Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I used a good portion of my floor time at meetings with witnesses to explain as much as possible our reservations towards this provision that opens the door to foreign ownership for telecommunications companies—especially companies specializing cellphones—with less than 10% of the current market. We have raised several issues, to which we have not received responses we deem satisfactory when it comes to some of the potentially significant consequences.
We have often talked about small companies that hold 3% or 4% of the market. It was said that they could eventually be acquired by foreign companies and, 10 or 12 years down the line, reach anywhere from 12% to 15% of the market. If that were the case, if one of the current companies saw its market share go up to 12% to 15%, we would end up with two companies of similar size playing by two different sets of rules: one would have access to foreign capital and the other one would not.
That may seem like an exaggeration. We are talking about not only WIND Mobile or Public Mobile, but also Videotron, and potentially Shaw Communications, MTS and SAS Telecom. Those companies could eventually increase their market share—especially Videotron. Let's use the example of Videotron and Shaw Communications, should the latter enter the cellphone market because it already has the spectrum to do so. If those two companies, which own two of the four largest private television networks, were eventually acquired by a foreign company, there would be serious issues in terms of broadcasting and telecommunications legislations. I think that's one of the reasons why the government has been hesitating for such a long time. Consultations on that issue have been held for over two years. We cannot necessarily see those potential consequences. The people who have testified have not provided satisfactory responses.
I would like to briefly talk about risks. That was pointed out in a document on public security obtained thanks to the Access to Information Act. That document discusses national security issues—potential risks—stemming from the fact that our crucial telecommunications infrastructure is being opened to foreign ownership. Considering that whole decision—including decisions that will not be in the bill, but affect the next spectrum auction that should be held by the end of next year—we still think that the government should have leaned toward a formula that would have reserved spectrum for new entrants. If the goal is to improve competition, reserving spectrum is probably the best way to do that, instead of setting a cap as the government has done. That is why we cannot vote in favour of section 595.
However, I don't think our side will provide much opposition to sections 596 to 601, which aim to strengthen mechanisms that prevent telemarketing companies from calling people at home. We actually think it is a bit strange this is included in the same provision. We understand that the same legislation is being amended. Nevertheless, it is related to two extremely different issues. We will also vote against section 595.