Industry Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2024

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I want to thank the mover for the motion. I think it is something that we should have as part of our deliberations here.

As Parliament, we set the terms and conditions of how the spectrum can be used in the public. We also control parts of the industry with regard to how they enact their own competition or don't have their own competition and how they treat their customers.

I think what's really unnerved me in some respects about the testimony here today is that it hasn't seemed to reach an understanding that it's not okay to treat Canadians differently if they have signed on for the exact same product. They have the same contract and everything, right down to the sentences from the start to the end of that contract. We allow a system in place for some to be disadvantaged. Those who are disadvantaged are probably the same people whom we often have to deal with in terms of society. They are, once again, treated as secondary citizens, even by these corporations.

I think that's why I'd like to see some more action on this in the future, because we do have a role and a responsibility for how this is conducted. I'm hoping the minister is listening and following some of this as well. The CRTC has said a little bit.

To conclude, I think it's important that we set some type of standard here that this is not okay. You literally have, in the Rogers universe, some customers subsidizing other customers because they're paying more for the same thing. It's because they had a friend somewhere or an insider. If they have somebody who can help them and they have endless amounts of time to fight, they can get a reduced cost. We need to protect the most vulnerable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, MP Masse.

MP Turnbull, you have the floor.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I do agree with some of the points Mr. Masse made here. I do note, to be honest, that I have found that the witnesses today, at times, haven't necessarily answered our questions in a fulsome manner, which is a bit concerning.

I know the CRTC has written a letter, which I have in front of me. There's obviously.... I'm not going to call it an “investigation”. I think they've called it a consultation process that is under way. I think it should be more of an investigation into what kinds of complaints consumers have.

I thought my colleague, MP Tony Van Bynen, in this committee, made a good comment about the fact that there is no real consumer protection agency in this space. That's another thing we can consider.

I note that the CRTC also referred to “consumer protection codes”. Those are tools designed to rebalance the relationship between customers and their service providers, and to empower, in particular, customers in those relationships. I don't know whether those need to be amended, but it looks like that's what the CRTC has signalled at the end of its letter.

I don't know what we could do to further investigate this as a possibility, but certainly, I know my constituents want to see the dominant players in this industry held to account for increases they've experienced inside of the contract terms that they signed on to. It seems that there are too many increases or things in flux that come as surprises to them. That's deeply concerning, because I think that's what Canadians really feel is unfair about the practices of some of the large companies that dominate this market.

Again, I relate to my colleague Mr. Sorbara when he said that he's not really opposed to businesses doing well. I'm not opposed to that. However, when it's at the expense of Canadians, when they feel as though they're not being treated fairly, that's a place where we need to stand up and help protect those consumers. This is really an opportunity for us to dig deeper into this issue and to ensure that we express our views.

As I said, I don't think that a report back to the House is necessary. We already voted on my proposed amendment, so I won't speak to that at length. However, in this particular case, we have a limited amount of House time, and we know that the Conservatives have been filibustering their own motion in the House of Commons for 37 or 38 days. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. The Conservatives get a committee to report something back to the House so that they can get a break from their filibuster.

They're filibustering to keep their own motion from being referred to the procedure and House affairs committee. I sit on the procedure and House affairs committee, and we've been waiting diligently for the motion from the House to be referred to us so that we can study the supposed question of privilege. We'd be happy to do that work in the committee, but the Conservatives, of course, are blocking their own motion from being referred to the procedure and House affairs committee.

This, in itself, is a procedural tactic that the Conservatives are using to give themselves a break so they don't have to continue filibustering on their own motion that they won't allow. It's an obstructionist tactic.

We could very easily express our points of view in this committee, and I think we've all done so quite well. Actually, I have been pretty happy with how this committee has been proceeding today. We've been largely on the same side, which is to protect Canadian consumers from what we perceive to be practices that are less than optimal for protecting those consumers' interests.

I really think that we can consider options for consumer protection codes or for a consumer protection agency of some kind. We can make recommendations, coming out of this study.

I think we should not allow the Conservatives to continue to filibuster in the House and then delay their own filibuster, which is just another obstructionist tactic.

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

The only filibustering is your unwillingness to abide by the House orders.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I have MP Battiste—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Perkins raises a good point. I appreciate his saying that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I'm sorry, Mr. Battiste. I thought that was over, but it's not quite.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I wasn't quite finished yet.

Mr. Perkins says that we didn't abide by the House order, which is not true. Certainly, the question—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Give me just one second, colleagues.

We started a little late. We've done the two hours of the meeting—

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

We can ask for more resources.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Yes, but I don't have more resources confirmed at this point.

Also, I'll just note that on Thursday we don't have a full panel of witnesses, and we could take time for some committee business to deal with this motion. I understand that there is a lot of agreement about having this committee send a clear message.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Turnbull, please....

I think that's been done today and at the last meeting, but I see and I can sense a desire to do more. Hopefully, we'll get parties to—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Perkins, go ahead.

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

I think that would be fairly useless, since the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry just said, with his microphone off, that he's going to filibuster on Thursday on this, because he's so afraid of talking about this and having it reported to the House. He's trying to hide behind the idea that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Perkins, that is not a point of order.

I'm hoping that the parties will find common ground before Thursday and that we can deal with this matter very swiftly, because everyone agrees that there needs to be a strong message from committee members and parliamentarians at large.

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

On a point of order, did we hear back on my request for...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I have not heard back.

We've done the two hours, Mr. Perkins, so I will have to adjourn this meeting.

Thank you to our witnesses.

Thank you, colleagues.

The meeting is adjourned.