Industry Committee on March 28th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Order.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

On a point of order, Monsieur Crête.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Given that we tabled the motion when we were in camera and that we are now in public hearing, I would simply like to repeat the text. So here is the text of the motion:That the committee report to the House recommending that the Minister of Industry withdraw the order varying Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15 and table in Parliament a comprehensive package of policy, statutory and regulatory reforms to modernize the telecommunications services industry.

Now we can start the public debate on the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We'll go to debate on the motion.

Mr. Van Kesteren.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

I'd like to address the honourable member across, through the chair.

You know, I agree with you. I don't want to see that either. You're fairly new to this committee, but this committee has worked very well together. I think we've accomplished some great things. But we're setting out in a direction here that none of us really wants to set out in. I really think we're getting tripped up on a lot of procedures. We're not being able to dialogue. We're talking through the chair. By the time somebody wants to make a point, three other people have already made a statement.

I don't know, Mr. Chair; somebody said there was a two-minute break or something, so wouldn't that give us an opportunity just to talk among ourselves? Or do we have to continue on with this motion? Maybe I can ask the clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Well, if members want to engage members, we perhaps.... We are very tight on time now. We do have votes.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Two minutes. I'd really like to talk to the chair. I'd like to talk to some of my colleagues. We haven't had that opportunity.

I think the issue here is and always has been that we would present a report to the minister. We may not agree with everything. The members opposite may have some issues we don't agree with. But we can present a minority report. That has always been the issue. And yet, for whatever reason, it seems we're coming to an impasse. I don't know why we can't do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I would just say, Mr. Van Kesteren, that if you want to talk to members, you can always signal to a member, go to the back of the room, and have a discussion. And I would strongly encourage that.

I would also say that it makes it a lot easier on the chair when everybody gets along. This is not really a situation I desire. I would just make that clear to everybody.

Mr. Shipley, and then Mr. McTeague.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I want to talk as well about the opportunity, and maybe the missed opportunity, with regard to what the committee could be doing. If we put forward the nine recommendations or compromises to the questions that came forward the other day, as the chairman has said, nine out of twelve would be very likely much appreciated and respected by the opposition.

I understand the somewhat.... Well, what about if we don't get along with them? Well, then, I guess a dissenting report can come from that.

The whole gist is that we had hoped to have gone down through the whole issues report put out by the researchers and to have worked down through this one step at a time. That hasn't happened, and didn't happen. But that's sort of what negotiations are about, so I'm a little concerned about that.

Now we're at this sort of impasse on who is going to do what, and who is going to hang out the longest, I guess, and that isn't good for this committee.

With that, I still would ask the people opposite to reconsider their position. I mean, it's about not being able to come out and.... The minister, in what I would say was an unusual move, took those and actually responded back through the chair. And I have not seen those comments. I don't believe any of us have, other than the chair.

I guess in good faith I would say that I don't think anybody here is in a position to want to embarrass the minister, or to embarrass the government in particular. He has gone out and made compromises on a majority, a large majority, of those recommendations.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Perhaps I can intercede as chair.

Is there a way of doing a majority report or even a unanimous report, if there is agreement on a certain number, and having other parties then say that these are other things we're concerned about, in a report, as we had originally intended? I'll just put that question. I think that's what Mr. Shipley said.

That's what I was trying to say, because the purpose of these two sessions was to give instructions to the analysts. So can I throw this out there? Of the twelve put forward by the opposition, if nine are in fact agreed to, we say this is what the committee recommends; then the Liberals can say they recommend these two, the Bloc can say they recommend this one, and the NDP can say they recommend this one, and we don't get into motions.

That's what I was trying to do from the outset. I obviously didn't succeed in that. So that's my wish.

We'll go now to Mr. McTeague.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Do you want an answer to your question?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'm not getting translation.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Do you want an answer to your question?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'd love one, yes.

Let me just put this again. So if the committee said that on these nine we as a whole feel the government should amend the direction this way; and the Liberals say yes, we agree with the nine, but we believe two more are needed; and the Bloc says yes, we agree with the nine, and we believe one more is needed; and the NDP says we agree with the nine and we believe two more are needed, or whatever, then we don't get into motions.

That's what I was trying to do. That's what I hoped the report was trying to do. Perhaps I'll just quickly take a member from each party to see if that's possible.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Can we answer your...?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. McTeague, perhaps you could offer an answer.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Chair, look, we're back in camera here with the motion that Mr. Byrne had presented--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

No, we're in public.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

We're not in camera. Yes, we're out in public, of course. It's been a long day.

So we're back with an offer saying that we, as the Liberal Party and other parties, have made twelve recommendations to make this thing work on April 6. You then proposed not to give it to us, conditional upon this motion. Our response has been that this motion has to be there because we have no other way of guaranteeing that what you're going to propose is something we will agree with. What if you, for instance, take out something along the lines of a market analysis, or what if you go back to the dates and say it's contingent on Bill C-41? I don't know what you're prepared to offer, but this cat-and-mouse game is unprecedented. Tell us what you've got; it may very well work. You've been talking about this for 45 minutes, and we have no idea what you have proposed.

We've been forthright in terms of providing you with what we thought would make this thing work. We haven't received your proposal. Therefore, we're going to the motion. We're going to the motion because, as you know, Chair, this thing kicks in on April 6. If the House of Commons, in all of its deliberations within this committee, and the witnesses, who have come before us and pointed out the faults, the frailties and the shortcomings of the minister's rush to make a decision, are not taken into consideration, then we're going to wind up with a flawed decision, which would be irresponsible for the opposition, Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP to proceed with in terms of a blank cheque.

So what I'm suggesting you do, Chair, if you are prepared to do this—because you received a letter from the minister saying he'll give it to you if you don't have the motion criticizing them.... But I'm not interested in criticizing the minister; the Liberal Party is not interested in criticizing the minister. We're interested in making sure the regulatory framework he's proposed is consistent with the TPR report, the telecommunications report, which came out last year. If he could do so, that would be great, but we're dealing with a deadline of April 6. This is the last day the committee is going to sit. Chair, if we have to sit all night to try to hear where you're prepared to make those compromises, we'll do that, but I haven't heard them yet. We in the opposition, at the very last in camera meeting, gave the government an opportunity to provide us specifically with what they could work with. We offered those in good faith and never made those public, yet you're concerned about criticism. Well, chairman, there's going to be criticism if this motion goes to the House, because this won't be the end of the line. What I'm more concerned about is making sure we get the regulatory framework correct. Now, we know there are problems.

Let me, Scott, if you don't mind, read the recommendations you had put forward to deal with this:

(1) Come forward with policy legislation to move forward on the rest of the TPR recommendations; (2) Introduce a plan and/or program to expand Broadband for rural and remote areas; (3) Undertake to propose measures to ensure local telephone rate stability in rural Canada; (4) Move forward on the recommendation to have an ombudsman for consumers; (5) Entrench the role of the Telecom Competition Tribunal (TCT) to capitalize on their expertise and ability to safeguard the telecommunications industry rather than rely on your proposed but potentially ineffectual competitor presence test; (6) Conduct a thorough market analysis that ought to consider the impacts on economically disadvantaged communities and Canadians with disabilities before proceeding with any measure designed to deregulate the telecommunications industry; (7) Make allowances for additional time before “forbearance” impacts the small, independent cable operators in their areas; (8) Undertake to address the concerns raised about the possible negative impact of unfettered winback strategies on new entrants in the market;

Now, we've said to this end that a motion could be provided. You're saying that motion should be off the table before you present us with what you'd like and dislike.

We've heard from you, Chair. You mentioned nine recommendations, which I presume would include another one of the proposals made perhaps by the Bloc or the NDP. But we don't know what they are; we're literally farting in the wind. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to buy a pig in a poke.

So this motion stands. I'm going to defend this motion, because it's the only other way to get the government to respond to what, in our view, is an erroneous step taken prematurely that will have the unintended consequence, I'm sure, of reducing competition in Canada and hurting consumers. The Liberal Party will not stand for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, thank you, Mr. McTeague.

Now I have Mr. Crête, Mr. Bevilacqua, and Mr. Masse on this.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I will be very brief.

This motion has been tabled because in no way have the Conservatives responded to our requests and to that of the Liberals. We have not been able to get any response whatsoever. And it is the Conservative government—the Conservative members in this committee—who are driving us to pass this motion, in the absence of any position tabled by the Conservatives. So I believe that the motion must be passed, unless this additional tool that we have used, that of tabling a motion and holding a public debate, ends up bringing the Conservatives to table something. Otherwise, the motion will ultimately be passed. I would urge them to consider that if the motion is passed, it will probably give rise to a debate in the House, which will produce the opposite result to the one they are seeking: the whole affair will be made even more public and the people will realize more clearly that the Conservatives have not tabled anything.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Crête.

We'll go to Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to be brief.

The reason I support this motion and the way we are here today is that I still believe we need legislation to actually bring forth the concerns that have been expressed. There are more than those, which have been noted by Mr. McTeague, but they are among the most serious ones in regard to any telecom review.

I would suggest that we're going to end up seeing a filibuster or something like that for the next little while. But the reality here is that you can't negotiate back and forth without knowing each other's positions or being open to them.

Secondly, simply and philosophically, I want to see legislation. I don't trust the regulation process. It's not a slight to the minister in particular, but the reality is there are a series of motions and even votes in the House of Commons, which have actually been voted in favour of by the Conservatives, that they have not fulfilled through the actual process of legislation and due diligence.

I would still have to take a leap of faith on the minister's word about this, and that's something I'm willing to do. I'd like to see legislation tabled in the House of Commons. It's what the motion calls for, and I think it would be an appropriate way to proceed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

We'll go to Mr. Van Kesteren.