Industry Committee on March 19th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Good morning, everyone. I call this meting to order.

We are meeting today pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), at the request of four members of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

With that, I will turn the floor over to MP Poilievre.

Just an FYI, my last name is spelled “Romanado”.

Go ahead, Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Did our motion originally misspell your name? We'll have to get to the bottom of that. I apologize. I don't know how it happened, but we're going to get to the bottom of it. As someone whose name is regularly mispronounced, I have no tolerance whatsoever for names being misspelled.

Thank you, everyone, for coming together on short notice.

Of course, we were all met with the titanic news that two of Canada's major telecom providers were entering into a merger. It is actually an acquisition merger. As you all know, Rogers and Shaw have proposed a transaction to combine forces. It would reduce the number of players in both the cable and the wireless space, and have enormous implications for the structure of our digital economy and for the services available to our customers.

This deal has to be approved by the industry department, by the Competition Bureau and by the CRTC, all three of which report to this committee.

This is obviously an industry file, and I believe that while we do have regulatory bodies that are tasked with looking into these matters, it is the duty of parliamentarians to represent their constituents as well. We are the only ones who are directly accountable to the people who will be affected by this deal.

I am not proposing to interrupt any existing plans that the committee has. We already have an aerospace study [Technical difficulty—Editor] and those can go ahead, but what I am proposing is that the forthcoming double break week period be used to have 12 hours of hearings. I originally thought 20 hours would be appropriate, but following discussions with colleagues who like to take advantage of break weeks for constituency work, I thought we could reduce that and tighten up the hearings so that they could be done in 12 hours instead.

Obviously we're willing to compromise and amend this motion to make it agreeable to members of the committee and to suit their desire, as parliamentarians, to have a productive session on this subject. This is just an opening proposition, and we look forward to hearing what other members have to say.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much, MP Poilievre.

What I will ask you to do, because I think you are all on Zoom, is to use the “raise hand” function.

I see that MP Masse has his hand up.

I just want to recognize, MP Poilievre, that with respect to those two sitting weeks, there are two statutory holidays. The Friday and the Monday of those weeks are actual holidays, so that gives us two shortened weeks. I just want to flag that to people.

I will pass the floor to MP Masse.

You have the floor.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks for bringing the motion forward.

I have a couple of questions so that maybe we can also get a better idea of a schedule. I have a couple of concerns.

First, I think the number of hours is not consistent with the time off that's necessary in our constituency workweek. For me, that's very problematic. Perhaps we could amend some of the ways we do business here with regard to lowering the time for presentations by witnesses, and perhaps even our own question time, to cram in more witnesses. They can send in written submissions, so we might be able to do something clever related to that.

I also have a concern that this is another Conservative motion and they have a motion on the permit economy. I don't know if they're moving down that study order to accommodate this. I think we've been able to work for over a decade here very co-operatively in this committee to make sure that our studies are done in a way that's fair. This seems to be another priority brought forth, so it would require some compromise, in my opinion.

There is another couple of small things in the motion. I don't really care for telling the minister he can't have staff here and stuff like that. That seems counter to the experiences I've had before. I don't know how much we want to get into that, but those are a couple of minor things, so perhaps if we could get our schedule laid out.... We have a lot of business and a lot of things going on.

The constituency week is very important. I'm from a region where COVID-19 has really ravaged the area. In fact, we have the AstraZeneca vaccine coming here a bit sooner because of the border, the complications and the age and poverty demographics we have in my region, and also the language. We've been helping to deal with that as well, so I have a lot of things on my mind.

I'm interested in the subject matter. For me, it's very easy as an issue. I'm against the merger or acquisition for a bunch of reasons I won't get into right now. I'm more than happy to accommodate this, but it has to be done with compromise.

I'll turn to my colleagues. Perhaps if we get a bit better scheduling as well.... Madam Chair, you mentioned the two holidays. I don't know if they were taken into consideration with the 12 hours that were provided there. Again, I'm open to seeing if we can accommodate in the way we do business in the committee and run more witnesses through, if necessary, to get to the objective.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much, MP Masse.

MP Ehsassi, the floor is yours.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's good to listen to our colleagues here.

I want to reiterate some of the points made by Mr. Masse. I think they make eminent sense in that I think we would all benefit from reducing the number of meetings devoted to this, as well as relying to the extent possible on written submissions. The reason I say this is that I think it's abundantly clear by now that all the members of this committee are very mindful of Canadians. The welfare of Canadians is something that we care deeply about, whether it comes to cable services or to wireless service as well. I don't think there's any doubt insofar as that is concerned.

However, that being said, as the member who proposed this motion has made clear, this is an issue that the CRTC, the Competition Bureau and ISED will be looking into as well, so the role that our committee can play is really not that significant, in the sense that this is a very technical issue. As much as I understand his intention to bring many witnesses here, the reality with respect to most witnesses is that they can get into the process and get into the guidelines, but by no means would they [Technical difficulty—Editor] the specifics or to share some of the disclosures that would occur here, and that's for good reason. The reason is that, while I understand Mr. Poilievre wants the minister to appear, the minister would not want to prejudice the outcome insofar as the CRTC, the Competition Bureau or ISED are concerned.

I say that this is a technical issue that is best left to those three bodies because, as Mr. Poilievre is fully aware, what will happen as this is examined is that it's very technical.... We have to determine where there is overlap between the services offered by the two companies. In addition to that, they have to specifically look at the various markets in which these services overlap or compete.

As much as I think it's important that we consider this, I would once again emphasize what Mr. Masse has said and work out a compromise where, first of all, we can reduce the number of meetings devoted to this, given the limitations we face in examining this issue and, secondly, if we could [Technical difficulty—Editor] not invite the minister, because obviously he will be in no position to provide us with the information that we all so desperately seek.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much.

Next we have MP Erskine-Smith.

You have the floor.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I have a question on why the motion wants to sort of jam this in during a non-sitting week instead of during the regular course of our committee business. What is the early urgency to this, given this isn't going to be approved, obviously, in the immediate term, with three reviews pending?

Pierre put forward the permit economy and it was amended to be broader as it relates to competitiveness, including the Competition Act reform. This isn't the only acquisition that might be of concern if one cares about competitiveness. Obviously there was a proposed acquisition of Longo's by Empire, which owns Sobeys.

My view, at least, would be that it would make sense instead to maintain the study schedule that we have and to maybe expand the scope of that Conservative motion, but I think Brian is right. Both of these are kind of related and they are both Conservative motions. Maybe we could, say, look at competition issues including these two case studies and add a couple of meetings to the existing study that we have. [Technical difficulty—Editor] forward and then we don't have this urgency, this emergency meeting.

I don't really understand the urgency in a non-sitting week, given the timeline.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

MP Poilievre, would you like to respond?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Yes, there are a couple of things. First of all, the permit economy issue was interesting to the Conservatives. We were not seeking a review of the Competition Act. That was something, Nathan, that you wanted included, so for your benefit we amended our motion to include it.

We are debating whose motion and whose ideas are getting studied here. That was a win for you, so you can take that one and congratulate yourself for it, because that's what you wanted to study. However, we are getting quite distant from the purpose. If we start to morph a study on regulatory red tape and the permit economy into a discussion on a merger between two telecom companies, we're starting to mix two creatures that are not of the same species, if I may.

There is always going to be some mission creep in any study, where we start to creep a little bit more and more outside of the traditional boundaries of the subject, but eventually you get to a point where there is no subject to the study.

The reason it is important is that this is a massive transaction. It is the biggest transaction in modern telecom history, and it might have massive implications for both the economy and customers. This is the committee that is responsible for it. There is no other committee. It's not a finance issue. It is not a heritage issue.

[Technical difficulty—Editor] I believe we should have a report on it before the regulatory bodies rule, because when they rule, it's over. There is nothing more for us to study at that point because the ruling is done and it's a fait accompli. We, as parliamentarians, represent the most important stakeholders: the citizens of Canada. Therefore, we should get our word in before the final decision is made.

I've never accepted the idea that elected officials should just be quiet and let the so-called experts decide. If the experts were doing a terrific job, we wouldn't have among the highest cellphone bills in the world and some of the poorest coverage.

Obviously this is something the committee is seized with, and that's why this committee has studied the subject. Obviously the committee could not have studied the specifics of this merger as part of that earlier study because it hadn't been proposed at the time. It's important that we do it. Why on a break week? The answer is so that we don't interrupt the rest of the study schedule.

That being said, we're open to some compromise.

Mr. Ehsassi has said he doesn't think the minister should come. I think he makes a good point. I believe he probably could come and give us some overriding principles that he is going to use in making his decision, but if it's a strong objection, then we would be prepared to make that concession to the government and leave the minister out of testifying on this particular matter at this time. At some point in the future, he will be accountable for the decision that he makes and we respect that. As a compromise, we would be willing to exclude him from that.

Mr. Masse, I think you are right. We can, in all committees, do a better job of collapsing some of the testimony and getting rid of much of the duplication, so if it would be more agreeable to you to move, say, down to 10 hours—my original idea was 20 hours and the motion says 12 hours—that would be welcomed.

I would mention that I know the NDP does have a western caucus as well. I'm not going to make any suggestions on how you manage it, but there might be some western MPs in your caucus who are interested in sitting in on some of this. I don't know, but their constituents are going to be more served by Shaw than yours are, I suspect.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thanks for the advice. I'll take that to heart.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

You're welcome.

Anyway, those are some ideas that I have in response.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much.

Next we have MP Dreeshen, and then MP Ehsassi.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This definitely is a western issue. I know it is uppermost in the minds of everyone here in western Canada. Our study with rural and remote broadband ties in to so much of what we have been talking about. There are concerns about the set-aside spectrum associated with this. We have to make sure that we see where the future is going to be and that we really do have an opportunity to firm up the commitments that seem to be in the agreement at this particular point in time.

I really think it is important that we study this massive transaction and get at it as soon as we possibly can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you.

Next we have MP Ehsassi and then MP Lambropoulos.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Allow me first to comment on the spirit of compromise that appears to have enveloped all of us today. It's great to see.

First of all, thank you, Mr. Poilievre, for accepting that the appearance by the minister would be of limited utility, given that he can only comment on the guidelines.

Those guidelines, I would add, are available to the members. We can all look at those without having the minister appear before this committee.

The other issue I would appreciate weighing in on is the issue raised by my colleague Nathan Erskine-Smith on the [Technical difficulty—Editor] for all of us to bear in mind that we do have a robust process in place with the three different entities that we're all aware of and that this will go on for at least another year. I think it's important for us to bear in mind that, irrespective of when we do produce the report, these three different entities will have the benefit of our perspective.

I would be grateful if Mr. Poilievre could once again respond to why he thinks this is so urgent that we have to do it as soon as possible.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much, MP Ehsassi.

Next is MP Lambropoulos, and then I'll go back to MP Poilievre.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you.

To MP Dreeshen's point, I think the affordability and accessibility study that we just completed covered a lot of the things that we'll probably hear again during the meetings we will schedule. I just think 10 hours at this point, considering that we've done an extensive study on affordability and accessibility already, is a little bit much.

I definitely agree that it's something to look at. I think it's important to take this into account and to get recommendations that are maybe specific to this deal. However, I don't see us needing more than two or three meetings to get really good recommendations on this and to get some testimony that will help back that up, which we can then add to the study on affordability and accessibility that has already been drafted and that we can actually get recommendations on very soon.

In the interest of time and in the interest of being efficient and effective, I feel that would be the best way forward. I don't see a need for five meetings or more. A couple of meetings to hear about this issue and to hear from a few experts on what difference this makes and how this can complement our study would be good, but not more than that, in my opinion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you.

MP Poilievre, you had your hand up, so I'll let you go ahead. Then we'll have MP Masse and MP Lemire.

MP Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I have a very quick point of clarification.

Ms. Lambropoulos, are you proposing that we would have some hearings from the key players in this acquisition, and then include the findings from those hearings in the existing study?

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

If that were the will of the committee, then I'd be 100% down for that, yes.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I'd be happy to listen to what others have to say. I just wanted to clarify that this was what Madam Lambropoulos was looking at.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you.

MP Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Maybe to Pierre, are you willing, in this process, to advance this study—and we can even keep some of the extra hours in it, or add them—and move your other permit economy study aside? This is a minority Parliament, and a committee that has worked hard to provide space for everyone. We've had a set agenda based on a lot of things.

I'm willing to meet over part of the break. Many times I've actually even gone to Ottawa, when it was open, to meet in the summer and during other March breaks and so forth, when we didn't have regular committees, so that's not necessarily the issue. It's just that there are extraordinary circumstances now and to try to get the House of Commons translation might be an issue as well. I'd ask maybe that the clerk might, at some point, have some guidance on that as well, because translation, as we know, is a huge issue.

I would like to know whether you're willing to compromise to maybe look at the dates on our permit economy study and to start slating in this study instead, because those are, together, significant issues that you've brought forth. I think they all have value and they're important, but it's about prioritization and it's about balance in how this committee operates.

To you, specifically, are you willing to do that as a compromise and maybe expand the time for this, if that's what's necessary?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

I will let MP Poilievre respond to that specific question, and then I'll go to MP Lemire.

He is missing.