Industry Committee on Dec. 5th, 2024

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Chair, we started to talk about this motion in one of our previous meetings. I think I made my view known, which was that I agree with the overall sentiment of the motion, but I don't particularly agree with the “report back to the House” portion of it.

I'd like us to be solutions focused. I think this study and work that we've been doing has been very collegial. It's one of the rare occasions where most of the parties are on the same page.

I don't particularly want to make this a partisan game. I think that the current proposal is to be able to report back to the House so that the Conservatives can get a break from their current filibuster, to say things in the House that I think.... We've heard this from the Conservatives before, in terms of their arguments about the government not doing enough on competition, etc.

It turns it into a bit of a partisan attack on the government. What I would appreciate is for us to remain solutions oriented.

I want to propose an amendment that I think gets to the heart of what we're here to do and turns this into what I think could be a very constructive motion.

I would like to propose the following amendment in an effort to bring us together here: “That the committee condemn Rogers Communications for not proactively disclosing the true costs of their products and services to consumers, and notes the detrimental impact of the lack of competition in the telecommunications sector is having on Canadian consumers; and calls on the CRTC to do a full review of the matter of price certainty and the issue of surprise fees increasing during fixed-term contracts, and urge that it take regulatory action.”

This is our committee urging the CRTC, so what it really adds——

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

On a point of order—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Turnbull, there's a point of order.

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

I'd like a ruling on the admissibility of the amendment on two points.

First of all, we've already dispensed with a proposed amendment to remove “report to the House”, which was rejected by the committee, so I don't think it would be in order on those grounds. Second, it's also a substantive amendment that considerably changes the scope and intent of the motion.

Particularly on the first point, the committee has already rejected the amendment to remove “report to the House”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, MP Rempel Garner.

I was listening to the amendment. I haven't received it in writing.

It would be helpful, MP Turnbull, if you could circulate it to MPs so that I can look into it more closely, but I would be interested in listening to what you have to say to the point of order raised by MP Rempel Garner.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

My feeling is that this amendment that I am proposing to the original motion maintains a large amount of the sentiment of what Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner had proposed in our last meeting.

I think it does change the substance of it to focus on an actual call to action by the CRTC. I think it doesn't necessarily change the overall.... I believe it's an amendment, just like any other amendment that I've seen in committee, that adds something of value. However, I think that also changes whether it should be reported back to the House.

In the last committee meeting, I had proposed not to report back to the House, and the committee decided on that. We decided on it based on the understanding of how the motion was worded, without a solution that was being recommended or a call to action to the CRTC being added.

My feeling is that now that I am proposing an amendment that is solutions-oriented, it changes whether we need to report back to the House or not, so I think—

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

On that point of order—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I've heard you, Mr. Turnbull.

Thank you.

We have MP Rempel Garner.

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

Pursuant to the rules associated with committee, you can't do indirectly what you've already done directly, and you can't redispose of a matter that's already been disposed of by the committee.

I understand that Mr. Turnbull does not want a report to the House. However, the substantive component of the original motion was to report back to the House. We've already had a vote on that, so I would argue that this is not in order. If he wants to amend the motion with the House report in there, I suppose that would be in order. However, we've already taken a vote on that, so his amendment would not be in order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Colleagues, I'm torn, to be frank. I've heard some good arguments by MP Rempel Garner and good arguments by MP Turnbull, but here's where I side.

Given that MP Turnbull's amendment introduces the notion of calling on the CRTC to do a full review, which was not part of the initial motion, I would be willing to accept his amendment as is. However, I'll note that if it's the committee's will with this amendment to still keep the reporting to the House, it can also be introduced as a subamendment to Mr. Turnbull's amendment.

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

I challenge the chair on the ruling.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

My ruling has been challenged, Mr. Perkins. This calls for a vote right now.

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

Would it be possible to get the proposed amendment in writing first?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Yes, let's have the amendment proposed by MP Turnbull distributed. I'll suspend briefly, but when we come back, we have no choice but to vote.

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

Then we'll vote on your ruling, and perhaps on the amendment. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Yes. We will vote on my ruling, which is to allow the amendment to pass, with the caveats that I explained. We will therefore vote on my ruling when we return from the break.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Colleagues, we'll resume, because time is running out.

I believe, MP Rempel Garner, that you are withdrawing your challenge.

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

I'm not. I'm proceeding.

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

I would like—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

We'll go to a vote, Mr. Savard‑Tremblay.

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

Okay. Otherwise, I could have proposed a subamendment. I find it unfortunate that your authority is being challenged, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

We have to vote now. Whenever I have a challenge to a ruling, it goes straight to a vote.

Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)

The amendment is not acceptable, then.

We're back to the original motion.

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

If Mr. Turnbull wanted to propose the same thing without eliminating the possibility of reporting to the House, I would be prepared to consider it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

You would be prepared to consider the proposed amendment, but it should therefore retain the part about reporting to the House.

That's what Mr. Savard‑Tremblay is proposing.

However, you're not moving that amendment, Mr. Savard‑Tremblay. Did I understand correctly?