Canadians want more competition when it comes to internet access and pricing. But Ottawa might be trying to stand in the way.

Here’s the deal: in most areas of the country, consumers have just two major internet providers to choose from.

The CRTC, Canada’s telecommunications regulator, has long argued that it is in the best interest of consumers to allow for cross-regional competition. That would encourage more of Canada’s major regional internet providers to participate in markets in other areas of the country.

It’s something the Competition Bureau has also advocated for.

To that end, the CRTC recently upheld a decision to require big internet companies to share their fibre networks with others, with competitor access sold at prices the telecommunications regulator determines.

Network sharing would facilitate competition and ultimately help drive down prices for consumers.

That initial decision by the CRTC was made a few years ago. But Bell, through some corporate maneuvering, filed a cabinet petition and managed to get the federal government in November 2024 to order the CRTC to reconsider this pro-competition directive.

Bell claimed its rationale for doing so was to protect smaller companies and improve telecom access for Canadians. But the reality is that, had the CRTC ruled in Bell’s favour, the duopolies that exist in most Canadian markets would have been cemented in place.

From a consumer perspective, it’s great that the CRTC didn’t cave to Bell’s lobbying, because doing so would have been a wrongheaded interpretation of competition policy.

The CRTC’s move to uphold its initial decision is technically temporary: a final decision still has to be made, so the debate is not over. In fact, Telus just filed a motion in court, alleging that Ottawa is intentionally withholding lobbying documents.

According to the motion, Ottawa is purposely withholding lobbying documents and activities from public scrutiny, which demonstrates a lack of transparency on how its directive to get the CRTC to reconsider its initial pro-competition decision was made.

The motion cites a few grounds for review, with two focusing on procedural fairness, or lack thereof. First, Telus argues that there were dozens of closed-door meetings between Innovation Minister François-Philippe Champagne’s office and Telus’ competitors, which potentially violates the Telecommunications Act’s provisions for a fair review and response. It also argues that the Minister failed to properly consult with provincial counterparts, which is required under Section 13 of the Telecommunications Act.

Essentially, Telus wants Champagne to produce materials in his possession, and Ottawa is objecting. If you care about government transparency, this is quite concerning. Failing to produce the documents insulates the decision from proper judicial review, and raises suspicion about procedural unfairness and, ultimately, Ottawa’s motives.

This legal spat is problematic because this government doesn’t have a good track record of being transparent with its decision-making process. The list is long, but includes being accused of political interference in the SNC-Lavalin Affair, sole-sourced contracts in the We Charity Scandal, delaying the release of key financial reports in 2024 like the Annual Financial report, the decision making over the use of the Emergencies Act, improper accounting and transparency with pandemic aid, and the general erosion of Canada’s access to information system.

To say that Ottawa, under this government, has a transparency problem, is an understatement.

Beyond transparency, the push from Ottawa for the CRTC to reconsider couldn’t come at a worse time. U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff threats could soon upend the economy. With a renewed focus on tearing down interprovincial trade barriers, why would Ottawa at the same time push to build virtual walls around Canada’s telecom space and cement in place duopolies and the lack of consumer choice that comes with it?

It’s also not what consumers want, with polling showing that the vast majority of Canadians support the CRTC’s decision to enable cross-regional competition, and that nearly two-thirds of Canadians would question Ottawa’s commitment to affordability if they restricted internet choice.

Right now, we have a strange directive from Ottawa, going against the spirit of competition, masked in a veil of secrecy, and that should worry just about everyone.

Originally published here

The Consumer Choice Center Malaysia, through its representative, Tarmizi Anuwar, has questioned the government’s decision to implement the Reference Price Guidelines for courier services, which took effect on 1 December 2024 where deliveries under 2kg will see an increase in fees from RM4.00 to RM5.00.

Deputy Minister of Communications Teo Nie Ching, recently stated that these guidelines are not mandatory and merely serve as a reference for the industry. However, Tarmizi argues that while they may not be legally binding, such guidelines still harm the market and consumers. “Although the government claims this is just a guideline and not a mandatory directive, courier companies can use these recommended prices to justify raising their service charges. This will burden consumers, especially small businesses and online sellers who rely on competitive shipping costs,” said Tarmizi.

He also emphasised that this move reduces competition in the market, as courier companies will no longer be incentivized to offer lower prices to attract customers. This deprives consumers of the opportunity to access cheaper services and negatively impacts the growth of the e-commerce industry.

Read the full text here