Gaslighting: A manipulative psychological tactic that causes individuals to question their reality, memories, and perceptions, often leading to confusion and self-doubt.
There was a revealing moment in the House of Commons last week, one that perfectly captures the cognitive dissonance in Ottawa’s approach to telecommunications policy.
During Question Period, Liberal MP Alana Hirtle proudly cited the fact that “Canadians are paying lower prices for cellular services, with a 40% decline in prices over five years.” That was a rare acknowledgment from government benches that prices have indeed gone down, down dramatically, even as prices for most other goods and services have gone up an average of more than 20% during the same period.
But, rather than pause to consider what that says about the effectiveness of Canada’s competitive market (and the scale of private-sector investment driving it), the Minister of Industry chose to double down. Mélanie Joly responded that government would “do more… to increase competition” and “make sure that we reform our telecommunications sector.”
Alana Hirtle (Cumberland—Colchester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Budget 2025 is a generational investment in our economy, in our industries and in Canadians. Canadians are paying lower prices for cellular services, with a 40% decline in prices over five years, but these bills still eat into the pockets of Canadians. Budget 2025 has proposed measures to lower costs for Canadians and improve competition.
At a time when Canadians are concerned with rising costs and keeping their monthly bills affordable, can the Minister of Industry tell us how the government is working to lower cellphone bills?
Hon. Mélanie Joly (Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester and I, and this government, are laser-focused on making sure that we bring down costs in the telecom sector. We took the right decision this summer to uphold the decision of the CRTC to increase competition in the telecommunications sector. We also said we would be hawkish on competition.
We will do more in this budget to increase competition and make sure that we reform our telecommunications sector.
When a back bencher rises during Question Period, you can be certain the member is preparing to lob a soft ball, asking a planted question so the Minister can try to hit one out of the park by providing a prepared answer aimed at getting media coverage. Still, it was more than a little strange to hear (in the same breath), the government admitting that prices are down, competition is up, while insisting the system needs “reform.”
That wasn’t principled policy making. It’s gaslighting.
Let’s be clear: you don’t get falling prices, high levels of private sector capital investment, and world-class infrastructure, without competition.
Canada’s facilities-based carriers invest more than $12 billion annually, nearly 18% of sector revenues, building, upgrading, and expanding networks. That’s more than international peers in the U.S., Australia, the UK, and elsewhere. At the same time, the government’s own data show mobile prices have dropped by more than 40%, with popular plans being comparable or cheaper than those in the US, and home internet prices lower today than they were five years ago.
Those are the kinds of outcomes policymakers dream about: lower prices and massive investment. If that’s not evidence of effective competition, what is?
As I have written before, the government’s so-called “reforms” risk undoing exactly what’s been working.
By mandating that the three national ISPs be allowed to use the networks of their competitors, Ottawa has effectively tilted the playing field against the very companies that injected additional competition into the marketplace. Eastlink’s Lee Bragg put it bluntly: “Given the government’s disregard for the smaller regional operators who have brought healthy competition to the marketplace and the crucial importance of long-term investments in telecommunications, we are now forced to consider how this affects our ability to remain competitive.”
Will this mean that some smaller providers halt expansion plans or even pull out of some communities? Time will tell. But, this can not be the outcome that Canadians want.
Policies like this don’t strengthen competition, they stifle it. They reduce the incentive and capacity for all players to invest in infrastructure, slow the pace of innovation, and risk consolidating market share right back into the hands of the national incumbents.
We’ve seen this movie before. When policymakers chase the short-term political optics (like being “laser-focused on making sure that we bring down costs”) instead of evidence-based outcomes, investment falters, and consumers ultimately pay the price through slower upgrades, fewer options, and weaker regional challengers.
Canadians deserve straight talk, not gaslighting spin. Prices are down. Investment levels are well above our peers. Networks have been expanding. These are all signs that competition is already working.
Instead of continually rewriting the rules mid-game, Ottawa should be working to preserve, not punish, the investment incentives that delivered these successful outcomes in Canadian telecom.
Nothing breaks a working market faster than politicians trying to fix it.