Evidence of meeting #148 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was mastercard.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I have a feeling that all of the people from Rogers who are watching will hang up.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you, Mr. Masse.
I'll use my discretion as chair. We have a full committee here, and we had an agreement that Mr. Staffieri would appear before this committee. This is a waste of MPs' time and the resources of the House. It's not to be taken lightly when you're supposed to be accountable to Canadians, through members of Parliament, and I think that's what's happened today.
I will err on your side, Mr. Masse, and say that if Mr. Leech can report back to Rogers what he's heard today, I think it's useful for him to be here.
November 28th, 2024 / 8:45 a.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
On the same point, Mr. Chair, I'd prefer that the witness stay here so he can get the entire sentiment of this committee back to his CEO.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
I agree a hundred per cent.
That being said, we appreciate you being here.
I will briefly suspend, so that members can get the amendment proposed by Mr. Perkins. We'll come back in a minute.
The meeting is suspended.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
I call the meeting back to order.
Colleagues, we are resuming the meeting.
It's my understanding, MP Masse, that you've received the motion. Basically, from what I understand, the amendment proposed by Mr. Perkins was that we keep the first sentence of your motion, but after “October 28, 2024, the committee”, we go to “summons Rogers Communications Chief Executive Officer Tony Staffieri”, and then the rest of the amendment reads per the motion Mr. Perkins gave notice of. I think that explains it.
I'll give you back the floor, Mr. Masse, because you had the floor when we suspended.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I appreciate the subamendment. My suggestion to the mover is to remove Mr. Bains from it. The rest is fine with me. I just don't want another distraction, to be quite frank, and that's really what I think it is. That's why I'd prefer to go back to where we started from.
I'll put that out there to try to find some consensus among all of us here on this. I'll leave it at that and see if Mr. Perkins is okay with it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you, Mr. Masse.
Given that you're not in the room, I will read what you're suggesting as a subamendment, which is to remove Mr. Bains.
I'm reading the room, and I think there is consent to remove Navdeep Bains from the motion. I see no objection.
(Subamendment agreed to)
That brings us to the amendment as amended by Mr. Masse.
I will go back to the list I had. We're on the amendment now. You know you're all good with the subamendment that was proposed.
Is everything clear, Mr. Savard‑Tremblay? It is your turn to speak about the amendment as modified.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
So, if I understand correctly, Mr. Bains's name has been removed, but the remainder of the amendment is unchanged, whereby the committee reports to the House that it wishes to reprimand Mr. Staffieri.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
I agree with the amendment as modified, since I also agreed with the idea of removing Mr. Bains's name. As the former minister of industry, he is well known to this committee, and we know he tends to avoid answering questions. So I think it would really have been a waste of time if we had decided to invite him. Furthermore, if Mr. Staffieri decides that, as CEO, he doesn't have time to waste by testifying before mere MPs, it is on him that we have to maintain the pressure. That must not be diluted, of course. So, once again, I support the amendment as modified.
Liberal
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just wanted to add my two cents to what has already been said about the amendment as modified.
As Mr. Savard‑Tremblay just said, in the eyes of the CEO of such a large company, we are probably just lowly MPs. The way democracy works in Canada, however, is that the people we represent, the people of Canada, also have a voice in the matter, and we are here to represent them. So for him to show a minimum of respect, he has to come and meet the members of the committee.
I would also like to point out that Pierre Karl Péladeau, the head of a large corporation in Quebec that is in the same industry as Rogers, appears before the committee every time he is invited. I have a lot of respect for that, even though he is an indépendantiste and we are not at all in the same political family. At least he complies with the committee's requests and makes an appearance to explain his company's positions and talk about the services it offers its clients.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Yes, I agree with what you said. I think Mr. Péladeau would appear before the committee every month if he could.
Mr. Arya, the floor is yours.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Chair, this is a very important discussion and an important motion brought by Mr. Perkins.
Canadians may not be aware that Rogers, Bell and Telus are not just ordinary Canadian companies. They are sort of protected and have been coddled for a long time. People may not know that, under Canadian law, any telecom company that has a market share of more than 10% has to have 80% Canadian ownership and 80% Canadian board members.
In 2012, the then government amended that so that telecom companies with less than 10% market share can have increased foreign ownership. That still left Rogers, Bell and Telus in control of this market, and Canadians are getting squeezed.
We have heard about pricing, but let me talk about the technical quality. We are in the capital of a G7 country, and here, my service provider has one bar.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
Some of my colleagues are happy; they have two bars. That's great, lucky them. Okay, it's one bar.
Whenever we travel abroad, when we don't have telecom facilities, we go in search of Wi-Fi. Here in the national capital of a G7 country with only three providers, when we sometimes have to surf the net or look something up online, we have to go in search of Wi-Fi. This is unacceptable.
We are not talking about not getting quality access deep underground in parking garages; we're talking about a regular building. This parliamentary precinct is the heart of Canada's democracy.
The telecom companies have been too protected. This protection is outdated and harmful, with no competition. It stifles innovation.
With the changing global scenario in which international free trade is dead, all countries are adopting protectionist measures, so I don't know where to draw the line to protect domestic companies when these domestic companies abuse the protection measures provided to them. I don't what to do about it.
Maybe it's time to relax the foreign direct investment rule to allow trusted allies like the Five Eyes partners to bring in competition, so that they can invest in the telecom sector in Canada irrespective of the market share or whether they can buy out the existing firms or not.
My understanding is that it's the third time the CEO of Rogers is thumbing his nose at this committee. This committee is an important committee for industry. It is a committee for industry and technology. If he thinks that he has political connections that can prevent him from appearing before the committee, he is wrong.
If required, a summons should be issued, but I suggest that the motion says to submit an interim report. I think it's wrong to assume that he will not answer the summons.
Let's take the next logical step available to us. That is, we issue a summons if he refuses to appear next time. If he refuses then, we can take what steps are required next.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Mr. Arya, are you proposing a subamendment?
In the interest of clarity, the motion does read: “That, should the witnesses refuse to appear”, then “report”, just to be clear.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
Again, Mr. Chair, he has refused to appear. Let's send him the summons. If he doesn't appear, then I think we should go ahead with this.
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
The second part—“That, should the witness refuse to appear within seven days”—would be removed.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
Mine is, “That, should the witnesses refuse to appear within seven days, the committee may issue a summons”.... I'm sorry, it was not a summons. My thing is that he has refused....
I'm sorry; I think we should stop there.
Conservative
