Industry Committee on Nov. 28th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Good morning, everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 148 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

Before I begin, I'd like to ask all members to take notice of the little card that's right before them, so as to prevent audio feedback incidents.

It is a question of health and safety for everyone, especially for the interpreters.

Pursuant to the motion adopted on November 7, 2024, the committee is resuming its study of the Examination of Telecommunication Companies Service Contract Practices.

Today we are pleased to welcome by video conference from Rogers Communications Inc., Mr. Bret Leech, president, residential.

Before anything else, I know Mr. Masse and Mr. Perkins have something to say.

Please go ahead, Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee members and the witness for being here.

What is taking place today is not consistent with my original motion, which was passed at this committee. With that, I have a notice of motion that I would like to pass. I'd like to get a discussion going right away, because it's consistent with what was originally decided upon.

Second, I think it's germane to what takes place at this meeting thereafter.

I have submitted the motion and would like to read it into the record. It reads:

That, consistent with the motion passed by this committee on Monday, October 28, 2024, the committee invite, and if this invitation is not accepted, summons, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1), Rogers Communications Inc. Chief Executive Officer Tony Staffieri to appear before the committee for a minimum of two hours by December 12, 2024.

With that, I've built the motion so that it can actually drop the component from “invite” to “accepted” and just go directly to “summons”.

I'd like to be able to speak to this motion, briefly, in the sense that we requested a specific course of action to be taken, and we passed that in this committee. Subsequently there was an alteration to it.

However, now we have Mr. Leech in front of us, who was not invited to this meeting and is a substitute at the very last moment. That is unacceptable, in my opinion, not only to this committee, but I think also to Canadians and consumers. I think it's part of a play on the committee and avoiding accountability.

The date that we originally passed, actually—if you remember, Mr. Chair—was for last month. However, we gave exceptional time and leverage to Rogers Communications to choose a date, which they did, so that the CEO could be here for the practices of hidden billing that are taking place and have been identified as a real concern among Canadians. At the last minute they did a rope-a-dope on this committee. They switched out the witness, and today I really don't have much interest in questioning Mr. Leech.

What I have an interest in is having the CEO here, as I originally proposed and as was passed by this committee.

With that, I would like us to move into that discussion and to see if we can get consensus, because I don't believe today's meeting is going to be very worthwhile at all with regard to the objective that was originally sought in my motion, which was passed by this committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

I have MP Rempel Garner and then MP Perkins on my list, or however you want to decide.

Just to give you a bit of context, colleagues, and although we appreciate you, Mr. Leech, taking the time and joining us this morning, we did accommodate for a slightly longer time frame so as to have Mr. Staffieri appear before the committee, and we extended what was originally planned in the motion.

It is my understanding, as chair, that we had a firm agreement that Mr. Staffieri would appear before this committee today to discuss the matter at hand, and it's important.

Changes were made at the last minute, indeed, and this is an opportunity to answer to Canadians, through the members of the committee. That is the context of this motion as I understand it.

I will now yield the floor to MP Rempel Garner.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Would it be possible for Mr. Perkins and me to switch our speaking slots?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Absolutely.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Masse, for moving forward. Your original study and motion got this important thing to go forward, and I want to reiterate that this is the third time we've been stiffed by Mr. Staffieri. We invited him in January and February. He refused and sent underlings, and then, when I tabled a summons motion 48 hours before that appearance, he decided to come. We did it a second time in February. There was another appearance and, again, he sent underlings and didn't come.

The third time is this one. I think it's unacceptable that Mr. Staffieri thinks it's more important to do whatever it is he's doing than to be accountable to Parliament for the company that he is the CEO of.

However, some committee members and I are not perhaps as gentle as MP Masse, so I would propose the following amendment to Mr. Masse's motion, which is to delete everything after “the committee”. The motion currently reads:

That, consistent with the motion passed by this committee on Monday October 28, 2024, the committee

I would delete everything after that and replace it with:

summons...Rogers Communications Inc. Chief Executive Officer Tony Staffieri and the Chief Corporate Affairs Officer, Navdeep Bains, to appear before the committee, for a minimum of two hours, within seven days following the adoption of this motion;

That, should the witnesses refuse to appear within seven days, the committee make the following interim report to the House:

“Your committee wishes to admonish Rogers Communications Chief Executive Officer Tony Staffieri for failing to make himself available to the committee, despite being invited by the committee on October 28, 2024, then later summoned on November 28, 2024, and the committee insists that this witness-in-hiding appear before the committee for two hours before the House recess for the Christmas break.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

This is a lengthy amendment. Is it possible to send it around? It's basically the text of the motion you had prepared, Mr. Perkins, so perhaps we can distribute that, and members will see what you are trying to do.

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

Yes, and it comes in after Mr. Masse's one, which is a little different from the one that was put on notice.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I'll just give a second for the clerk to distribute it.

Now I have, on the amendment proposed by MP Perkins—

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

Just to finish on that....

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Yes, of course.

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

The reason, obviously, is this: If this happens once.... Perhaps within a two-week period, the CEO of one of Canada's largest companies might not be able to find the time to get on the private jet and fly here, but this is not fool me once, fine, fool me twice.... It's a habit. It is a habit of this CEO to not want to be accountable to Parliament, and I've had enough.

It's disrespectful to our democratic process. He does not think much of our democratic process, and I can understand why he doesn't think much, because we try to hold them to account for these outrageous things like jacking up the price of a rental box for your Wi-Fi or your cable by $7 a month when you have a fixed-rate contract. I understand that, and it's no offence to our witness here, who probably runs the business as his executive team wants him to. They gouge customers on fine print, but Mr. Staffieri is ultimately the guy who's accountable to the board. If he's not willing to come, I think maybe we'll summon Edward Rogers next, if the habit of this company to defy Parliament continues.

They are, by the way, the most expensive cell company in the world. I know that I don't have to tell Canadians that; they know that. If you don't believe me, believe the international comparison study that's about 800 pages of cell phone companies around the world, called Rewheel. We have copies of it on our side. We could probably get one from the industry department for some other folks if they wanted it.

It's quite damning that, on every package size with every cell phone company in the world, Rogers continues to consistently be the most expensive. I guess that's perhaps why, if that's not bad enough on their rates, they bury in the fine print other unlimited charges that they can jack up.

When some customer signs a fixed-rate contract, they usually think that means a fixed rate for two years. If you're going to pay $100 for your cell phone with all the bells and whistles, about twice what you would pay in the U.S., you think somehow that fee won't change during the two years, or that, when you pick your bundled package with your cable box, that's on a fixed rate. That's how they're marketed. They're marketed as a fixed rate. You know, we'll give you this great deal. Put all this together, bundle it together, and this is what you're going to pay every month.

However, if you're a Rogers customer, apparently you have to read the 42 pages of fine print they send you in the email contract, because they don't print out paper ones anymore when you go in their store. Buried in that are the escape valves.

Mr. Staffieri has to be held accountable for this. He has to stop thumbing his nose at Parliament, and he has to come here and be accountable for the actions of the company he leads.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Perkins.

Ms. Rempel Garner, you now have the floor.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I'll speak in support of this amendment.

Colleagues, the situation we have in front of us today is the third time the CEO of a company that receives significant benefit from the Canadian government through tax incentives and direct contributions, as well as a regulatory environment that makes it difficult for new entrants to come into the market, has thumbed his nose at this committee.

I think what we are experiencing here is much like the service that Rogers provides to its customers, which we were going to investigate with the CEO today.

In my inbox—I'm sure in many of yours, as well, across party lines—I frequently receive complaints from our constituents specifically with regard to this company and its customer service. There's a feeling of helplessness and frustration. The behaviour of the CEO toward parliamentarians in a committee that has a mandate to oversee at least part of the regulations and the regulatory environment that it operates in is just....

They think we're stupid, colleagues. They really do.

Mr. Chair, I'll direct my comments, perhaps, to the GR and legal teams watching this from Rogers.

I cannot believe they did this. Did they really think there would be no consequence to telling us that their CEO couldn't come? Actually think about this. Those people actually said, “No, no. This committee doesn't matter.”

I want to be very clear to those people. There is a desire to ensure that there is competitiveness in this particular area. I have had concerns about this particular company since the government approved its merger with Shaw.

The CEO has just blown us off three times, like he blows off his consumers on a regular basis. I'll put it this way: It has been noticed, and it has been noticed by my party. Certainly, my colleagues and I are thinking about how we would approach the regulatory environment, should we at some point in the future form government.

Being blown off at the last minute by the CEO makes one want to reciprocate that behaviour, doesn't it? However, that's not how Parliament should function.

Mr. Perkins' amendment—and I'm talking to my colleagues from the Bloc and the NDP, particularly—says that if he doesn't come by this date, we are essentially going to admonish him in Parliament. That type of escalation, given that he's blown this committee off three times, I think is warranted at this point. This committee needs to send a message to Canadian consumers that we're on their side, not on the side of the CEO. We're done with this obfuscation.

I feel that if we don't accept that amendment today and we don't say we're prepared to escalate, we're essentially like Lucy holding the football with Charlie Brown. I appreciate that I'm aging myself with that reference, but that's really what we're doing here. We need to send a message to this company that we're done.

Again, Chair, through you to the GR and legal teams, I am done with this. I cannot believe they wasted my time today, and now we're wasting committee time because they did this to me. That says they don't respect me as a parliamentarian, and that's something I'll remember when they try to get meetings with us and come up to us at events and say, “Oh, hey, girl. How's it going? Haven't seen you in a while.” Well, I haven't seen them in a while.

If you don't have the ability to respect the committee's time by doing what we say, why should we respect you? It's the same transaction with its customers and it's the feeling of frustration that its customers have with this company as well.

I wanted to put that on the record, Chair. I want to ask my colleagues, particularly the NDP and the Bloc, to consider this amendment, because it is a justified escalation.

Here's my rationale. I fully expect the CEO to blow us off again. I don't have a lot of.... He will blow us off again, so we're going to have to spend more taxpayer dollars and more committee time moving Mr. Perkins' motion again in the future.

I would suggest that we send a strong message today and say we're done with them wasting our time.

This could have been an opportunity for the Rogers CEO to put a positive message forward, but here we are. It could have been. There was no intent to be hostile here. It was more like, “Why are you doing this?”

His blowing us off three times says he does not respect this committee; he does not respect Parliament, and, frankly, he does not respect the government, so why should we respect him? We have to infer motive at this point in time because of the actions of this man. It's unbelievable.

Please support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you.

Colleagues, on my list, I have MP Patzer, MP Masse, Monsieur Savard-Tremblay, Monsieur Généreux, Monsieur Arya and Monsieur Badawey.

Monsieur Patzer.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's pretty wild to think that this is the third time we are here with the wrong guest before us and that this individual, Mr. Staffieri, thinks this is okay.

As Ms. Rempel Garner was saying, it gets back to respect for authority, respect for these institutions we have within Parliament, and respect for Canadians at the end of the day. It's respect for the person who is paying the bills so that this CEO has the ability to live the life he lives and take the salary he takes. This is the way he's going to treat his customer base, the rest of Canadians and Parliament.

It's disrespectful. I feel disrespected. I know my colleagues do. I can't even imagine how the individuals who have been caught off guard and surprised by the changes to their bills feel about this.

The fact is that this guy has been afforded the opportunity to come multiple times to committee and try to clarify or explain what's going on and what the business decision is. As a Blue Jays fan, I was hoping he would come to the committee and tell us they're trying to make a full-court press on Juan Soto, but I don't think that's the reason and the rationale for this. I think it's a completely different thing. It's just absolutely wild.

I used to work in telecoms. There was a point in time when the company I worked for sold people an item and then I had to go and set it up. I got there; I went through all the work; the person tried it out, and they said, “Well, this isn't working the way I was promised it would work.” That was frustrating, as a person working on the ground, but the company took the initiative to try to be more transparent in the sales process and be really up front with the consumer by telling them, “Look, you've bought this. This is what you can potentially expect,” because at the time, they were offering an “up to” service instead of a guaranteed rate service.

Being more transparent with consumers is what this boils down to when it comes to the original issue at hand, which is the cost of bilking people who are in a fixed-term contract for extra money every month without even telling them. Imagine the callousness of not even sending them a month's notice or whatever, saying their bills are going to go up by this much a month. There wasn't even advance notice.

Again, that is so disrespectful to the people who are paying those bills. They're the people who signed on the dotted line, thinking that for this much money, they were locking in and guaranteeing a price. To find out that's not the case is crazy. It's absolutely crazy.

I think this is absolutely appropriate, because the level of disrespect the CEO is showing to Parliament, to Canadians, to ratepayers and to this institution is unbelievable. The original motion that Mr. Masse put forward is good, and I think this amendment strengthens it. It's important that we vote in favour of this amendment. I look forward to doing so.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, MP Patzer.

I have MP Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to my colleagues, and thanks also to Mr. Perkins for putting forth his amendment. It is, I acknowledge, more involved than mine. I built mine simply to also get the piece about invitation right out of there. I had the suspicion that other members of this committee would be equally enraged with regard to how this has been treated. I think Madam Michelle Rempel Garner mentioned the cost to Canadians of the delays and the cost to this committee—I should say to Parliament—but these practices also cost Canadians daily, and that's significant as well.

My original intent in trying to get at this issue was what was taking place.... It was well identified by the Rogers team, but it's a practice that is also partially used by other types of operators. I want to get to the issue, and that's why I wanted to follow up specifically on this.

With the amendment that's been proposed by Mr. Perkins, I really don't care to hear more excuses from Mr. Bains. I've been around here long enough, even with him as minister, to hear enough excuses on different things, and that doesn't really get to the issue and the decision-making. I think it's necessary.

It's clear that there's probably advice coming from Mr. Bains to the whole Rogers team on how to deal with Parliament and so forth. To be quite frank, I don't feel either way about that situation. I mean, we can have him here or not have him here. The reality for me is that I know what's going to happen. I'm going to hear a whole litany and inventory of excuses, and I just prefer to get to the source.

I agree, Mr. Perkins, that maybe we do need to talk to Edward Rogers at this point. I remember the Rogers family quite differently when I started in this place to where it's at right now. It used to be a Canadian icon with regard to building itself in radio telecommunications in particular. This weasel language that's now put in there is certainly very difficult for people to accept, especially when they're on fixed budgets and incomes and have expectations.

To go back to your amendment, I would like to test the waters to see whether or not we could just go right to the source of where we started with this, with Mr. Staffieri. As well, I just want to hear some clarification in terms of procedure about going to the Commons.

I have a copy of the original one that you sent in last night. This one that you're proposing here is a bit more involved, so I'm waiting to see if we're going to get a copy of that, but I'm open to those ideas.

Secondary to that, have that as an immediate backup if we want to report back to the House later on as well, and then, just a notation, maybe not at the end of Christmas but at the end of Parliament's scheduled sitting. I put in by December 12, but we could report any time before Parliament rises.

With that, those are my questions and concerns. I just want to point out, too, that we don't have unlimited time on this, so I'm hoping that we can get at least some consensus on your subamendment, Mr. Perkins.

I don't know where the Liberals are with this, but it's clear that, until we have him here—and this is what we were supposed to be here about—then we're treading water.

Again, I'll just complete with that and hear what other members are saying.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, MP Masse.

If I understand correctly, you're not suggesting a subamendment; you just want to float the idea of perhaps going back to the original motion, which was to invite Tony Staffieri. Also, maybe you had some issue with the delay. You're saying within seven days or perhaps December 12.

I understand that there's been maybe a mismatch between what we've received as paper copies here in the room and what you've gotten by email.

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

Could we suspend?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

That's not a bad idea. I think we'll suspend very briefly, just so that you get the proper information.

Mr. Savard‑Tremblay, I know you have something to say, but would you mind waiting a few moments? I want to make sure everyone has the same information.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Perkins will be sent, Mr. Masse, because I think there's been a mistake in what's been sent.

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

Actually, it isn't about the amendment. I would also like to propose something, but it can wait until after the break.

Since it appears there are no questions for Mr. Leech, I suggest that we let him go, if everyone agrees. I'm sure he has other things to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Is there any objection to letting Mr. Leech go? I don't think we'll get to his testimony.

I see no....

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I propose keeping Mr. Leech here, in case there isn't consensus on this.

I would specifically say that part of my amendment would be to remove Mr. Bains from it, but I don't really.... Again, I'm just trying to feel out the room here. At the end of the day, if we have to have Mr. Bains here, I'm okay with that too, but I would suggest that we keep the witness here so they can see exactly what they're doing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Okay. Thank you.