Evidence of meeting #39 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was forward.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
It's up to Mr. Crête. I can only say that I supported it.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
No, we're not debating it, Mr. Chair. I'm simply saying I seconded the position, and that it became very clear to me and I think to everyone else--
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay. The motion has been introduced. It's been read in both official languages. It's before the committee. I have Mr. Carrie and I have Mr. Masse.
We'll go to Mr. Carrie.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Maybe we could work something out as a friendly amendment or something along those lines that we could all be amenable to.
You mention in your motion that you'd like the minister in front of us to explain his decision. I think that might be a very short discussion. Why don't we have the minister, if we're going to call the minister? As I said, I'm still trying to get a grip on what you're asking us to do here. I thought you said you wanted the minister to come; you wanted to do a study; then you wanted the minister to come again. Why don't we just have the minister come and explain or talk about his philosophy about the telecom deregulation, and we could ask him any questions along those lines so that it would open it up a little bit? I think that might be something that would make for better discussion, and we could talk about a few more topics in that regard, because this seems to be very narrow casting.
The second point is that the comprehensive study is not really defined in the motion. You're not going to get agreement from me to say that this hasn't been studied well enough. It appears to me that two years is not too short a time. This is a fast-moving industry. Consumers deserve the break today instead of delaying it further.
My viewpoint is that this is more or less politicking. We haven't heard a darn thing. The opportunity has been there since June 2006. I'm not really surprised. I know the NDP likes regulations. It hasn't met a regulation it hasn't liked. The Bloc seems to want to show that Canada doesn't work and we're not going to provide any benefits to consumers. As for the Liberals right now, really, this is your study, and we're doing our best to recommend it. We're not picking and choosing. We're doing the best we can to move forward. So why don't we, if the minister is coming, just have a session with the minister and not worry about re-studying things over and over again and calling the same witnesses over and over again?
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Yes. Would you like me to answer that? You can ask me questions about these two items, if you like. I can provide you with a very brief answer at this time.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Let's go to Mr. Masse first, and then you can respond to Mr. Carrie.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
We could probably spend a lot of time talking about the Conservative Party and a series of things. I refuse to spend my time doing that. I'm going to stick to the issue. I think it's important to clarify a couple of things here.
First of all, the rules have been followed, including by opposition members here. Yes, we focused on manufacturing, but also we identified this as a problem. That's why we actually had a meeting and passed a motion. We did what we were supposed to do, and there shouldn't be any misunderstanding about that. We followed the rules the way they're written and governed in this committee, and also in the chamber. The minister is the one who's chosen to disrespect that process and those rules. That's what's happened. That's the fact. Nobody can escape that. That's the absolute truth.
Second to that, there's been a series of things that have happened. I don't want to hear any more about consumers being protected by this minister. He could have actually moved on the ombudsman position, as well as on the consumer protection aspect. That has happened.
So simply put, I think it's worthwhile. We don't have any other legislation by this minister in front of us. I'm not sorry that we actually spent some time on manufacturing. For people who are at the first meeting here, this committee actually works very well together. Everybody from every party has worked hard to get a good study almost completed, while we're losing hundreds of thousands of jobs. And I've held my tongue about the fact that the minister hasn't even proposed anything to do anything about that.
We don't have any legislation in front of us. We can take this time to actually do something, get it done right, and all feel better about it.
And yes, actually, I do believe in regulations. Not all regulations, but I do believe in the ones that work for Canadians, and they have worked for this industry. Despite the challenges it faces right now, they have led to one of the best opportunities for us to move forward and to a good industry that provides Canadians with good service and a good price compared to many other places in the world.
I want to make sure we do the right things on this, and I'm not willing to let the minister just simply cherry-pick what he thinks is right or wrong, push aside expert evidence, and not have any accountability. I would move that we actually vote on this motion and have the minister come as soon as possible.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Mr. Masse provided a very good answer, just as I would have done.
We're ready to vote.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Mr. Chair, I'm astounded to hear the offer by the parliamentary secretary to give on the one hand and take with the other. In the same comment, he went after the NDP and others because of particular ideological bent.
Mr. Chair, I think we have to look at what is in the best interest of Canadians, and there is no better place to look at it than here in the House of Commons and in this legislative committee, which is tasked with the responsibility to make sure that legislation is effective.
I see two concerns. One, importantly, is that there may be a violation of the Telecommunications Act; therefore, the minister has tried indirectly to do what he cannot do directly by order in council. My view is that this will be rendered ultra vires. There are concerns for consumers about the win-back programs. Unless you quit one of the major ILECs, you're going to wind up not getting much of a benefit here. We have examples of what's happened south of the border.
Mr. Chair, and to Mr. Carrie, the parliamentary secretary, if the minister was faithful to the recommendations of the Telecommunications Policy Review Panel, there would be no question here. But the fact that we have not spent more than two hours on this.... I dragged the government and some of the members here, kicking and screaming, to get just one day to give a glimpse of the problem. It's not about CRTC bashing. This is not about suggesting Liberals are right, NDP are wrong, Conservatives are right or wrong. This is about making sure that we get it right for Canadians.
Mr. Chair, I think it's clear that if in a few weeks we can do as good a work, as assiduous a work, as we did on manufacturing, we can come up with a consensus. Maybe the minister's views will be clarified. I'm not going to impugn his ideological perspective, because I think the minister believes that what he is doing is probably the correct approach. But from my 14 years of being here in the House of Commons and the 10 years before that, I know that one way in which you cannot proceed with bringing people on board, certainly in a minority government setting, is by using the kind of backhanded executive tactics that suggest, in my view, that not a lot of insight or study has been done on this.
I think it's incumbent on us, regardless of where we stand on this, regardless of the defences that we have to make.... I'm coming at this from an objective perspective. I'm concerned with this from the point of view of consumers, but also, more importantly, that it's going to stop dead in its tracks the competitive process that we've seen.
I agree, Mr. Carrie, as you've said many times, the TPR recommendations are solid, and I don't think we should deviate from them one iota. But given that several, and I've listed four for you already in just that context, have been avoided, and most importantly the one about understanding the bloody market that we're dealing with, in my view, Mr. Chairman, we have to have this vote. We have to have this study to satisfy ourselves that we are not passing legislation that is a dereliction of our responsibility.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to take this opportunity to say that I think the opposition is confusing two issues as well. We're talking about two issues here. One is deregulation, and that is what the minister has moved ahead on. With regard to the forbearance decision, there has been no movement there. It's being studied right now. I don't want to confuse the two issues.
My colleague talks about the “backhanded” tactics of the minister. The minister made the changes for deregulation; he had the legal right under section 8 to move ahead, and that's exactly what he did. It seems like a reasonable way to start. If the member believes the recommendations are all good, he must realize that with 127 recommendations, you can't move on those overnight. It seems we're moving too fast to start the process but not fast enough to get all the recommendations in. You know, we can't just go, boom, 127 recommendations on the table.
As I said, I would recommend a friendly amendment to have the minister here so that we can talk about the whole issue, because it appears you're confusing one issue with the other. If you want to talk about telecom and the entire strategy around consumer protection, we can talk about legislation. Bill C-41 was introduced to protect consumers when there's an attempt to monopolize or re-monopolize.
So I think it would make a better discussion to maybe cut this into two motions, one with the friendly amendment, where the minister comes forward, and one where we can talk about this comprehensive study and what exactly we want to put forward here.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I've been asked the question twice. I can answer it. I don't enjoy being made fun of. The Minister has made fun of us all. We passed a motion that set out a timetable and it was adopted by the House. If this was a court of law, he would be held in contempt. I won't stand for that! That's all I have to say.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
I agree, in that certainly the minister is open and would be glad to come to the committee at its request as soon as he's available. That's not an issue. That request could go forward, but I think it should be split into two. I want to support having the minister come and talk about the process he's gone through and why, but I also want to have a second part so that we can have some discussion about the rest of that debate on having all the witnesses coming forward and doing another study.
So I support that we have that motion split in two, with the friendly amendment to have the minister come forward. I'd be glad to support that.
Can I add a friendly amendment that it be broken into two, Mr. Chair? I don't know how you want to deal with that.