Industry Committee on Jan. 29th, 2007

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm still a little confused about what the opposition is actually asking. Is it that they want the minister to come and then they want to see certain witnesses called and then they want the minister to come back?

I'm also very confused, because when we started this process at the start of committee after the last election, we actually offered to do telecom first. Since June, the opposition has not put forward one submission of content saying they're against this action. I'd like them to clarify. Who has approached them? I don't see this as other than for political benefit.

This has been studied thoroughly. This is something the minister has looked at. He's well within his rights as the minister. We had 40 days sitting from June. We've had 30 days since December. We actually had plenty of time when people had the opportunity to write and give us their comments, and the minister is looking at and studying these comments, and he has made changes.

Why dither? Why continue to be a government of inaction? We want to move this forward. The telecommunications industry is a fast-paced industy. It needs to move forward.

There doesn't appear to be any upside to delaying this further, except for some type of political gamesmanship. I'd like to get some clarification on what they would like the minister to do and then on who has approached them. I haven't heard of one, other than consumer groups.

If you want to bring this forward, there was an Ipsos-Reid study done. If we look at what they found, they asked consumers, and 68% said the regulatory and policy changes are acceptable to them. And in Quebec, as a matter of fact, when you look at “very” or “somewhat” acceptable, it was the highest in the country at 75%. “Very” or “somewhat” unacceptable was at just 23%. This was an independent study. It wasn't put forward by us.

Consumers want this. Consumers see the benefit. Why delay something further that's already taken two years, with ample opportunity to comment and with a full panel of experts appointed by the previous government?

We are acting where they failed to act.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Carrie.

We'll now go to Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the comments of the parliamentary secretary, but there are other studies, like the Polaris study, that show that consumers are concerned about this. As well, consumer groups have been very critical of the minister's actions.

I think what we have to do is put in the context as part of this. We started this committee with a focus on studying the manufacturing sector and a series of different things that we wanted to bring forward in that particular context. That was our focus and priority. Secondly, we did respond to what we felt was a need at that time to at least do a little bit of a review. Hence, we had an actual motion come from this committee to submit to the minister, which he has ignored.

At the same time, he's decided to pick and choose from the actual study itself what he thinks he should act on. He hasn't acted, for example, on the ombudsperson position. He hasn't acted on a series of other things that consumers have asked to be part of the actual recipe. Also, some of the issues we have are going to affect not just consumers but also businesses.

I think it's important also to recognize here that with all due respect to the minister, we don't have a single piece of legislation, aside from that small document on payday loans, which everybody supported for a long period of time, to present to this committee. Not a single piece of legislation in a year.

We have the time to fix this if we have concerns. I believe it's the right thing to do. The minister has not tabled any new legislation of any significance that we have to deal with, and we can actually work on this right away. I think it's important, especially given the context that we did have a motion go forward and there's been quite a number of sensational issues around the whole industry itself.

I think Mr. Crête's motion is in order and I would support it. I move that we vote on that and go forward on this as soon as possible. The sooner we do that, the better we go.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We have Mr. Vincent.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In answer to Mr. Van Kesteren's question, I would say that this is a government of action. The position of the public, whom we represent in this forum, is not always favourable and we mustn't forget that. There is a democratic principle at play and it's interesting to see that one level of government is disregarding that principle.

The committee is here to make decisions. I've already heard Mr. Arthur say that Members' work is important. And yet, we're finding out today that the Minister has disregarded a motion that was passed by the committee by a margin of seven to three. We're facing a serious problem with democracy.

We asked the Minister to hold off until we had taken stock of the situation in the telecommunications sector, but he ignored our request. Just because he could legitimately make this decision after 40 days doesn't mean that he needed to do so. A committee had decided to send the ball back into our court by asking us to examine the telecommunications sector and the CRTC in particular and to subsequently make recommendations. However, we need time to do the job. We're not going to find out everything we need to know in a single day. We know all about oligopolies in the oil industry, and we don't want to see a repeat of the situation in the telecommunications sector. Some caution is in order.

We want to protect the public. Mr. Carrie has given us some statistics. We can interpret the numbers to suit ourselves. It's up to us to decide and to make recommendations. We should take the time we need to thoroughly examine the issues facing the telecommunications sector.

The report was supposed to be tabled on March 1. Why not wait until then? What's the rush? Could there be some cronyism at play here? In point of fact, things have moved too quickly. As a committee, we have decisions to make and people to hear from, but we're being pushed to act hastily. If we have no authority to make decisions or recommendations, why are we bothering to hold meetings? Our words and actions don't seem to have any effect whatsoever. The Minister decides whatever he wants to do because the 40-day period has elapsed.

We have some serious work ahead of us. The people who elected us, the people whom we represent here, deserve some measure of respect, at the very least.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Arthur.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When Minister Bernier announced that he was ignoring the ball that the CRTC had tossed squarely into his court, he started off by asking the CRTC to reconsider a decision. The CRTC pretended to do so, but ultimately stood by its decision. For an organization like the CRTC, this smacked of arrogance of the most extraordinary kind. I heard some say, particularly Mr. Crête, that the Minister had acted rather dogmatically, that mere principles were at issue and that practically speaking, it was a rather dangerous situation. However, if we look beyond principles, we need to find some justification for the motion that you would have the committee adopt.

[An hon. member]

The motion has already been adopted.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I'm talking about the motion now on the table. We need to find some way to explain to the voters who are so important to Mr. Vincent and to other members that delaying deregulation will, in the immediate term, mean a longer wait for lower residential telephone rates in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Monsieur Arthur has the floor.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

It's no mere coincidence that the telecommunications sector in Canada is so highly regulated that to all intents and purposes, there is no country that can rival it in the Western World. Cuba and Zimbabwe do rival us when it comes to banning the installation of satellite antenna capable of transmitting US programs. Here in Canada, to satisfy certain dogmatic individuals, a very rigid regulatory system has been put in place, and the CRTC is viewed as a sacred cow.

My friends, at some point, we will have to explain to the voters that sacred cows make the best ground beef around.

When we first focused our attention on this issue, the CRTC sent us its clients, people who as a rule were rewarded for their servility, notably Vidéotron officials. In fact, Vidéotron representatives told the committee that it was important for the government to continue to paralyze Bell Canada in Quebec, so that the company wouldn't be able to compete with them. They even went so far as to send a political assistant to Brian Mulroney, another prime minister who inexplicably has become a multimillionaire, to speak on Vidéotron's behalf. When they testified, you seemed to believe that Vidéotron and Quebecor needed to be protected from Bell Canada. Quebecor wields an incredible amount of power in Quebec and in English Canada and yet, some seem to think that the company is in need of protection.

Cogeco representatives spoke to us about the dangers of deregulation, whereas in the broadcasting sector, an area that does not fall within the committee's purview, this company is totally subservient to the CRTC. Cogeco is constantly going before the CRTC to ask for favours when it comes to its telephone, cable, television and radio services as well as all of its speciality channels. This company earns its living kneeling before the sacred cow. Officials weren't about to come here to tell us of their plans to challenge the CRTC when it would mean having to pay the price for taking a stand, and given that they are waiting for rulings to obtain licensing improvements in Quebec City, Montreal and elsewhere.

Mr. Shaw was the only person who spoke frankly to the committee. He said that if you continued to give them gifts, they would take them, that if you continued to prevent Telus from operating within their territory, they would be forever grateful, but that he knew full well that it would have to come to an end one day. He said that in ten months' time, this would no longer even be necessary. All of this happened several months ago, and we're now talking about delaying deregulation.

Some consumers came before the committee with a survey in hand showing that Canadians and Quebeckers were horrified at the thought that telephone companies could be allowed to set their own rates. These consumers organizations, which happen to be regular CRTC customers and therefore part of the sacred cow process designed to convince Canadians of the need for increased regulations, neglected to tell their members--and we still don't know who they are-- that the next adjustment would result in lower rates.

They lied to you, and that suited you just fine. You listened to what they had to say, as if they had no interests in this issue. That wasn't the case. When you proceed to vote on a motion to further delay the deregulation of the telephone industry, I hope you have enough political smarts to come up with a way of explaining to the voters that your actions will again postpone a decrease, rather than an increase, in rates.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

After Monsieur Arthur we have Mr. McTeague.

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

Mr. Chairman, if we are to believe that, then I have a good sale on some snow I saved from shovelling my sidewalk last year. Mr. Arthur isn't alone in battling the CRTC. I locked horns with this commission ten years ago. However, I accept the fact that the comments we have heard today could not have been made if seven members sitting on that side had not agreed to devote an entire day to this issue, to see if there were any problems. We discovered that the problems were more serious than we thought they were.

Let me put things in perspective, Mr. Chair, with respect to the comments by Mr. Carrie and Mr. Arthur, because I tend to believe that what they're saying amounts to saying the minister is absolutely right and that whatever the minister says is obviously the way we should approach this.

Not quite so fast. There's the possibility here of an illegal action by the minister for using his order in council powers to subvert parts of the Telecommunications Act. He ran contrary to the CRTC's unanimous decision.

You may choose to suggest that the CRTC counts for very little, but this also disrespects the very report on which the minister based some of these recommendations.

Mr. Chair, it's very clear that the minister has done nothing less than cherry-pick what he wanted to have in this.

Mr. Carrie suggested that the question is, who made the call here? I think that's a question he may want to ask his minister.

I want to make sure that we have a proper debate on this, as opposed to engaging in some kind of innuendo and intrigue.

Mr. Carrie also knows that telecommunications is an evolving area with which this industry committee must come to grips. This was evidenced by the great pride and privilege he took in having the manufacturing committee come to his own riding, which as a committee we agreed to since this was the most pressing issue.

We have a number of inconsistencies, and I'll point out another one. Mr. Carrie, the whole question of the interconnection of quality service requirements, which was recommended by the telecommunications panel, was ignored as well. We have examples of win-back rules and questions and concerns that were raised by the Competition Bureau. But complications arose regarding jurisdiction between the CRTC and the Competition Bureau, in terms of creating this new hybrid marketing agency.

I want to go specifically to the point that I think is important for this committee to recommend. You've had less than two hours to review this issue. You can decide what is right and what is wrong.

What remains in focus is that notwithstanding a committee resolution to give a few more weeks—up to March 1—your minister decided to proceed. In his haste, he may have omitted the CRTC and avoided several recommendations of the blue-ribbon panel. But he will not avoid this committee and its ability to properly scrutinize, on behalf of consumers, the regulations with which he's proceeded.

It is our view that if left unchallenged this will be a step backwards for consumers. It will benefit only a few, and we'll obviously see the monopolization of the entire telecommunications spectrum, leaving rural Canadians out in the cold.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised to hear some of my Conservative colleagues dismiss the significance this is going to have for rural Canadians.

So, Mr. Chair, with your advice and consent, I am prepared to support Mr. Crête's motion. Let's get on with it. We can decide for ourselves what's in and what's not.

One thing is very clear: we have an obligation to present a proper, thorough, and meaningful review of what the minister has proposed. If we don't do this, we fail Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. McTeague.

We have four speakers on the list here, and we also have the motion from Monsieur Crête. He's the fourth speaker, so I'll ask for comments from Mr. Carrie, Mr. Shipley, and Monsieur Vincent. Then I'll ask Monsieur Crête to read the motion in both languages to clarify exactly what his motion is.

We'll go now to Mr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I would like to thank Mr. McTeague for his concern as far as the recommendations of the expert committee are concerned. I would like to state clearly that the minister isn't ignoring all of the other recommendations, but there are certain recommendations that could be moved ahead quite quickly.

It's quite clear that the expert panel said we should move toward a deregulatory situation here in Canada. I do wonder how the opposition would define “far too fast”. I have friends in the IT industry, and when they make a decision for a product or something they have to move forward to, they make a decision and they have to have it to market within six months. It has to be done and it has to be done now.

We've been studying this for two years. For this study by the expert panel, it was a year before they had it done. One of the colleagues said that in the process we did not hear from the people. No, what we didn't hear from was you, the opposition.

In June 2006, when it was tabled, there were 40 days of gazetting. We heard from all kinds of Canadians, and the minister has listened to Canadians. But we didn't hear from you in the opposition. On December 15, there were 30 days. We heard from all kinds of Canadians, but we didn't hear anything, not a peep, from you. All we hear is that there's no real complaint about the content, it's just taking too long, or we're moving too fast.

One of my colleagues mentioned a Polaris study. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that the gentleman we actually had here who compared Mr. Bernier to Mao Zedong? This gentleman obviously is not a neutral party. When we look at who is going to benefit with the deregulatory condition, we're listening to consumers, we're listening to industry. All the industries seem to want us to move toward a deregulatory situation here in Canada, but the question was about timing and when we should move this forward.

We are listening to consumers. Like I said, the Ipsos-Reid poll showed that 70% of consumers are positive with this movement forward.

Again, Mr. Chair, I'd like to clarify. What exactly are they asking? Who of any credibility has approached them wanting this to occur? Who has approached them wanting to delay this even further, until March? What are we going to do? Do we delay it another year? Another two years? What exactly are they asking us?

Can I make one more comment about the rural communities?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Sure.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

We are not forgetting our rural communities. There will only be deregulation where the market says it can occur and where it can occur fairly. In areas where there is only one provider, the CRTC still will act as it does now. The CRTC is the one that's going to make the decisions in this regard.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Carrie.

If you'd like the floor, Mr. McTeague, we can put you on the list.

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

No, that's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Shipley.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I guess there are a couple of things that I'm struggling to understand.

I think all of us, quite honestly, are here to try to do what we can do best for the consumer, not the advocacy groups and not the consumer associations, but the people who actually write the cheques for the services that are supplied every day.

This report talks about 127 recommendations. I guess we're going to have to repeat some of the stuff that came out almost two years ago. It's not intended that we implement all of them at once, but we need to put a priority on some of the issues that we can take action on to actually get something accomplished for our consumers on where it is best to deregulate and allow the markets to take effect.

I found it kind of interesting that we were talking about going too fast. Two years is not too fast. Today, in question period, the leader of the NDP said let's get moving. We need to take action. We cannot start to cherry-pick the things we should be taking action on and moving on. We should be taking action on all things that are good and rightfully done and studied.

This study had thousands of pages, over 200 submissions, and it came forward in June 2006. When we wanted to have some time at the start of this committee, we were turned down. It would seem that June 2006 would have been an opportune time, at the start of this committee, to have dealt with it. At that time, no one came forward. I'll say it again: no one from the opposition came forward to say there was an issue. I think there's a message that if no one comes forward, we should then continue to move ahead on it.

I think Mr. McTeague said the problems are more serious than we thought they would be. Well, if the problems are more serious than we thought they would be, there should have been an opportunity to come forward during the consultation process and put them on the table. We never heard that.

As a government, we actually want to fulfill the mandate of what is good for consumers--consumers being individuals and businesses that will take an open market and have the best value for the service that they can provide and that they will receive.

On rural areas, I come from a rural area. We're going to rely on the protection of rural areas where there isn't sufficient competition.

I think it's time we started to address those issues and move ahead with this report. It came forward, it was accepted, and there were 127 recommendations. We'll move on those in priority, obviously doing what is good for the consumer in terms of deregulation and in terms of savings to our consumers, not unlike what we did with the telephone service, which has clearly been a win-win situation for everyone.

Interestingly, when you look at long distance service, there is a little history. In 1983 we had long distance service. Less than 9 billion minutes were used in long distance service, but it was at a cost of over 30¢ per minute. It's now somewhere around the rate of 35 billion minutes in long distance, and the cost is somewhat less than 10¢. I think the deregulation of that and allowing competition were important.

This is not about deregulating it and opening it up where there's no protection. Obviously, protection has to be there for those areas that are underserved and don't have the competition. Ceilings will be in place to protect those areas, the rural areas and those areas that are less populated.

My comment, Mr. Chairman, is this. We need to be able to move ahead with these recommendations and do what is right for the consumers in this country.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

We'll go to Mr. Vincent.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I have one last thing I want to say. I think we're straying a little from the subject at hand. On October 24 last, during a committee meeting, a motion was passed. That is the issue on the table. We are not here to discuss the CRTC. We'll come back to that subject later, since we have until March 1. We're here today to try and find out why the Minister disregarded the committee's recommendation to wait until March 1 before issuing any instructions regarding the CRTC. That is the question being debated here today. We're not here to discuss why it's taking so long, or why this is a government of action. That's not the issue.

The committee passed a motion calling on the government to wait until March 1. The Minister went ahead and disregarded the motion. I think it was irresponsible of him to do that or to have taken committee members hostage in the process. In any event, he made the decision. I disagree with him for dismissing our wishes. There will be another vote and we'll see what the outcome will be.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, thank you.

We have Monsieur Crête.

Monsieur Crête, if we could ask the clerk, he could read the motion you've submitted.

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

Oui.