Industry Committee on Nov. 21st, 2024

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I just wanted to clarify that that's not the issue. We're not talking about call centres but about individuals. In Quebec, because of Videotron's market penetration, many people in the regions have IP phones.

The problem is that individuals making calls from their IP phones were transferred to call centres in Ontario, where they could not be served in French. The current problem has to do with the people using these types of phones, not with the 911 service.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

That's perfect.

Mr. Savard-Tremblay, thank you for clarifying that.

Mr. Patzer, just let me know if you want to table an amendment later, unless you want to do it right now, but I think Mr. Savard-Tremblay has clarified his motion.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Yes, that clarified it for me. I was missing the transfer link into Ontario and back.

I'm good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much.

I now give the floor to Mr. Généreux, who will be followed by Mr. Turnbull.

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

I'd like to get back to what I was saying. We are considering the motion passed earlier, but with a timetable. I think it would be worthwhile to add one here, considering that we don't know when we're going to have the government amendments on Bill C‑27.

Perhaps we should plan for when we come back after the holidays. I don't see how we could fit this in. I'd suggest to my colleague that we include a time frame, so we can be sure we will ultimately conduct the study. If this really is an urgent issue that needs to be addressed, I think it's important that it be included in the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

In that case, Mr. Généreux, an amendment would have to be moved. What you just suggested is a little too vague.

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

I move that the study be carried out before the end of February 2025.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

The amendment proposed by Mr. Généreux is that this study be conducted before the end of February 2025.

Are there any comments on the amendment?

Do I have unanimous consent for the amendment proposed? I see a thumbs-up from Mr. Masse, and I don't see any objections to the amendment saying the study must take place before the end of February 2025.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you. It's agreed and so ordered.

We are back to the motion as amended.

I have Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

It's a good discussion here. Thanks to Mr. Savard-Tremblay for bringing this forward.

My understanding is that the CRTC is bound by the Official Languages Act. As far as I know, they jumped on the issue fairly quickly. Maybe I'll provide a bit of detail on that.

The CRTC, in January, distributed several letters to telecom industry players requesting information on recent incidents in which 911 callers were unable to access service in French. There were some issues. The letters were sent to mobile service providers such as Rogers, the VoIP service provider Transat Telecom and the third party call centre Northern911. They had until February 2 to provide information. The three parties were also required to provide details on any existing provisions in their respective service agreements regarding the provision of French-language or bilingual services. That's also important to note. We also have documentation that there have been.... I think some of the issues were resolved. There were a couple of cases in Gatineau where lines were relayed to Ottawa centres, and those would have been unilingual speakers.

I want to ask Mr. Savard-Tremblay whether he's referring to specific instances in specific places or locales. I'm inclined to say—similar to what Mr. Généreux said initially—that this seems to be more of an official languages study. I really want to understand what locale and specific incidents he might be referring to in the motion.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I can give you a specific example that happened last summer in the riding of Berthier—Maskinongé. I don't have the exact name of the community, but my colleague mentioned it to me. When it was mentioned in meetings with other colleagues, several said that they'd had similar cases in their ridings.

So we'll have to look into it. The problem has not likely been resolved because these types of cases are still happening. I'd add that it will certainly give our colleagues an opportunity to check whether there were any such cases in their ridings, to gather information and to resolve the problem as soon as possible.

That said, with regard to the relevance of tabling my motion at this committee rather than at the Standing Committee on Official Languages, I think I answered that earlier.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Savard‑Tremblay.

I, for one, wondered if it should….

You could make a case for the motion being better suited to either the Standing Committee on Official Languages or to our committee. In my mind, there is enough of a link with businesses and telecommunications for it to be in order here.

Is that desirable? I'm in the hands of the committee.

Would anyone else on the list like to speak to the motion as amended?

Mr. Turnbull, the floor is yours.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

It feels to me as if this would be better suited for the official languages committee. Because the CRTC is subject to the Official Languages Act and must abide by it, it seems to me that this might be better placed there. This is an issue with service being provided in English when it should be provided in French. That, to me, is an important issue. I don't mean to sound as if I'm saying it's not an issue. It is an issue, and it's important. I agree. I just think it would be better placed in that committee.

That's where I stand on it. Thanks.

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

I support MP Turnbull. I know—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Perkins, you don't have the floor, but that's nice to hear.

I have Mr. Masse. Did you want the floor, Mr. Perkins?

Okay. It's Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'll try again on this. First of all, we are jettisoning something here to another committee and expecting that other committee to abandon their schedule for something we're doing here, which really is going to be the death knell, most likely, for it, not knowing what that committee is doing. On top of that, anything they recommend will have to go back to the CRTC anyway, which will then be out of their jurisdiction and the minister they deal with for the issue.

Lastly, we have dealt with 911 in the industry, specifically on this, on two separate file cases that were very specific to 911. As well, it's been raised in testimony numerous times for the telcos, and also for the CRTC several times during other testimony when we've studied the issues related to coverage in rural and remote communities, on which this committee does actually have a study. I believe there are some recommendations in those studies related to that.

For those reasons, I still think it's appropriate that we deal with this. We all have our different issues that we've been raising here. To be fair, I don't believe there's been a Bloc issue that's been studied recently on this committee. It's not that there is a history of them not bringing numerous studies to the committee. I think the member has done the due diligence necessary, and I support dealing with this, especially in the constrained way that we have. If we do this, I would ask that the previous reports on 911 from this committee be brought back, so that all members would have these in front of them before then, so that we have the opportunity to be well prepped.

For those reasons, I still support this motion, because it would be continuing a practice of the work we've done on 911.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

We'll cross the bridge when we get to the river, but it's a fair point that we look at what the committee has done in the past on this so that we don't replicate it.

Are there any other speakers on the motion as amended?

(Motion as amended negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

The motion is defeated.

Mr. Savard‑Tremblay, it's unfortunate the motion was defeated, given that it was your first motion before the committee. I understand—

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I don't find you very welcoming.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I understand.

I don't think we can necessarily send your motion as it stands to the Standing Committee on Official Languages. We could, but….

Mr. Généreux sits on the Standing Committee on Official Languages, as do I. I will gladly work with Mr. Mario Beaulieu, who also sits on it, to get your motion passed.

Indeed, as Mr. Généreux mentioned, for the time being, the Standing Committee on Official Languages has a little less on its plate than our committee does.

I think there's a lot of sympathy around the table for the very important issue you're raising.

I'm counting on Mr. Généreux's co-operation. I will be watching him at the Standing Committee on Official Languages to make sure things run smoothly.

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

I do know that, in the Bloc Québécois, the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

We'll have that debate later at the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Thank you, Mr. Savard-Tremblay, for raising this issue. I really appreciate it.

Next on my list I have Mr. Masse.

On committee business, Mr. Masse, are you good?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'm good. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I have Mr. Patzer, and then I think I have MP Badawey.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I have a motion here that was talked about previously:

That, in relation to the committee ongoing study of credit card practices, and given various departments have refused to answer questions and produce documentation related to the committee's ongoing study, the committee therefore order the department to produce:

(a) Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner's request for any briefing notes and summary documents prepared by the department related to the Government of Canada's consultation process on reducing interchange fees, including any and all written submissions received by stakeholders;

(b) MP Jean-Denis Garon's request for all copies of Visa and Mastercard's initial offer to reduce interchange fees, including any and all counter offers by the department, as well as any and all email exchanges related to these negotiations between Visa, Mastercard, and American Express;

(c) MP Brian Masse's request for any advise letters or memorandums provided to the minister on the matter of reducing interchange fees or credit card reductions more broadly;

that these documents be produced to the committee within 14 days following the adoption of this motion, unredacted, and in both official languages.

I think it's important because, when we look at some of the committee testimony we've had here, and the lack of answers provided when we had government officials and these companies here.... The production of these documents would be extremely helpful for this committee in terms of getting answers and results for Canadians as to why things continue to be the way they are in that ecosystem.

I think it's good to do this motion. It ties in with what the parties all heard and saw in committee. It respects the wishes of multiple parties here. I think this is a good one that the committee can get done quickly. It won't interfere with any of the meetings we are trying to schedule. It's simply asking for these documents and provides a very clear timeline for when they need to come—obviously, in both official languages and clearly unredacted. That way, we get the information this committee is requesting. It's entirely within the rights and ability of this committee to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Patzer.

I note that this is a motion that had already been moved, but on which no decision had been made.

It's fair game to bring this back, because we started to debate it but we had to adjourn.

I'll note one thing.

In the French version, it says “the honourable Michelle Garon”. I think it should read “the honourable Michelle Rempel Garner”. This change will have to be made.

Otherwise, on my list, I have…

Is this what you wanted to say, Mr. Savard‑Tremblay?