Industry Committee on Feb. 5th, 2024

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

We had a great subcommittee meeting. Obviously it was in camera, so I won't speak to the conversation, but the subcommittee report we did is public. It includes a very substantive study that Mr. Lemire put forward originally and that we agreed to commence with. It also included point 5 here, which includes all of the CEOs of all of the companies, including Telus. We already have agreed to ensure that we would bring forward the CEOs to question them on cellphone bills. I'm looking at point 5 in the subcommittee report that came back to this, which had consensus. I also understand, based on our current committee schedule, that we have dates and times to make sure those meetings happen.

The way I feel about this is that it seems that Mr. Williams is just trying to push up something that's going to happen anyway, that we already agreed to. I don't see the rationale for that when we've already come to consensus on this. We've all agreed it's an important topic. We've all agreed there are concerns around cellphone price increases that are planned by Rogers and/or others. We also can get more acquainted with the facts, because there is lots of other information we need to look at. There is a whole spectrum of other issues we can talk about, but all of those are already included in the subcommittee report and its motion.

From my understanding, we agreed that meetings would start as early as February 26 on this topic. Mr. Williams' motion, I believe, just bumps it up and is now calling to have those meetings about a week or 10 days earlier.

What's the rationale for that? Why would this committee need to bump that up by two weeks or 19 days when we've already agreed to do it in due course? We agreed with that.

We also have other studies that we've talked about. We've had that conversation together and agreed. We came to consensus.

This seems like it blows up the consensus we had. We had a very constructive conversation to achieve consensus, and I thought we had a way forward, and now we have a motion that tries to bump this study up by 10 days. What is the rationale for that? I can't understand it.

Please, someone clarify that for me. Maybe Mr. Williams can clarify what the rationale is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I'm looking around the room to see if there are more interventions.

It is true that in the steering committee we did agree to start the telco study on the 26th and to finish the Bill C-27 witnesses before we adjourn for the constituency week in February.

I'll let Mr. Williams speak to his motion.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know that we've agreed to a broader study on telecommunications, which talks about infrastructure and the problems we've had with companies. This is specific to price increases by Rogers, as announced by Rogers, and by Bell. Of course, we're agreeing with the committee to bring other witnesses—the four horsemen or others—together in front of the committee, because this is needed now and is pertinent now. This is the third time that we're trying this motion to get committees together.

There is a broader study in telecommunications. It's talking about infrastructure and it's going to talk about wireless and about the many Canadians who do not still have access to cellphone and signal. I know there are seven million Canadians who have been promised high-speed Internet access. Fifty per cent of Canada still does not have that access.

At the end of the day, this is about one topic only—increases that have been announced by Rogers and getting those CEOs and the minister together on that increase.

Why is that important? I'll tell you why.

Just this morning at 11 o'clock, Manulife, which had announced last week that it was going to offer specialty drug medication only to Loblaws—an exclusive deal, which was going to be a problem—actually backed off today, because of pressure. They announced that they are not going to follow through with that deal. That's what happens when we work together and put political pressure on these companies.

Rogers needs to answer now, not in four weeks, not in six weeks. They need to answer within two weeks why they're increasing prices to Canadians now. We should be out doing this now and not waiting.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Okay.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Turnbull.

There's a small thing to keep in mind in terms of scheduling. We have witnesses lined up for Bill C-27 on February 12 and 14. Should this motion be adopted, I would suggest we try to seek additional resources so as to not undo the great work that our clerk has done to get these witnesses before the committee. That's just something to keep in mind.

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

No one is disagreeing with the fact that cellphone companies should be called before the committee and questioned about any planned increases. I think we've all agreed to that. That's actually in the subcommittee report. I think it's more substantive. It already includes the CEOs of Telus and Quebecor Media, etc. It includes all the CEOs of all the companies that have been mentioned. It also includes a focus on increased customer cellphone bills, so any.... It's already there.

I think we've already agreed to do this work, so I still can't understand the rationale for an additional motion that just bumps it up. If you're asking for additional committee resources to start that component of the broader study earlier, okay, that's fine, but then isn't it subject to committee resources? If we've asked for additional resources to study Bill C-27, why shouldn't that be the first priority, which is what we agreed to?

We've already agreed to that. We've already had that debate and that conversation. We agreed to what's in the subcommittee report, so why is this now...? Even though we've already agreed to it, somehow it's now an even higher priority because you just decided it in the last week or so.

It doesn't make sense to me when we've already agreed to do a broader study. We've agreed to call all the witnesses. We've agreed to focus on cellphone prices and bills and we've agreed that it can be the first priority in that broader study. We've also agreed to a report of findings and recommendations back to the House.

I just can't understand what the.... In a way, isn't this a redundant motion? We've already done this.

Isn't there some rule in the Standing Orders that a motion has to be substantively different in order for it to be considered? This doesn't seem different at all. I don't see anything that's different here. I really can't understand the rationale for this, other than a bit of a grandstand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

Mr. Masse is next.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you.

I think a couple of things have overtaken this from when we had our schedule earlier, but you made a really good point. If we have witnesses lined up, that also involves travel for them and so forth, so I think we can find consensus here.

If we get further resources for this committee, we can start the study earlier. That's what I would like to see. I think this is an issue that is significantly important. There are good interventions, but if we're going to then create a problem for other witnesses.... That was something we didn't have before this was even tabled. At one point, it didn't look like we had some of those witnesses coming forth, but we do now.

I would offer that we leave this in your hands, Mr. Chair, to find out if we can actually get some additional resources to start this a bit more quickly, if possible. That's the way I would like to approach it, and I think it's a fair compromise for what we're trying to do here.

I think it's a heightened environment with regard to what the cellphone companies have been doing. We all feel it. It's the number one correspondence that I get in my constituency on a regular basis, aside from Gaza and a few other situations that are taking place.

At any rate, my position would be to leave it in your hands to see if we can actually get additional resources in this committee to start this study a bit earlier and go from there so that we don't disrupt what our clerk has done and any other flow of the work that you have to do.

If that's okay with the rest of the committee, I think that's a good way to go forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Okay. I can definitely see....

If there's consensus around the room to say that we'll start this study on telecoms earlier than planned if we have the additional resources, and we'll keep Bill C-27 as planned.... The clerk is here by my side, so we'll be looking for additional resources.

There is still a motion before this committee, though. I don't know how colleagues want to proceed with this motion or if there's an agreement that we just start the telecoms study earlier.

I'll looking at Ryan and Brian.

Ryan, I'll yield the floor to you.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I would just say I agree with Mr. Masse. I think if the committee can get the additional resources to start this study on telecoms a bit earlier and prioritize the CEOs, that's a good way forward.

One difference is that in our subcommittee report, we've allocated more time to have those CEOs come before us, which I think is important. I think the subcommittee report gives us more of an opportunity to scrutinize the CEOs, as is the intention here, so maybe I could suggest that Mr. Williams....

Mr. Williams, I know you won't like this, but maybe you want to withdraw the motion, and then we can come to a consensus to get the additional resources to hopefully start a bit earlier. We'd be happy to do that. We could reach consensus.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I see Mr. Perkins and then Mr. Williams.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thanks.

I'm open to the conversation. Just to let you know, it is public knowledge that next Tuesday and Wednesday after question period there are available time slots for committees to have additional meetings, as well as next Wednesday night at 7:30. That's just for consideration. There are additional resources at those times.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Perkins.

Go ahead, Mr. Williams.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

It's a good discussion.

Look, we all want to get to the CEOs. The question I have is whether the Minister of Innovation is scheduled for that additional study in the motion as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

One second, Mr. Williams. I don't have the committee report in front of me, so I'm just looking to the clerk to see.

Yes, Mr. Williams, it's what I thought. The minister is not named specifically in the amendment or addition whereby we decided in the subcommittee report to have the CEOs. In the text of the main motion that Mr. Lemire presented, the minister is not specifically mentioned, but nothing prevents us from inviting the minister to testify, if it's the will of the committee as part of this study on telcos. I'm certainly open to sending the invitation to the minister and his team.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

If it's the will of the committee that the minister attend these studies, to get the study moved up, to use the resources that we have....

The one I'm missing here is to report back to the House, which is the main body of this motion. That's certainly what I was looking for as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

It is in the subcommittee report at point 4 that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Okay. As long as the committee can come to consensus, we're going to move forward with the resources required before the 15th. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

What I have is to seek additional resources with the clerk for extra meetings on top of what we have on Bill C-27 next week. With these resources, we invite the CEOs of the telcos. In addition, we also invite the minister to come and testify as part of this telco study.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Okay, I'm fine with that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

There is just one small clarification, because I was talking to the clerk when it was mentioned. Do we want, for the CEOs, one CEO per meeting or per hour? How do we divide them up? Do we want two per meeting or four for one meeting? It's just to have some clarity on that.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

If we have two meetings, it's two per meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

It would be two per meeting for one hour each. That would be fine by me.

Go ahead, Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'm open to whatever. I have no problem in putting all four of them right here in front of us in that time frame.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

It would be two hours for the four.

Okay, there's no strong feeling necessarily on this—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes.