Finance Committee on May 30th, 2012

[Mirko Bibic]

I think the bad rap that wireless companies are getting was particularly bad in 2007, 2008, and 2009. I think it's considerably better through a lot of education about the fact that we are world leaders in the technology we offer.

In fact, if you sweep away the empty rhetoric and look at the facts on the ground, our pricing is very good. Of course, if you ask somebody, “Would you like to pay less?”, everyone in this room will say yes. But ask “Did you get good value for your money?” and they'll say yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Monsieur Mai, s'il vous plaît.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

By opening the market in accordance with the bill, will the services improve and will the costs to consumers decrease?

[Mirko Bibic]

We have seen that people think the market in the United States is more open than it is here in Canada. There are two national players in the United States, and there are three in Canada. However, people claim that the Canadian market is closed. As for us, we provided services for the new HSPA+ and LTE technologies before the United States.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Will prices drop? Will service be better if we open up to acquisition by foreign companies?

[Mirko Bibic]

The services that stakeholders like AT&T provide are more expensive in the United States. Why would they be cheaper in Canada?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Coles, you mentioned that there are some issues regarding Canadian culture and also national security. You mentioned that the Telecommunications Act companies have a responsibility to strengthen and safeguard Canadian culture, and also that telecommunications performs an essential role in the maintenance of Canada's identity and sovereignty.

How will this affect that issue?

[David Coles]

First, you cannot, in my view, de-link or separate a telephone company from a broadcast company today; they are one and the same.

If there is an issue, for example, around culture, whether involving Newfoundland or Quebec, what would AT&T or any foreign company have as their driver to continue to develop Canadian culture?

So it's the issue about foreign ownership and their view of what Canadian culture or Canadian security is. One has to question, when you have.... They use the word “behemoth”, but in relative terms, Bell and Rogers are not behemoths in the world agenda; they're not the biggest telephone players by any measure. I for one think that for a key cultural issue in Canada, security in Canada, they should be owned by a Canadian company.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Can you tell us about past experience of having foreign ownership, in terms of job creation or job loss in Canada for Canadians?

[David Coles]

We haven't had that experience in Canada, but it is documented in the United States and other places—and in other industries, by the way, not telecommunications, because of the restriction—that immediately things such as R and D and head offices of foreign corporations leave Canada. There's a litany of examples taking place right now in this country in which that is the case.

We are concerned that foreign-controlled companies will not make Canadian jobs a priority.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Why not? What happens in that case?

[David Coles]

They move head offices and R and D to the.... If it's Carlos Slim's, it moves to Mexico. Why wouldn't it?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Also, you said:

The Mulroney government produced a comprehensive telecommunications policy document that argued: “domestic ownership of Canada's telecommunications infrastructure is essential to national sovereignty and security.”

Can you maybe expand on that?

[David Coles]

It was their report, not ours, and I think it has a lot of merit, that you would consider a country giving up its right to own its telecommunications system.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

One of the concerns we also have—and I think we spoke about rural areas—is that there's a lack of access to high-speed Internet service for aboriginal reserves or first nations. Can you comment on that?

[David Coles]

It is about having, either as required by law or through incentive, access to places where historically there has not been good service. In Saskatchewan, and in Alberta under AGT, they were required, before they became federally certified, to supply services to rural communities. I think that kind of requirement needs to be in place now, especially if they're looking at opening it up to foreign competition.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Very briefly, Mr. Lockie, go ahead, please.

[Simon Lockie]

Thank you.

Very briefly, Bell, Rogers, and Telus are enormously profitable companies, and they act in their shareholders' best interests and they do a good job of it. Foreign shareholders have exactly the same objective as domestic shareholders.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We'll go to Ms. Glover please.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, witnesses.

I'm going to try to correct the record as we go along here. Let me start by saying I believe that Mr. Bibic and I met the first time in 2008-09 when we were discussing this very same thing. I met with Telus and Rogers as well. When I first met Mr. Simms on the heritage committee, we were talking about the potential of this happening. I say that just to reiterate what Mr. Van Kesteren is pointing out. This is not a new discussion. This has been studied and studied. I've only been here since 2008.

I appreciate Madam LeBlanc taking part in the finance committee. She wasn't here in 2008, nor was she here in 2003. This is not a new issue. So let's get that straight right off the bat.

Mr. Coles, it doesn't wash when you say we ought to remove this. This has been studied forever.

In fact, the budget was released in March. We're now two months into studying the BIA. It's unheard of to have a private business study something for years and then to have the decision and then to study the decision for months before actually proceeding. So I'm sorry, but that just doesn't wash with us or with Canadians. Let's move on from there and talk about how we've actually effected some benefits for Canadians.

Again, Mr. Coles, you said there's no evidence to suggest that Canadians pay less as a result of the decisions made by the government, and that's who we represent: Canadians. We represent Canadians, and I love to see this competition, because I think it's great for Canadians. The proof is in the pudding. The proof is that there's 10% less being spent by Canadian consumers thanks to what was done by this government in 2008. And that has been studied. There is proof. We have the documents. So competition has proven to be very good for Canadians.

In my five minutes I did want to correct some of those things that were said.

I also have to correct Monsieur Caron, because in fact the rural and remote access was not the only thing that Minister Paradis mentioned. There were three objectives that the government had in moving forward with this. He's mentioned only one, and that was the availability of advanced services for all Canadians, including those in rural areas, in a timely manner. That was one of the objectives. Let me tell you that 98% of Canadians now have access to high-speed wireless services since we made these decisions to open up competition. So 98% is a great number. Again, this is all documented; all proof is available.

The other two objectives that have to be put on the record are that we also expect to have sustained competition in wireless telecommunications services and a robust investment and innovation in this sector. Again, I have to correct these things, because I don't want Canadians watching to be misled by half-explained measures, etc. I want them to get a really good picture.

Now there is one issue that has not been discussed. I know there will be some more questions coming from you later, but I am very interested in your positions on something else that's in this measure. That is the spectrum for public safety. I would like each of you to tell me very quickly whether you think that's the right measure. Do you think we're doing the right thing for Canadians by providing more spectrum to public safety?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Bibic.

[Mirko Bibic]

I think the private sector should be tasked with delivering to public safety the networks they need rather than setting aside specific spectrum for public safety only. That should at least be considered.

[Bruce Kirby]

Yes, we support putting aside spectrum for public safety. I think there are still issues around how it's going to get deployed in an efficient and effective way, but certainly the notion of having the spectrum there to enable that support is something we support.

[Gary Wong]

It appears to be a good objective. How is public safety going to be using the spectrum? That's really the bigger question.

[David Coles]

To your point, though, Madam, it is in the rules. I don't see the rules in the budget. You say there have been four months of discussion, but we would—