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.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I don't think that would be in order, because essentially what Mr. Arya is doing is trying to amend the motion back to its original form.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
I will disagree, because the original form called to “invite”. What I understand from Mr. Arya, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, is that he's fine with the committee issuing a summons.
Mr. Arya, you just want to remove the second part, which is reporting to the House.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
I will reject that point of order. I think it's in order.
The subamendment that Mr. Arya is proposing would be that, basically, the motion would read: “That, consistent with the motion passed by this committee on Monday, October 28, 2024, the committee summons Rogers CEO Tony Staffieri, to appear before the committee for a minimum of two hours within seven days following the adoption of the motion.”
That would be it. That's the subamendment proposed by Mr. Arya. I'll get back to the list once we've dealt with this. On the subamendment proposed by Mr. Arya, which is removing reporting to the House, I have Mr. Perkins and then MP Rempel Garner.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I thought MP Arya was bang on until he wrapped up his concluding paragraph, which was to neuter this. This individual, Staffieri, has stuffed and stonewalled this committee all year, three times. He has better things to do in his little office on Bloor Street than to come and be accountable to the people who represent all Canadians, and I've had enough. He needs to know the consequences of ignoring the summons again.
If he ignores it, he's going to be admonished and brought to the bar of the bloody House of Commons. I've had enough, and for the Liberals to go and say, oh no, let's give him a fourth chance, let's give him a fifth chance.... How many times do you have to be kicked in the you-know-what by this guy before you actually say you've had enough?
I've had enough. Yes, I'm bloody mad. I'm bloody mad that these guys are so contemptuous of Parliament that they're above it, earning their $10 million to $20 million a year; that they don't need to lower themselves to come here. The last time he was here, he lost his Zoom call, because he didn't have the guts to show up in person. And I dare him, when he's had a summons, to have the guts to show up here instead of sitting in his office in Toronto with his faulty Wi-Fi, which collapsed in the middle of the last time he was here. Thank God he had access to Bell's, I guess, because that's how he must have got back on the committee.
This is pathetic, and the fact that every member of Parliament and every Canadian isn't outraged at the arrogant nature of this individual, who refuses to be held accountable to Parliament, when Parliament gives him the spectrum that allows him to do what he does in overcharging Canadians. To remove this is, to me, the worst possible signal you could send to this individual.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you, MP Perkins. Let's be mindful of the tone and the words that we use with regard to Mr. Staffieri as well. I understand the frustration, but just please tread carefully, colleagues.
We have MP Rempel Garner.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I agree with the need to have a punishment or an admonishment attached to this motion, for the following reasons.
I guarantee you that right now, the legal counsel and the GR team at Rogers are saying there's no penalty associated with avoiding a summons, so they're just going to blow it off again. I guarantee you that's what's happening. If you don't believe me, all you need to do is ask millions of Canadians.
I have someone who's very close to me who went for, I believe, three weeks without the Internet. They were on hold multiple times with Rogers, had multiple technicians come out and were charged multiple times. This is somebody who is a very intelligent and very determined person, but Rogers' customer service was essentially built on the principle that it doesn't need to do anything; it's going to go to the ends of whatever contractual or legal obligations it has and then try to violate them.
It does that with its customers, and now it's doing it with parliamentarians. Colleagues, if we do not have some sort of admonishment attached to this, I guarantee you that is what this company will do again with its CEO. He's blown us off three times.
Again, just to the company, I cannot believe the company has made me, as a parliamentarian, spend two hours debating this motion this morning. I am so furious that my time has been wasted in this way and that it thinks my time is worth nothing. I want to equate it back to its customer service level. If it's willing to make tens of millions of Canadians wait on hold for an endless amount of time for customer service, why should we expect anything less?
Colleagues, it's very important that we have that admonishment attached here, so that when Rogers' legal and GR teams go back and ask whether they should they put him in front of this committee or not, they have to at least weigh the corporate brand reputational damage of having a parliamentary admonishment to a company that heavily benefits from government intervention through regulation, direct subsidies and other incentives.
I really want to reject Mr. Arya's assertion. I think we have to escalate this. Going back to the motion as amended by Mr. Masse and Mr. Perkins, it works well. Let's get on with life.
I really hope this man apologizes to everybody on this committee. I would certainly love a personal apology from him for wasting my time, my staff's time and, frankly, the time of the 120,000 or so people I represent.
Thank you.
Liberal
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, I know that if the summons is not honoured, we can take the next step, but a summons carries much more weight than a plain invite.
I think we should give it its due. Otherwise, we are diluting it, and every time any committee issues a summons, we'll also have to attach the next threat that if the summons is not honoured, we are going to do this.
Let's issue the summons. If the management team at Rogers has slightly above average intelligence, it will understand the seriousness of it, and I think it will oblige. At least, that's my opinion. If it doesn't, obviously, we can take the next step.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I can't support the subamendment for a couple of reasons.
First of all, Rogers management team had no hesitation, like this committee is showing right now, when it decided to enact weasel words in clauses to increase the cost to consumers. You look at the response that's come from Rogers on this practice.
If you're a single mom who has to go to work, and you don't have two to three hours to be on the phone to try to get your bill corrected or lowered, or to have it live up to the original contract that you expected when you signed, or if English is your second language or you're a person with a disability.... Their response to this has created a privileged system to reward those who can fight for their rights to get lower costs versus demographically challenged individuals who don't have the same luxury of time because they're not either semi-retired or fully retired and able to spend endless hours. Maybe they don't have consumer advocacy skills that can meet the professionally trained individuals on the other end of the phone.
With that said, I just want to move on. I think any time that we delay on this.... The seriousness of it is very significant, because it's a social justice issue to me as a New Democrat as much as it is a pocketbook issue for Canadians and consumers.
The failings of this are not just the cost of the box related to your personal contract. There's also the societal cost of pulling winners and losers out of Canadian citizens because of their skill sets related to how they can defend themselves and their families from these contractual arrangements. These contracts, which can be manipulated not only by what is put in fine print but also later on by phone, show how the fine print is measured and determined on your final bill. It's all wrong.
For all those reasons, I support Mr. Perkins' amendment to my original motion. I don't support this one that's being put forth, because it's this serious, and I want to move on. I don't want to be sending signals that we have some type of reservation about doing what we can do. Perhaps what we're suggesting here has to go even further, which I am prepared to do.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you, Mr. Masse.
We're still on the subamendment proposed by Mr. Arya.
Looking at my list, I have Jeremy Patzer.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would just say to Mr. Arya that I don't want to waste another meeting having to draft another motion to make another request for him to come to Parliament for an admonishment after the fact.
In other committees, we've already seen people ignore a summons to committee in this Parliament. It's been done, so I think we should show them what transparency looks like, and guess what? We have a motion, and here are the consequences if you don't show up. It's going to be an admonishment; you're going to be dragged to the bar in Parliament, and we're going to deal with this right then and there.
Maybe we could scribble it into some little fine print at the bottom of the motion so nobody will read it, and maybe that would work. We could do the same to them as they're doing to Canadians when it comes to jacking up prices on what is supposed to be their fixed contract. Maybe that would be a good way to go about it. I don't know.
To the points my colleagues have already made, there needs to be something written in here to show that there are consequences. It's good to go straight to the summons, but there needs to be something backing that up right behind it. I think we need to write a very strong, compelling motion that says that this committee and Parliament mean business. We're not something to be ignored or something to be pushed by the wayside. We take seriously what's going on, and there are consequences for the behaviour that we are seeing from the CEO of this company.
I think we should demonstrate to them what our intentions are, put it right here on paper and make it loud and clear, so that there is no misinterpreting and no confusion as to what we mean. We'll show them what it means to communicate clearly, and we can clearly communicate that, if you do not show up, you will be brought before Parliament, and you will be dealt with.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
In order for that to happen, though, I think the filibuster would need to stop, so that's something to keep in mind.
MP Van Bynen.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
At your suggestion, Mr. Chair, I will be brief.
Number one, I think we should follow due process. As a committee, we shouldn't allow our anger and our assumptions to lead what's being said in this amendment. I think we should follow due process.
We are now giving Mr. Leech an opportunity to speak truth to power. I'm sure he's going to let Mr. Staffieri know the mood, the tone and the intentions of this committee.
I think we're jumping the gun with the amendment that talks about the interim report, because we're making the assumption that he's not going to respond to the summons, and I don't think that's appropriate, so I would support the amendment.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Colleagues, I have no more speakers on my list, so I will ask the clerk to put the subamendment to a vote.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
This brings us back to the amendment to the motion. I have two more speakers on my list. I have MP Badawey and then MP Gaheer.
November 28th, 2024 / 9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
A quick question is all I had. The UC motion that we passed last meeting had other names on it. Have we heard from those individuals?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Yes, they have been invited. We've had confirmation that they received the invitation, but no firm date. However, they are invited as part of this study.
Bell and Telus have also been invited. My hope as chair is that we can get them all together, because time is running out. It would be within the next seven days, ideally.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
I think it will not be lost on Bell to listen to what's happening at this committee, and it will perhaps be more responsive than it's been thus far.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
That's one of the reasons I asked the question. It can be part of a future motion.