Proposed Ontario Payday Loan Rate Astronomically High
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Attention: News and Business Editors
February 6, 2009
Proposed Ontario Payday Loan Rate Astronomically High, Will Hurt Most Vulnerable Consumers in Economic Downturn
(OTTAWA)— The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) today condemned the Ontario Maximum Total Cost of Borrowing Advisory Board’s proposed payday lending rate as “astronomically high”. The report, released today, “Capping Borrowing Costs – A Balanced Approach to Payday Loans in Ontario” is anything but balanced and is instead a gift to payday lenders at the expense of Ontario’s most vulnerable consumers – just as Ontario enters what may be its largest economic downturn, said the consumer group.
“This report proposes not only burying Ontario’s most needy and vulnerable consumers under new mounds of debt but has picked out the most expensive casket for them” said John Lawford, Counsel at PIAC. “We urge the Ontario Cabinet and the Minister of Small Business and Entrepreneurship to reject this astronomically high proposed lending rate. Ontario consumers are feeling the economic downturn in record numbers and if they turn to payday loans at this rate they will never recover.”
Lawford noted that the report appeared more concerned with the profitability of the industry than the needs of people in Ontario that feel forced to seek a payday loan. “A $300 loan at this rate would cost $63 and if it were payable in 10 days, that would be an annual percentage rate of over 766%.” Under PIAC and Canada Without Poverty’s (formerly National Anti-Poverty Organization) submission to the Board, which also left a fair margin for such lenders to operate profitably, such a loan would cost about $28.
To review the joint Canada Without Poverty and Public Interest Advocacy Centre submission to the Board please visit:
LINK TEXT [pdf file: 0.32mb]
For more information, please contact:
John Lawford
Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, ON K1N 7B7
(613) 562-4002×25 (Tel)
(613) 562- 0007 (Fax)
PIAC Welcomes Do Not Call List, Urges Consumers to Sign Up
OTTAWA – The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) welcomed today’s launch of the National Do Not Call List (DNCL) by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). The Do Not Call List will reduce Canadians’ unwanted telephone solicitation by requiring telemarketers to remove numbers on the DNCL from their telemarketing lists.
“The Do Not Call List is a wonderful victory for consumers who have complained about telemarketing for years but had no practical way to stop calls,” said John Lawford, counsel for PIAC. “There will be growing pains while the Do Not Call List grows but we urge consumers to get on the list and to complain when they receive calls that they shouldn’t.”
PIAC notes that consumers must wait 31 days after registering with the list before expecting some calls to stop. “In addition, charities, companies you already do business with and some other groups are exempted from the main Do Not Call List,” added Lawford. “However, consumers can still block calls from the exempted organizations by being asking to be put on that organization’s internal do not call list, in which case the CRTC will enforce that list just as they do the main Do Not Call List.”
Lawford noted that while Canadians may be unhappy with all the DNCL exemptions, that it is important to first get on the list, then for consumers who are unhappy with the continuing calls to pressure government for removal of the exemptions. “And in the meanwhile, we urge consumers who have received calls after registration to complain if they keep getting them by recontacting the main Do Not Call List number and making a complaint.”
– 30 –
To Register or Complain:
Go online to www.LNNET-DNCL.gc.ca or call toll-free (from the number you want to register): 1-866-580-DNCL (1-866-580-3625). Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing may call (toll free): 1-888-DNCL-TTY (1-888-362-5889).
More consumer information regarding the National Do Not Call List can be found on the CRTC website: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/dncl.htm
Please contact:
John Lawford
Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, Ontario
K1N 7B7
(613) 562-4002×25
(613) 562-0007 (Fax)
jlawford@piac.ca
Major Parties Asked to Support Consumer Rights in Telecommunications
Ottawa – A coalition of consumers groups from across Canada today (Sept. 29, 2008) asked that each of the five major parties take a stand on consumer protection in Canada’s telecommunications sector.
The coalition composed of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (“PIAC”), the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), the Consumers’ Association of Canada (CAC), the National Anti-Poverty Organization (NAPO), Option Consommateurs (OC), Consumers Council of Canada (CCC), asked each of the five major political parties contesting the federal election to outline their positions on specific measures to ensure that the benefits of competition in telecommunications are delivered to Canadian consumers and businesses.
“Over the past few years, successive Canadian governments have quietly adopted a policy of deregulation for the sake of deregulation in telecommunications markets,” said Michael Janigan, Executive Director of PIAC. “Increasingly, the onus has been placed on individual consumers to police and pursue instances of abuse of market power by telephone and cable companies. We are concerned that the interests of Canadian consumers are systematically being overlooked in Canada’s telecommunications markets. “
Many wireline telecom markets in Canada and in particular, local and broadband services markets, continue to be dominated by a single incumbent telephone company or, in the case of the residential market for high speed Internet services, a duopoly. Three providers dominate the wireless market. The negative effects of the lack of competition have recently been quantified and documented in a number of international studies, which show that Canada’s early lead in the broadband services segment of the telecom market has been squandered, and that Canadians pay some of the highest mobile wireless rates among western countries.
“Telecommunications and broadband access in particular is critically important to the social and economic fabric of this country”, said Philippa Lawson, Executive Director of CIPPIC. “Canadians deserve lower prices, fair terms of service, and better quality of service. We don’t see enough of these benefits being delivered to consumers by the existing players. Instead, we see market consolidation, continued high prices, unfair practices, and a degradation of service quality especially for voice services. We are concerned that the Government of Canada is not doing enough to correct this state of affairs. We think that Canadians are entitled to know the positions of the major political parties on policies that are important to the economic and social well-being of Canadians.”
For a copy of the Coalition’s questionnaire and more information, go to [www.piac.ca or www.cippic.ca under “Telecommunications Policy Questionnaire.”] The Coalition has asked each of the five major political parties to complete the questionnaire by noon on Wednesday, October 8, 2008. All responses and the Consumer Groups’ reaction will be made public on Friday, October 10, 2008.
——
TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY QUESTIONNAIRE
In accordance with the principles set out in section 7 of the Telecommunications Act, telecommunications performs an essential role in the enhancement of Canada’s efficiency and competitiveness and must respond to the economic and social requirements of Canadians.
Yet, many wireline telecom markets in Canada and, in particular, local and broadband services markets, continue to be dominated by a single incumbent telephone company (ILEC) or in the case of the residential market for high speed Internet services, a cable/ILEC duopoly.
The negative effects of the lack of competition in Canadian telecommunications markets have recently been quantified and documented by a number of international studies, which show that Canada’s early lead in the broadband services segment of the telecom market has been squandered.
On the wireless side, Canada’s mobile wireless market continues to be dominated by an oligopoly of three incumbent mobile wireless operators. The Big 3 continue to earn supra-competitive profits, rates of innovation are far slower than elsewhere in the world, wireless penetration rates in Canada continue to lag behind those of other OECD countries and Canadians pay some of the highest mobile wireless rates among western countries surveyed.
A coalition of consumer groups engaged in telecommunications issues on behalf of ordinary customers believes that it is important for Canadians to know what telecommunications policies the [Conservative/Liberal/New Democratic/Green/Bloc Quebecois] Party [of Canada] will pursue in the next Parliament. Specifically:
Question 1
Complaints about telecommunications services are on the rise. Three class action law suits are currently underway regarding system access fees, late payment charges, and the use of “traffic shaping” technologies to filter out and delay the delivery of certain types of broadband traffic. The Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services was recently created to handle complaints regarding deregulated services, but its mandate is extremely narrow and its powers to order redress are very limited.
Q1 – Is it fair to place on consumers of telecommunications services the responsibility and financial burden of policing and pursuing in the courts and elsewhere anti-competitive, price-gouging, and other unfair practices of telecommunications firms? If not, how does your party intend to reverse the current situation that places this onus on consumers?
Question 2
Last spring, Senator Oliver introduced Bill S-242, An Act to Amend the Telecommunications Act. This Bill would give the CRTC clear powers to establish and operate an independent agency to handle consumer complaints about telecom services. It would therefore resolve outstanding jurisdictional issues that have plagued the new agency, and would give the CRTC and the new agency the powers they need to handle consumer telecom complaints effectively.
Q2 – Will your party support Senator Oliver’s bill if it is re-introduced?
Question 2
Under the policy direction from former Industry Minister Maxime Bernier, the CRTC has been directed to make deregulation a priority and puts the onus on stakeholders to prove that consumer protection is a priority. Would you support restoring consumer protection as the priority concern and make stakeholders prove that is not needed?
Q2 – What is your party’s response to recent actions by the CRTC to further deregulate telecom markets? Is the CRTC doing enough to protect the interests of consumers?
Question 3
It has recently come to light that Bell Canada and several large cable companies are “throttling” peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic in order apparently to ease congestion on their networks. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has found that similar “traffic shaping” practices of a U.S. ISP were discriminatory, arbitrary and anticompetitive practices and do not constitute reasonable network management.”
Q3a – Does your party stand behind the principle of net neutrality, namely that a telecommunications carrier must not discriminate against or interfere with the traffic traversing its network on the basis of the traffic’s nature, content, origin or destination? What specific policy proposals would your party pursue to enforce and protect net neutrality?
Q3b – What is your party’s position on traffic shaping practices of Canadian ISPs? If elected, what actions would your party take in response to these practices?
We thank you sincerely for taking the time to fill out the questionnaire, and we ask that the completed document be returned to the undersigned no later than noon on Wednesday, October 8, 2008. Responses from all five major parties, and the consumer groups’ reaction, will be made public.
Supreme Court of Canada grants leave to appeal CRTC “deferral acounts” decision
The Supreme Court of Canada today (Sept. 25) granted leave to consumer and anti-poverty groups to appeal the Decision earlier this year of the Federal Court of Appeal to deny their application to quash the order of the CRTC to spend monies collected from telephone rates on internet expansion.
The Consumers Association of Canada and the National Anti-Poverty Organization have claimed that the money belongs to residential telephone customers who were charged rates higher than required under the Commission’s price cap to help competitors.
Michael Janigan, general counsel of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre that has assisted the appellants with the appeal noted: “We are pleased that the Supreme Court has recognized the importance of the Commission decision under appeal and look forward to setting out our argument that all this money should go back to customers.”
Bell Canada was also given leave to appeal the same decision on the grounds that all money collected in rates is the property of the company and cannot be rebated to customers.
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission decision would have provided that approximately $350 million would be spent on internet projects while $300 million would be rebated to customers.
Travel Protection Initiative slams airline advertising decision
(June 20-2008)—Today the Travel Protection Initiative, a coalition of Canada’s travel industry and consumer groups, responded to federal Transport minister’s Lawrence Cannon’s submission this week to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities that he would not bring into effect the provision of Bill C-11 passed in June of last year that would mandate that airline advertising feature an all-in price.
In a letter to Standing Committee Chair, Merv Tweed, the groups note the overwhelming public support for the measure as well as the rules in other jurisdictions including the United States and Europe that prevent the misleading practice of advertising one price and then charging another which is many times the advertised price. The letter also submits that Transport Canada has chosen to favour several airline constituents over the interests of thousands of travel agents that are bound to observe rules that oblige them to advertise an all-in price.
Text of the Letter:
June 20, 2008
Mr. Merv Tweed, M.P.
Chair
Standing Committee on Transport,
Infrastructure and Communities
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Dear Mr. Tweed:
Re: Bill C-11, Secs. 27 and 64, Correspondence of Minister Cannon
We are writing to respond to the correspondence recently directed to you, as Chair of the Standing Committee on Transport, concerning the progress in enabling sec. 27 of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts to come into force. This provision would mandate the issuance of regulations to provide all-in airfare pricing for the benefit of consumers. As Minister Cannon points out in his correspondence, the onus is on him and his department to set the date upon which the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) will regulate airfares. Minister Cannon has concluded that a national consensus is necessary before imposing advertising rules, although the names of the stakeholders who must consent seems to be obscure.
In our view, it is necessary to provide some additional background and clarification to the submissions of Minister Cannon, and to draw to the Committee’s attention the plain consequences of the current position of the Minister. As representatives of the Travel Protection Initiative, a coalition of consumer and industry groups with concerned with air travel in Canada, we are disappointed, but not surprised with the Minister’s response that appears to have derived from his department’s previous and longstanding position on this issue.
First of all, as Minister Cannon notes, Transport Canada officials were opposed to the amendment of Bill C-11 to require the making of regulations regarding airline advertising by CTA. In fact, one of the reasons that the language of the section was changed from permissive to mandatory was the opposition of department officials to the issuance of regulations following passage of legislation with permissive language. The Committee and the House, at first instance, decided that such “sober second thought” was unnecessary and non-productive in this instance. After the Senate amendment was made and approved, it also appears clear that the members approving the amendment were not supporting some process by which the airline industry could veto regulation by their simple failure to agree to its issuance.
As his letter makes clear, the Minister’s course of action, taken since the passage of the legislation, has been directed solely to consulting with the industry stakeholders previously opposed to regulating airline advertising. The unsurprising news that they are still against such a measure is hardly grounds for lethargy in its promulgation.
As the members of your Committee may recall, the issue of airlines advertising misleading fares has been the subject of much discussion before the Consumer Measures Committee, (CMC) the federal-provincial-territorial forum for national co-operation on marketplace issues. The CMC issued a consultation paper in 2004, setting out the ramifications of the issue for consumers. It detailed the regulatory response in Ontario and Quebec with respect to travel agency advertising as well as the airline advertising restrictions by U.S. Department of Transport that have been in place since 1992. The document also noted that provincial capacity to discipline misleading travel advertising appeared to be possessed by the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba.
We are not aware of any province that advanced the position that there should not be federal efforts to compel airlines to advertise in a manner that discloses the true price of air travel to customers. We are not aware of any province that refused to cooperate in any effort to ensure a unified front to ensure that travel advertising is presented in a transparent manner to consumers that would enable informed competition between airlines. We are, however, aware that Transport Canada opposed such measures, as they do now, notwithstanding that they have the support of some 93% of Canadian respondents to a 2004 survey taken by the Environics Research Group for Options consommateurs, a well-known Quebec based consumer organization. No progress was made at that time by CMC in arriving at a solution.
Indeed, the vehemence of Transport Canada’s opposition is an outlier in every respect. In testifying before this Standing Committee on this issue on October 5, 2006, Mr. Fred Gaspar, executive director of the Air Transport Association of Canada (ATAC) said in relation to the advertising regulation:
“Is it a total showstopper for us? Is it a horrible, horrible thing if it happens? No. We’ll deal with it. We’ll learn to deal with it. Ultimately, it’s giving consumers what they want that’s most important. We just don’t think it makes a lot of sense in the broader perspective of giving consumers what they actually want, which is access to lower costs and to the right mix of service and price.”
The Minister’s fear of contrary practices in markets outside Canada is somewhat puzzling given the current state of foreign markets. In the United States, existing U.S. Department of Transportation all-in rules apply to all airline advertising in that jurisdiction. The European Union has also been moving to prevent irresponsible and misleading advertising exhibited by airlines. In November 2007, under the Unfair Consumer Practices Directive, 200 airlines were ordered by the EU Consumer Protection Commissioner to take down internet advertising that was misleading consumers by failing to clearly advertise the full prices and conditions of their flight offers. New airline advertising rules go into effect in Europe in the autumn of this year that will make it necessary to advertise full-flight prices with relevant sanctions for failure to do so.
In the United Kingdom, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has used the provisions of the Enterprise Act 2002 to compel compliance of airlines with all-in pricing practices. The Association of British Travel Agents, whose members are responsible for about 90% of sales of foreign packaged holidays, have incorporated such advertising restrictions into their Code of Conduct and intend to take firm action against miscreants.
In Canada, travel agencies are also moving to comply with all-in advertising rules with or without provincial sanction. The CAA agency in British Columbia has adopted this practice as standard operating procedure and the Association of Canadian Travel Agencies has urged it as a best practice.
Price component complexity is also raised by the Minister as a barrier to effective regulation. As Minister Cannon notes, there are numerous charges that are associated with the final cost of an airline ticket, and it is somewhat difficult to calculate the same. This is, however, a task that travel agencies in Ontario and Quebec have been able to do for several years now without incurring financial ruination or widespread complaints of inaccuracy from customers. We are certain the airlines could muster the same degree of proficiency exhibited by these travel agencies with a little effort.
As well, the patterns of airline ticket purchasing do not lead to the conclusion that the airlines would be unfairly disadvantaged by the imposition of reasonable standards in the form of all-in pricing. First, most travel agency websites do not advertise scheduled airline fares, and adoption of similar practices of all-in advertising could easily be adopted pursuant to any agreements between the airlines and those travel agencies selling their products, that are unregulated by advertising restriction.
Secondly, we fail to see how travel agencies operating in provinces without effective means of travel advertising regulation will be able to muscle the airlines out of their Internet ticketing operations. As well, we do not understand why all carriers licensed by the CTA, would not be bound to follow the CTA regulations for advertising, as a condition of carriage.
Finally, the search for consensus that has been commenced by the Minister serves to obscure the real consequences of the Department’s failure to act. First of all, passengers of the approximately 80 million flights per year in Canada will continue to be subject to a disgraceful shell game of airlines advertising one price, and then selling a ticket for an amount which may be many times greater than the advertised price. Secondly, the practice carried on by airlines is strongly opposed by the overwhelming majority of Canadians who want it changed. Thirdly, the government has taken sides with the airlines against close to 15,000 travel agents working at over 3500 outlets in Ontario and Quebec, many of them small family businesses. The government is content to allow any cost of misrepresentation by airline advertising to fall on them. Fourthly, it is inexcusable that a government would adopt a policy that allows misleading and deceptive marketplace conduct to continue in order to allow certain preferred constituents to thrive.
It is hard not to come to the conclusion that the coming into force of sec. 27 is only seriously opposed by a small cadre of bureaucrats who have chosen the route of indifference to Canadian airline customers, and the travel agents that serve them rather than adopting a policy that is in line with any realistic appraisal of the correct limits for advertising airfares.
We would request that the Committee urge further action by the Minister in the form of bringing into effect section 27 of Bill C-11.
Yours truly,
The Travellers’ Protection Initiative / La Coalition pour la protection des voyageurs
Michael Pepper, President and CEO Travel Industry Council of Ontario
Michael Janigan, Executive Director and General Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre
Christiane Théberge, President and CEO Association of Canadian Travel Agencies
Stephanie Poulin Director of Legal Department Option consommateurs
APPENDIX A
Travellers’ Protection Initiative
Membership
The Travel Industry Council of Ontario (TICO) is a not-for-profit corporation wholly-financed by Ontario-registered travel agents and wholesalers. It administers the Ontario Travel Industry Act and the Ontario Travel Industry Compensation Fund. The Ontario Travel Industry Compensation Fund is wholly-financed by the industry to protect consumers who do not receive the travel services for which they paid due to the insolvency or bankruptcy of an Ontario-registered travel agent or travel wholesaler, or due to the cessation of an end supplier airline or cruise line. The Fund only covers consumers who have booked through an Ontario-registered travel agent. TICO may be contacted at (905) 624-6241 or 1-888-451-TICO
or www.tico.on.ca,email tico@tico.on.ca
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) is a national non-profit organization working to advance the interests of individuals and groups who are generally unrepresented, or under-represented, in issues of major public concern. PIAC focuses primarily on consumer issues concerning telecommunications, travel, energy, privacy, the information highway, electronic commerce, financial services, broadcasting, and competition law. PIAC undertakes legal and research services on behalf of consumers and seeks to ensure that the public interest is served, and not neglected, by decision-makers in government and the private sector, when decisions are made about consumer issues. PIAC may be contacted at (613) 562-4002 or www.piac.ca , email piac@piac.ca
Option consommateurs is dedicated to defending and promoting the interests of consumers, primarily those with low incomes. To that end, it is active in various industry sectors through its credit counselling, legal, press, research and advocacy divisions. The association team is made up of about twenty individuals working in a variety of professions such as law, finance, journalism, and research. Option consommateurs directly reaches up to 10,000 consumers annually, and conducts more than 400 media interviews. In addition to sitting on numerous task forces and taking part in various consultations, the association team publishes research reports, memoranda, practical guides and news articles. Option consommateurs may be contacted at (514) 598-7288, 1-888-412-1313 or www.option-consommateurs.org
The Association of Canadian Travel Agencies (ACTA) is a national trade
association representing the retail travel sector of Canada’s tourism industry which handle 30 G$ of sales per year. ACTA is an industry-led, non profit, membership-based organization. Its members include retail travel agencies and suppliers such as tour operators, travel wholesalers, airlines, hotels, destination marketing organizations, cruise and rail lines, and automobile rental companies. ACTA represents the interests of Canadian travellers through approximately 2,600 members employing 18,000 travel professionals. ACTA may be contacted at: (613) 237-3657 or www.acta.ca
The Canadian Association of Airline Passengers (CAAP) is a coalition of consumer organizations formed in 1999 to respond to the pending restructuring of the Canadian airline industry, and to advocate policy and regulatory requirements which are fundamental to protect passengers’ rights. PIAC and Option consommateurs are both founding members of CAAP.
New text messaging charges criticized by consumer groups
(8/07/2008)—The decision of Bell and Telus to charge $.15 per incoming text message starting this August was criticized today by the telecommunications consumer watchdog, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre.
“Obviously the concern is the incurring of charges for unwanted messages or spam”, said Michael Janigan, PIAC general counsel. “It makes the party who is the least responsible and with the least amount of control, pay the costs for this nuisance.”
Janigan noted it is unclear whether this charge would apply to existing customers. “Clearly, customers should be able to switch if they don’t agree with paying this fee.”
While it is possible to get lower rates with data packages, Janigan said that industry analysts have found that the costs of these packages are high in relation to what is available in many other countries. “In addition to more price competition, we need standards for wireless contracts that make them less one-sided in favour of providers.”
Data Breach Notification Proposal is Carte Blanche for Business Data Spills
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) appeared at the stakeholder consultation meeting held by Industry Canada on April 11, 2008 in Ottawa regarding a Proposed Model for Data Breach Notification. At the close of this meeting, it was indicated that parties could submit final comments on the proposed model. PIAC submitted today its comments on the proposal. PIAC criticized the proposal for giving companies and other organizations that suffer a data breach the discretion to decide if the breach would cause “high risk of significant harm” to Canadians – a standard it said was so high as to be carte blanche. PIAC also noted that the proposal had no sanctions for companies that refuse to report to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada nor inform Canadians of data breaches. PIAC called into question likelihood of public knowledge on breach notifications in light of the lack of reporting requirements. For PIAC’s complete comments, please follow the link below.
PIAC Submission to Industry Canada Concerning Data Breach Notification Proposal
Download File: piac_submission_to_ic_re_pipeda_2008_apr_25_08.pdf [size: 0.06 mb]
TELUS $2.95 Long Distance Access Charge Defeated
Media Release and Backgrounder [pdf file: 0.05mb]
April 17, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TELUS $2.95 Long Distance Access Charge Defeated
OTTAWA – The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) today welcomed the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s (CRTC) decision to reverse a $2.95 a month “long distance access charge” imposed by TELUS Communications Company (TELUS) on certain of its local telephone customers.
The CRTC’s decision requires TELUS to refund to customers all “long distance access” charges it levied on customers since November 2007. However, the refund will only be given to customers who did not make any long distance calls on TELUS’s long distance network in any month from November 2007 to today and who had not signed onto a TELUS long distance plan. It is likely customers can expect to see refunds applied against their future bills in upcoming months. Customers no longer with TELUS should be eligible to receive a separate refund and should not have to pay any outstanding amounts related to this charge.
“TELUS overcharged customers,” said John Lawford, counsel for PIAC, who brought a complaint about the charge to the CRTC on behalf of consumer groups Consumers’ Association of Canada and the National Anti-Poverty Organization. “The CRTC said no to TELUS making up the rules on local telephone rates as they go along.”
PIAC notes that customers may be confused about the scope of the rebate. “It was unfortunate that the CRTC didn’t outlaw these fees for all customers who don’t subscribe to a long distance plan, because under this rule if you do use TELUS’s long distance network, even for one call, you get charged this fee,” added Lawford. “Now you’ll see this fee copied by Bell Canada, Bell Aliant and other large telephone companies.”
Lawford noted that the rapid deregulation of telecommunications in Canada appears to be unnoticed by most Canadians: “The CRTC has been told by the government to rush to remove the last of the price and quality rules, like the ones the CRTC relied on today. But people do see a role for government oversight of large telephone, cellphone and Internet service providers. When we leave companies to set prices, they keep going up, like this.”
– – – – – –
For more information:
See the attached backgrounder and contact:
John Lawford
Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, Ontario
K1N 7B7
(613) 562-4002×25
(613) 562-0007 (Fax)
jlawford@piac.ca
Backgrounder
TELUS $2.95 Long Distance Access Charge
Since November 2007, TELUS Communications Company (TELUS) has charged its customers who do not subscribe to a TELUS long distance plan a fee of $2.95 for “access” to the long distance network. This fee is applied whether or not the customer actually makes any long distance calls.
TELUS’s long distance access charge raised the ire of many of its customers. In fact, thousands complained about the charge to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and the newly created Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services (CCTS), of which TELUS is a founding member.
In January 2008, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), on behalf of the Consumers’ Association of Canada and the National Anti-Poverty Organization, filed a formal complaint with the CRTC about the charge. PIAC’s complaint followed a similar one by Yak Communications Inc., a TELUS long distance competitor. The CRTC heard both complaints and issued its decision today.
PIAC argued that TELUS’s long distance access charge effectively raised local telephone rates for customers whose local rates were still regulated by the CRTC. Some of the customers with regulated rates are “stand-alone” local service customers, who are guaranteed CRTC-approved local telephone rates by a CRTC decision in 2006. Many such customers are low income, or elderly and on fixed incomes and least able to absorb an unexpected rate increase.
PIAC also argued that for all TELUS customers, even those with deregulated (company-set) rates, the charge was unjustly discriminating against them by requiring those customers who wished to avoid the charge to subscribe to a TELUS long distance plan, or search out a particular type of long distance competitor.
TELUS argued that long distance rates were no longer regulated by the CRTC and the charge did not relate to local service, despite the fact it was levied on local service bills.
The CRTC today decided, however, that for those customers who did not use TELUS’s long distance network, simply calling the charge a “long distance access fee” did not make it so and the charge was an illegal local rate increase.
Ontario Natural Gas Customers to Pay $100 Million More Annually to Texas-based Owner of Union Gas
(Ottawa—16/04/08)— In a one sentence decision issued late yesterday, the Ontario Cabinet rejected an appeal by consumer groups, representing residential and industrial natural gas customers, of the May 22, 2007 Ontario Energy Board (OEB) decision confirming the deregulation of the natural gas storage industry in Ontario.
The decision means Enbridge Gas customers, after a three-year transition period, will pay about $40 million annually in additional storage costs to Union Gas’s owner, Spectra Energy of Texas. That money together with approximately $70 million annually in revenue credits that will be lost by Union’s customers will provide an estimated $100 million a year of no-strings attached revenue to Spectra Energy. Prior to the appealed OEB decision, Union Gas customers were credited most of the revenue earned by the storage built with their rates.
“All of this extra money won’t build or conserve a single cubic centimeter of additional gas storage capacity,” said Michael Janigan, General Counsel of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. “Ontario energy customers are already anticipating steep rate hikes in the next few years. Now consumers will have to pay Union’s American owners more for a service without getting anything in return,” Janigan added.
PIAC believes the decision underlines a serious weakness in the Ontario energy legislation that allows the public interest to take second place in a deregulation application. Ontario gas customers built these facilities for private utilities like Union Gas with their rates, yet now they won’t receive a penny from their use by customers outside the Union franchise.
Make airlines advertise the real price
(PIAC – 19/03/08)—In the wake of CBC’s Feb. 27 Marketplace show, the Travel Protection Initiative (TPI) – a coalition of Canada’s consumer organizations and the travel industry – is demanding the federal government take action against Canadian airlines continuously misleading consumers by advertising artificially low fares. Marketplace revealed that Canadian customers were being deceived by airlines advertising fares that omitted items like fuel surcharges which often add 50% to the advertised cost.
“There is no reason that fuel surcharges should be segregated from the rest of the fare and kept out of the price,” said Michael Pepper, President of the Travel Industry Council of Ontario.
Last year, Bill C-11 gave the federal government power to require that airlines fall in line with practices in the travel industry in most of the country, as well as the United States and the EU, and advertise all-in prices for tickets.
“The government has no excuse for foot-dragging on this issue now that it has the power to protect passengers from airline misrepresentation,” said Michael Janigan, Executive Director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, which monitors airline issues.
