Industry Committee on March 19th, 2021

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I'm sorry. My hand just remained up. I actually had no intention of doing that, but I might as well take advantage of this opportunity.

Given what my colleague Mr. Masse was saying about how sacred our responsibilities to our constituents are, may I propose a friendly amendment that it be reduced to eight hours from 10, if that's agreeable to the other members?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

I would just give a gentle reminder that we don't have things called “friendly amendments”, so there is a subamendment.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I'll amend it to eight hours if that's agreeable to the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

We are now at a subamendment that 10 hours be replaced by eight hours.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

MP Masse, you have the floor.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

To make things easier, then, I'll withdraw my request for specific dates and let the chair figure that out, because there will also have to be coordination with translation and so forth.

I want it well understood—and I don't know if I have to put this as a motion—that the presentation times should be reduced, as should some of our other intervention times equally, just to allow more witnesses, should we have a robust request, since we're reducing the whole thing. I can make that formal or I am quite comfortable leaving it in the hands of the chair to do that, and the same goes for the date provision.

I just want to make sure that's clear. If I need to do it specifically, I'll do it, or just add something to allow the eight hours and allow the witness list and discussion time to be decided by the chair. I am quite confident in the fairness of the way this has been done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much, MP Masse.

We can do something along the lines of a one-hour panel with three-minute opening rounds and two rounds of questions. There is some flexibility that we could work on, and I can bring that forward to the committee in terms of the timing.

MP Erskine-Smith, you have your hand up.

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

Yes.

I know that Brian just suggested that maybe we leave the timing to you, Chair, but I have some reservations on the overall timing when you tell me that we have 21 meetings between now and the end of June. If I'm working through all that is on the agenda to the extent that we want it to remain on the agenda, we have two more meetings for aerospace, plus, I would say, a minimum of two meetings to review and finalize the report. If we're really optimistic and thinking it can only take two, then you have four for aerospace.

Sébastien, quite rightly, is going to want to get the affordability study done. Again, that's going to be a minimum of two meetings. We're up to six. You have four meetings now that we're planning for this acquisition piece, despite three other reviews that are going to happen. If we're going to table a report, that's another two meetings, let's say. That's six in total, so we're up to 12.

Then you have the permit economy for, let's say, plus two, so we're up to 18. Then you have green recovery at four plus two. We're up to 24.

We routinely at this committee seem to want to add to our work in a completely ad hoc way. What do we actually want to accomplish?

I have concerns about this acquisition, Pierre. I think we should care about consumer protection and price. I disagree with the Premier of Alberta on this front. I also think this committee is better placed to address actual Competition Act reform and to push the government on that front. Yes, we can raise our voice, but our voice won't be heard in the same way when three other reviews are going to be taking place.

My question really is this: What do we want to accomplish here? Are we going to bring in a few witnesses and wag our fingers at them? Fine. I enjoy that, at times, but what do we actually want to accomplish? When I look at the agenda, it's overloaded. It doesn't look like we're actually seized with.... We're not focused. We're not going to drive a point home here in any serious way.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Here's what I want to accomplish with this study.

A lot of very important public policy issues that come to the fore here have been central to the issue of spectrum auction, of competition, of high-speed Internet. They all converge in this one merger. For example, Shaw got its spectrum at a discount because it was supposed to be the fourth entrant in the western market. Now Rogers proposes to buy that spectrum via buying Shaw. Are we allowing that to happen? Are we just going to say, okay, you got in the back door, you paid a discount and you took the spectrum on the cheap?

That's an issue for the industry committee. No other committee deals with spectrum auctions. That is this committee.

There has been a stated policy of both Liberal and Conservative governments to have [Technical difficulty—Editor] achieved, but it has been the goal. The western market might end up with three. Are we as parliamentarians just shrugging our shoulders and saying that's great?

On the flip side, Rogers is telling us, and they might be telling the truth, that this will result in massive rural investment in western Canada, and across Canada actually, to expand 5G into not just rural communities but also indigenous and remote communities. That's a big issue. These are big things. I want to know how serious this is. Is that firm? Do we have a covenant that they're signing as part of this proposal, or is it just a press release that we'll find out three years from now was not true? These are serious matters of public policy.

I understand your concern about a committee running off in a bunch of different directions, but unfortunately we have a committee with a vast jurisdiction. We cover a lot of stuff. Industry Canada as a department—maybe we can blame C.D. Howe for his vast tentacles—has a system that is very wide-reaching. Therefore, we end up having to do a lot of things at the same time.

I'm open-minded, though.

Nathan, if you think this might be something we could work into a broader study on the Competition Act, I'm fine. I don't think it belongs with the permit economy. I think it's a separate issue, but if you have an amendment that you think would make this sensible, then I'm open to it.

This is a big merger. I think a $50-billion enterprise will come out of this. That's the equivalent of our GDP for almost a month in Canada. That's a lot of impact on a lot of people—13 million customers affected and something like 30,000 employees. It's not just a mosquito that we're chasing around here. This is a big one. I think we have a duty to at least examine it and see if we as parliamentarians think it's in the public interest. That's all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

I would just gently remind MPs to keep their remarks through the chair.

MP Erskine-Smith, you still have your hand up. I'm not sure if you would like to intervene again, but then it will be Mr. Généreux.

Go ahead, Mr. Erskine-Smith.

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

I have two things. I agree that this deal should be scrutinized, and price and consumers should be put at the very forefront of our consideration. I am already concerned that we are a country of oligopolies, and it seems we are getting greater consolidation, not only in relation to the telecommunications sector but also, as I mentioned, in things such as the acquisition of Longo's by Empire. There is an oligopoly in another sector.

I just want to make sure we are accomplishing something and we are not just flitting from topic to topic in a very shallow way, I suppose, and not then making meaningful recommendations in a serious way that are going to be acted upon and make a difference.

I tried to jam competition reform into the permit economy, perhaps inelegantly. It may make sense to instead jam competition reform into this very question instead.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Right.

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

If you are open to that...and I can add a few meetings on that front or a couple of meetings on that front. That may make more sense as far as it goes, but I just want to make sure we are not just going to have a few witnesses, have a few days, listen to testimony.... Ultimately we are going to do a fraction of the job that ISED, the competition bureau and the CRTC are going to do in analyzing this. We'll get the flavour of it, but I don't think we're going to be able to weigh in on it in quite the same way.

The only other caution, the secondary caution, has to do with the number of meetings that, as I mentioned, we are going to have between now and June. We're already looking at having more meetings to address this, so something has to give and something has to drop. We have to prioritize.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much, Mr. Erskine-Smith.

Mr. Généreux.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Chair, I don't understand why the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology can't take eight or 12 hours to study, on a priority basis, an issue that's extremely important to Canada and to all Canadians. This will give us the opportunity to hear evidence that's truly important to all Canadians.

When Bell purchases Vidéotron, will we say that we're too busy to study the issue? We must do our job. We're working in the public eye, especially in this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you, Mr. Généreux.

I don't think that the committee members are unwilling to study the transaction. It's just a matter of a consensus on the motion.

I will ask the clerk if he could read out the proposed motion, just because there were some tweaks along the way there, and I want to make sure we all know what we are discussing and debating.

Mike, would you be able to read that out for me, please?

[The Clerk]

Sure. Feel free to jump in and correct me here. This was based on my understanding of what MP Poilievre moved and the subsequent consent of the committee to slight tweaks. Perhaps this can be used as a base layer to begin with for members to make further changes.

The motion reads:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on the proposed acquisition of Shaw Communications by Rogers Communications; that the study consist of a minimum of 8 hours; that the clerk book witnesses for 1 hour panels; that opening remarks for witnesses be limited to 3 minutes; that the meetings take place during the Easter break weeks if possible; and that the committee report to the House as soon as possible after witness testimony has concluded.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Is there any further debate on the motion as read by the clerk?

Seeing none—

Mr. Lemire, is your hand raised?

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

I think that the motion is a good compromise. However, three minutes for remarks seems rather short. Of course, we can ask the witnesses questions after they've made their remarks. However, I often feel that we give them a limited amount of time to speak. I'm not opposed to the idea, but it seems rather short.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Mr. Clerk, do you have any comments on this?

[The Clerk]

Yes, perhaps I can comment on that.

This was based on Mr. Masse's remarks about limiting the opening remarks for witness testimony to three minutes. That would allow for the committee to get through the opening remarks—normally we have three witness groups on a panel—and we would be done with the opening remarks of all three witness groups in under 10 minutes or in about 10 minutes. That would leave 50 minutes, which would allow for two rounds of questions from the members.

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

Okay. That's fine with me.

I'm used to question periods that last two and a half minutes, and I often find this very short. I'm looking forward to seeing how this will be done in three minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

MP Poilievre, do you have your hand up? Go ahead.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I suggest the clerk notify the witnesses to submit written comments as well if they have broader thoughts. Some of them will say that they can't tell us everything they need to say in three minutes. They can send us a memo. We're vigorous readers.