. What comes with that are these broadband requests, the need for this data.
This is a critical conversation. It’s gotten better, but the gap in the conversation we’re having today is recognizing that there needs to be further investment, further monitoring and some corrective action in order to make this more successful and to make the deployment in rural Canada actually more effective.
Senator Richards: I agree with you, and that’s what I hoped to hear from you. Thank you very much, sir.
The Chair: If there are no more questions, on behalf of the committee, I thank all three of you for appearing and sharing your views. We very much appreciate it.
We will turn now to clause-by-clause consideration, but, first, I have some opening remarks. I would like to remind all senators of a number of points.
One, 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 all have the same understanding of where we are in the process.
Two, in terms of the mechanics of the process, 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.
Three, if a senator is opposed to an entire clause, 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.
Four, some amendments that are moved may have consequential effect on other parts of the bill. It is therefore useful to 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.
Five, because no notice is required to move amendments, there may, of course, have been no preliminary analysis of the amendments to establish which ones may be of consequence to others and which may be contradictory.
Six, 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 chair, I will listen to argument, decide when there has been sufficient discussion of a matter or order and make a ruling.
Seven, the committee is the ultimate master of its business within the bounds established by the Senate, and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.
Eight, I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call vote which, obviously, provides unambiguous results.
Nine, finally, senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question.
Are there any questions, colleagues? If not, we will proceed to clause-by-clause.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C 288, An Act to amend the Telecommunications Act (transparent and accurate broadband services information)?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?
Senator Simons: I thought the preamble stood postponed?
The Chair: Sorry. That’s right. Shall cause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: Don’t we have to do all the other —
The Chair: There is only one clause. Yes, it’s confusing.
An Hon. Senator: Sorry. Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the bill carry, colleagues?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Simons: That’s the shortest clause-by-clause we have ever done.
The Chair: And the most complicated we have ever done.
An Hon. Senator: I was still looking at the bill.
The Chair: When shall we report this, colleagues?
An Hon. Senator: Usually we ask about observations, I guess. I don’t know if anyone has any.
The Chair: Are there any observations to this bill, colleagues?
So the bill carries as is.
Is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Done. Record time. I have never done a clause by clause so quickly.
(The committee adjourned.)