Industry Committee on Jan. 25th, 2023

[Edward Iacobucci]

As you know, the commissioner did not bring a complaint about the wireline assets, so it's difficult for me.... Again, mergers are fact-intensive exercises. I'm not going to make an assessment from my armchair about wireline competition when I don't have any facts in front of me.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

That's fair, but when you have the dominant player in a tightly regulated oligopoly, as a general principle it's likely a bad idea to further concentrate that dominant position, isn't it?

[Edward Iacobucci]

If they don't compete in any significant way, the fact that they are both significant in their own markets but don't compete at the moment may suggest that this actually won't hurt competition going forward, in the short term.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

That's in the short term, though. We've heard testimony at this committee—repeatedly, actually—that excessive concentration itself hinders competition on a going-forward basis. It might not substantially lessen competition in the short term, but surely we should be concerned about long-term competitive prospects.

[Edward Iacobucci]

There's a debate about this, as you well know. It gets awfully speculative.

Lots of things can happen in the future. Worrying about competition because while they don't compete now, you never know, they might compete in the future is a pretty speculative basis for legal intervention, in my view.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

That's fair, although on the economic analysis, I don't think it's speculation to suggest that concentration hinders competition. That's really what we're talking about.

[Edward Iacobucci]

Concentration in markets hinders competition. When they're not overlapping or when they're not in the same market, it's not obvious that becoming bigger hurts competition.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

That's right, but then we define the markets in a very narrow context. In a perfect world, we're talking about expanding some of these players to compete nationally.

Taking a step back, I think you've fairly summarized in some ways the tribunal's and the court's decisions in saying that they came to the right decision on the law.

[Edward Iacobucci]

Yes.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

From a political standpoint though, should we be bound by the competition law in making a decision?

Should the minister be bound by the likely substantially lessened competition, or do you think the minister should be looking in a much more serious, pro-competitive way to see what is best for competition or Canadian consumers?

[Edward Iacobucci]

I think that the minister has the legal authority, as a starting point, to decide about how to transfer the spectrum. Obviously, as a political matter, there will be political things that feature in his decision-making, which I understand.

There's a lot involved. Mr. Lacavera's point about how essential wireless is to Canada is well taken, so there may be considerations that he may want to bring into play in thinking about whether to transfer the spectrum.

I think that when it comes to competition, the act gets it right by focusing on whether there will be a lessening of competition. I think the tribunal did a good job in applying the act, and the Federal Court of Appeal did a good job in reviewing the tribunal.

I hope that whatever the minister's decision-making is going forward, it focuses on things other than just competition, because I think the competition matters were well addressed already.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

The matters were substantially lessons. How do we make it “best”?

Anyway, we're out of time.

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Nate, and thank you, Mr. Iacobucci.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor for two minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to come back to the document that was filed with the court. If I may, I'll table it for the committee, as it is very relevant to our discussion. The document is in English. Since I can't ask Telus to translate it, allow me to table it as is.

It mentions direct public campaigns to get people to send messages to their MPs. That is what people are encouraged to do on the nomerger.ca site, which was authorized by Globalive.

The document states the following:

“Telus-Globalive network and spectrum sharing agreement announced to boost Globalive's bid to purchase Freedom Mobile”.

My question is for you, Mr. Lacavera.

You are also registered as a third-party stakeholder, as the founder and former owner of Wind Mobile.

Have you been in talks with Telus representatives? Did they consult you? If so, what is the nature of this agreement to support Globalive's bid? What is the amount?

[Anthony Lacavera]

Thank you for your questions.

I will answer in English to be clearer.

We have a spectrum and network-sharing agreement with Telus that is an important pillar of our proposal to acquire the current Freedom Mobile business, formerly our business. In that context, we've entered a spectrum- and network-sharing agreement with Telus.

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

But we are not talking about sharing here; we are talking about increasing Globalive's chances of having a successful bid. We are talking about cash here.

[Anthony Lacavera]

I am sorry. I misunderstood.

No. There is no funding of any kind from Telus to Globalive. That is not part of our proposal, and it was not part of our funded, all-cash offer to Rogers for Freedom Mobile.

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

I understand that you are at the head of a company that is involved in speculation.

How would you be able to live up to the hard, 10‑year commitment asked of Videotron if you were to acquire Freedom Mobile?

In speaking about the negotiations with Rogers, you said you had been muzzled.

When did you start negotiations? At what point would the negotiations be considered to be serious if you refused to sign a non‑disclosure agreement with the company?

[Anthony Lacavera]

I'm sorry. Could you repeat the translation, please?

I didn't catch that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Lemire, please speak more slowly.

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

I am trying to say a lot in a short time, since this situation is raising many questions.

Mr. Lacavera, I was saying that you are at the head of company that is involved in speculation.

How can you commit to living up to the firm 10‑year agreement asked of Videotron if you become the owner of Freedom Mobile?

When did you start negotiating with Rogers‑Shaw?

You said you were muzzled during negotiations with Rogers. How seriously can your actions be taken if you are refusing to sign an NDA?

[Anthony Lacavera]

There are a couple of things there. We did not sign the NDA because the NDA would, in fact, have prevented us from appearing before you today.

We signed an NDA that protected all of Rogers' confidential information, but we took out the components of it that would have prevented us from speaking to government about our proposal, prevented us from talking to capital partners or advisers, and given Rogers veto over them so they could shut our bid down before we even got it out.

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

Thank you, Mr. Lacavera.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire and Mr. Lacavera.

Mr. Masse, you have the floor for two minutes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Klass, there's been reference to the CRTC not only on this panel, but on other panels. It's played quite a dramatic role in the last two years in some of the things that have led up to this moment.

I want to get your opinion about the status of the CRTC right now, if you have any thoughts. There are issues over whether it even has the resources to be able to get through a lot of these things in a timely manner. We've seen decisions taking ages, affecting business plans.

I'm curious, because you don't have as much of a connection as others in the room will have with the CRTC decision-making basis. Could I get your opinion on that, please?