Industry Committee on Jan. 25th, 2023

[Dr. Bryan Keating]

I'm actually not an expert in Globalive's business. As I understand, it is affiliated with or run by an individual who has been involved in the telecom business in Canada before.

From my perspective, I guess the important thing to think about is that they don't have the assets that Videotron has. They don't have, in particular, licences for spectrum at 3.5 gigahertz.

If you're thinking about what's the best allocation of resources in the Canadian economy and how best to deploy spectrum that's already licensed, going back to the question that was asked before, the divestiture transaction with Videotron is the best possible combination of network assets that I can see in the Canadian economy. You're combining Freedom's network assets and Videotron's network assets. That's something Globalive, as I understand it, does not have.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Keating.

I'd like to come back to Project Fox, because there are some interesting aspects to it that are worth pointing out. One thing that opponents of this merger are doing is local campaigns with their MPs. They're also campaigning with the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry to scuttle the deal.

They are also trying to provoke a sense of alienation among activists by using phrases like “scuttle the deal” and “postpone the ruling”.

Oh, and while we're at it, could we review the Competition Act? That's just a coincidence. Might we also encourage third-party acquisitions, as Mr. Lacavera suggests in particular by promoting the NoMerger.ca initiative on his Twitter account to urge the public to oppose the merger? OpenMedia is kind of doing the same thing by urging the public to write to Minister François‑Philippe Champagne.

My question to Ms. Bednar and Dr. Quaid is this: What do you think of these strategies, which supposedly involve Canadians but are commissioned by a business for lobbying purposes? Is it truly an independent process?

[Dr. Jennifer Quaid]

Mr. Lemire, in my opinion, you're raising a thorny issue. When individuals mobilize the people out of self-interest, you have to wonder how that serves the public interest.

That's why I always hammer away at the same idea, that I support public consultations. I constantly encourage all members of the public to speak out during this consultation, no matter what they have to say. In my view, government and parliamentarians have a duty to hear from the people in an unfettered manner, with no labels, no packaging, and so on.

On the other hand, you can't completely ignore mobilization attempts either, because members of the public aren't always in a position to properly structure their opposition. So I'm lenient about that, because I know that, right or wrong, true desire and true frustration must be expressed. It's not my place to say who's right or wrong.

However, it's clear to me that we have a gap between the people's understanding and the legal and economic understanding of this transaction's implications. A balance must be struck between the two if we want to avoid a revolt over the process.

I feel that no one benefits from the public being skeptical of the merger rating and assessment system, among other things. I believe we all have a vested interest in making sure we close that loophole. However, I'm not necessarily the person who can do that. I'm doing what I can, but I think that collectively we need to inform the public. I understand these mobilization efforts, even though they may be clumsy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much.

We will now go to Mr. Masse for two and a half minutes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Keating, there's been a lot of talk about costs for consumers, but what does your analysis say about the jobs and employment for the various companies that are involved?

[Dr. Bryan Keating]

I think it's fair to say that neither we nor the bureau's economists focused on the labour aspect of the transaction, so it's not something I'm well positioned to comment on. We were focused on the effect on prices, on quality and on consumers.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Wouldn't that be important for your estimation of whether Videotron is going to act this time with regard to spectrum? We've seen what Elon Musk has done with Twitter without employees.

The most important thing behind all of this is, of course, that while we have our own pocketbooks and our own costs, these are real people and real jobs. It affects the companies' capabilities to roll out the promises that are projected.

Why wouldn't that information be part of an analysis?

[Dr. Bryan Keating]

I absolutely agree that thinking about jobs and employment is important, especially to the people most directly affected.

With respect to thinking about Videotron's incentives and their plans going forward, that's not primarily driven by what's going to happen to employment per se. It's driven by competitive incentives.

I think it's clear from the competitive analysis—both from what we did and from what the bureau's experts looked at—that because Videotron is going to have so much capacity, a really good network and strong incentives to go out and compete, it should, in principle, ultimately be good for employment. However, it's not something we analyzed directly.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I want to conclude by saying that there probably hasn't been enough conversation about that. We talk about the cart and the horse and all of those things. We're missing a component here.

How does any of this stuff roll out and how are promises made if employment isn't analyzed in this whole endeavour? There can be no expectations...that we've received, aside from promises, which I have seen for so many years on this.

Thank you very much to the witnesses for being here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

I'd also like to thank all the witnesses who took part in this exercise this morning.

Thank you for sharing your views with us.

I'd like to advise committee members that we will reconvene in 45 minutes for further hearings.

The meeting is adjourned.