Industry Committee on March 19th, 2021

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I think his system froze.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Okay. We will go to MP Lemire.

I'm going to see if we can try to get Mr. Poilievre back.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I had a question for Mr. Poilievre. I'll come back to it later. I'll address the comments made by my colleague Ms. Lambropoulos.

I see our study on Internet accessibility and affordability as different from a study on a transaction between competitors. We'll certainly have related recommendations that touch on the competition aspect, meaning the importance of having four players. However, I wouldn't lump these two things together.

Given the possibility of an election, the committee would benefit from discussing the recommendations that it will include in its report as soon as possible and from tabling the report in the House before it's too late. In my opinion, this constitutes a fundamental concern. We need to make sure that we conduct this study on Internet accessibility, which will obviously include the concepts of competition, so that the committee can make recommendations and table its report.

I don't know exactly when the report will be ready. Mr. MacPherson said early April. I'm not opposed to holding meetings during the break weeks. I think that the acquisition of Shaw is a very important issue for western Canada. Even though the issue is much less relevant to Quebec, it's worth looking at from a competition perspective.

I thought that it was important to hold fewer meetings. However, we must keep in mind that a report needs to be tabled as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you, Mr. Lemire.

MP Poilievre, you have my apologies. I think you were disconnected. We had a question directed to you, so I want to give you the chance to respond.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I'm sorry but I was disconnected, as you correctly said.

We are willing to reduce the number of hours for the committee to examine this matter, but we need to study the issue of the permit economy. We just had today another multi-billion dollar project halted in British Columbia because of the permit economy, and 16 first nations deprived of hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue as a result. To think that those first nations would be denied the ability to speak on that issue—no, I don't think they should be told to be quiet again. They have been waiting long enough for these kinds of opportunities and they should have the chance to speak.

I don't see why we can't do both. We've had committees over break weeks. They meet all the time when there is a major matter of public interest. There are two consecutive break weeks. We can now hold meetings remotely, and there are ways in which these studies can occur.

As to the urgency, let's cut through the BS. We know why it has to happen quickly, because there is a very strong likelihood of a spring election and if that happens, then no parliamentary committee will have an opportunity to have any hearings or ask any questions on this matter until at least October, at which time the process will be well under way and it will be very hard for us to get our input in retroactively.

By the time we actually take witnesses, hear what they have to say and provide input back to the regulators through our public report and into the public debate, because this is a public debate—it's not a secret debate—it will be long gone. It is a major matter of public interest that needs to be studied by the industry committee, and if we don't study it over the break week, it's not going to be studied until October. That's why. It's very simple.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Just to clarify, Mr. Poilievre, I don't think anyone considers these break weeks. I know we consider them riding weeks. I'm sure you are as busy as we all are during riding weeks, but I just want to clarify that.

I will go now to MP Lemire.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to ask Mr. Poilievre a question that Mr. Ehsassi asked earlier. I think that the question deserves an answer. The question is the following. What's the urgency right now? I would like some clarification on this.

As we know, the Competition Bureau normally has about 30 days, depending on the complexity of the issue.

Mr. Poilievre, you said earlier that the elected officials want to resolve this issue and hear from the witnesses before the Competition Bureau imposes a solution on them. I understand that. What are the advantages or disadvantages of acting before the bureau responds?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

I'm not quite sure.

MP Poilievre, do you want to respond to that?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I think that I already responded by saying that, in the event of an election, as you suggested earlier, Mr. Lemire, the committee wouldn't meet in the summer. The committee would reconvene in October. This means that our guidelines and witness list would be ready in November, perhaps.

This is a major issue for the industry and it falls within the committee's responsibilities. If we don't act now, we may need to wait until the end of the year.

In reality, an election may be coming soon. If this were a general issue, such as a national debt issue, or if we had to deal with this issue for years to come, there wouldn't be any urgency. Since a decision must be made, I think that the parliamentarians should have the opportunity to discuss it.

I think that the committee's schedule allows for this to happen during the break weeks.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

That completely answers my question. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

I want to lay out the calendar for folks as this may help in terms of your deliberations.

Right now, there are 21 INDU meetings currently scheduled between now and the end of session in June. We have two meetings scheduled next week for aerospace, where we already have more than 10 witnesses lined up, so the goal would be to continue with that. We also have four meetings for the study that was brought forth by MP Poilievre regarding red tape.

If you recall, at the last meeting, we discussed the green recovery, and obviously we will have to allocate time for reviewing reports for the affordability and accessibility study. We do have time in the calendar, depending on the will of the committee on which meetings we have scheduled [Technical difficulty—Editor] as well.

I just wanted to lay out the groundwork so that everyone knows what we are dealing with. Again, there are 21 meetings. If we take away the two from next week, there are 19, so we do have some time and flexibility. What we could do is perhaps come back, once it's decided by the committee what we want to do, with a work plan that we can then map out, but I just wanted to make sure everyone was aware of what we had on our plate at the moment.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Just so I know, are we planning to prepare a report on the vaccine production study?

If so, when do you think it will be ready?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

For that, I will turn it over to the clerk or the analysts to see if they have an idea, because there are a lot of reports being issued at the same time.

Mike, would you like to jump in there?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Michael MacPherson]

Actually, I think Sarah will take the lead on that.

[Sarah Lemelin-Bellerose, Committee Researcher]

As soon as the vaccine production study ended, we started preparing the report. It has just been completed. The report will be sent for translation soon, along with the report on telecommunications, which is also being translated right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Perfect. As you know, we have the Investment Canada Act report, which has been finalized, so we will be putting that one to bed once it has been tabled in the House.

Are there any other questions, comments or debate?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Chair, I circulated a motion, but I deliberately did not move it because I wanted to invite some feedback from colleagues. How would you like to proceed? Would you like me to move an amended version based on the conversation we have had thus far ? How would you like to see it proceed?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

You can proceed, if you'd like to, to amend the proposed motion.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

All right.

I would move, then, that the committee hold 10 hours of hearings on the Rogers Communications acquisition of Shaw Communications; that the clerk be instructed to book witnesses for no more than one hour per testimony; that the hearings occur during the next break weeks at the end of March through to the beginning of April; and that the committee then report its findings on the study at its earliest possible convenience.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Go ahead, MP Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Maybe we can get the specific dates that are proposed so that they actually fit the time slots as suggested.

Also, given the urgency of the red tape study, I want to confirm and make sure that if this is a true priority, we don't bump any of those meetings, because I didn't say to get rid of them.... I'm glad that Pierre has found interest in this for the aboriginal communities and their urgency, but the reality is that I'm wondering whether or not this is going to push down the rest of the agenda. We need to have specifics on that. Can we maybe take a brief time here to draw out those dates and have something specific in front of us? Then we can check our calendars as well.

As well, I also suggested that we reduce the presentation time for the witnesses so that we can get witnesses here and not be shortchanging the individuals who want to present and have this basically dominated by a few, as opposed to making sure that we can shuffle through extra people if necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you, MP Masse.

MP Ehsassi, go ahead, please.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm just wondering if I may have thanked all the members for their spirit of compromise prematurely. I say that because I think the member initially accepted that there would be very limited utility in having the minister appear before the committee, but in the amended version there was no mention of that.

I just want to clarify whether the member would consider taking that aspect of his motion out, and amending it accordingly.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Yes. I'm sorry. I was intending to rewrite the motion, so the previous motion is null and void. The absence of mention of the minister means that the minister is not included.

However, I do welcome amendments to this. If there is somebody who has a better approach than the one I have just articulated, if they want to put forward an actual amendment now that we've all discussed it, I welcome that. I see that Mr. Masse still has some reservations with regard to his constituency obligations, which I understand and respect. I know that Liberal members are still anxious to get to the green transition study, but I welcome amendments. If, at the end of the day, we can't agree, then members can choose otherwise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

MP Ehsassi, you have your hand up, and then it's MP Erskine-Smith.