INDU Committee Meeting

     Good afternoon, colleagues. It's a pleasure to see you virtually again. It's 1:01, so I call this meeting to order.

    Welcome to meeting number 30 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), this meeting was requested by four members of the committee to discuss their request to undertake a study of the Rogers service outage.

    Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022.

    Members in the room—although I don't see any—are familiar with the health rules and should act accordingly.

    Good afternoon to the members participating via Zoom.

    I see Mr. Dong's hand is up.

    Go ahead, Mr. Dong. You have the floor.

    Chair, I want to thank you for calling this special meeting to address something that is, quite honestly, frustrating to a lot of Canadians. I definitely hear it from my community. I want to say to my good colleagues that I hope you're having a great summer, despite the fact that we had this service outage. It's really good to see everybody over Zoom.

    The outage is causing a lot of concerns and I think the public is owed some answers. This is not the first time it's happened, so as a committee, we owe the public a reporting on the plan going forward and the accountability attached to this service outage. I have a motion. I move:

    That is the motion for my honourable colleagues' consideration. I hope you can support it and we can get on with our work on the study as soon as possible.

    Thank you, MP Dong.

    MP Kram, the floor is yours.

    Mr. Chair, I would like to add to the motion that the industry minister, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, also be invited to appear before the committee and be included in the motion in addition to the Rogers executives and representatives from the CRTC.

    Thank you, MP Kram.

    If I understand correctly, your amendment would be, “the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry Canada, and that the committee...”.

    I think that's the part you're looking for, MP Kram. Thank you very much.

    We're just adding the minister. That's the amendment proposed by Mr. Kram.

    Is it accepted for the motion that was submitted by Mr. Dong?

    Mr. Chair, I have one more quick question.

    I didn't hear. Was the motion for two meetings or for at least two meetings?

    I didn't hear anything in what Mr. Dong said. We've had a lot of exchanges on this, so I'm kind of surprised that....

    Mr. Dong, is there something you'd like to add to the text of the motion?

    Yes. To clarify, my motion reads “that the Committee devote two meetings to this study before July 30”. It's two meetings. I didn't put “at least two meetings”.

    I'm happy to hear what other members have to say with regard to inviting Minister Champagne to this study.

     I get from what you're saying, Mr. Dong, that you agree with the proposed amendment.

    Thank you.

    I see Mr. Champoux, Mr. Boulerice and Mr. Erskine-Smith.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    In light of how the outage affected public safety and emergency services, there seems to be agreement among members on inviting the public safety minister, Mr. Mendicino.

    Adding that to the motion would be entirely appropriate.

    Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

    That means we have another motion. It's a bit unfortunate, I must say, since we already had a text everyone agreed on.

    We'll now go to Mr. Boulerice.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I think everyone agrees on the urgent need for this study and the fact that we need to do it as soon as possible. That's the case for me as well.

    My fellow NDP member, Brian Masse, was among those who made the request.

    I think two meetings is a good idea.

    The Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry needs to be there.

    I'm also in favour of Mr. Champoux's idea to invite the Minister of Public Safety given all the public safety issues that arose. It's a serious problem when you can't call 911 to request an ambulance for someone who is having a heart attack, whether it's a loved one or a stranger in the park. That's a national security issue, in my book.

    What's more, we can't just rule out the possibility of cyber-attacks from hostile countries, now or in the future. We have to have a system that is robust.

    It's important that we leave no stone unturned and ask all the right questions. We need to be able to do that, so I think we should invite the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry as well as the Minister of Public Safety.

    Before we go any further and so things don't get out of hand, I'm going to read what I understand to be the motion at this point, taking into account the Bloc Québécois and NDP amendments to also invite the public safety minister and to hold at least two meetings.

    The motion would cover those points and read as follows: “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on the recent service outages and disruptions experienced by Rogers Communications Inc. beginning on Friday, July 8, 2022; further, that the committee review 1) the causes of these disruptions, 2) the impacts service outages had on Canadian families, consumers and businesses, 3) best practices to prevent and mitigate outages in the future, and 4) given reports about Rogers customers not being properly notified, best practices to ensure that impacted Canadians are updated about service outages in a timely and transparent manner going forward; that the committee invite as witnesses representatives from Rogers and the CRTC, the Honourable François‑Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, and the Honourable Marco Mendicino, Minister of Public Safety; and that the committee devote at least two meetings to this study before July 30, 2022 and report its findings to the House.”

    I think that covers the amendments agreed upon by the parties, including inviting the public safety minister and holding at least two meetings by July 30.

    We will now go to Mr. Erskine‑Smith.

    Mr. Chair, I have a couple of things.

    One, I think it's important that we hear from François-Philippe Champagne.

     Thanks, Michael, for making sure that this was included, because I think it was an oversight.

    I think we're allowing ourselves to blow this thing up unnecessarily now when we start to add witnesses who are important witnesses to talk about public safety matters. When I was on the public safety and national security committee, we had CSIS officials in to discuss cyber-attacks. That's a really important conversation, but that's not the conversation we're having here in the context of this motion.

    The importance of a narrow focus here is accountability so we understand what happened and ensure that it will not happen again. Network resiliency is ultimately the responsibility of the CRTC and the industry minister, similar to the FCC in the United States, which I would say would be an important witness in this context, because it's squarely on point.

    I think, Mr. Chair, if we deal with it, maybe it makes sense to bring in the public safety minister if we hear testimony that would change my mind. At the moment, I much prefer very focused—we're talking about two meetings and two meetings only—conversations with Rogers, the CRTC and the industry minister. We can have a conversation with other witnesses that would make a lot of sense, and I would say FCC officials would make a lot of sense, but I think we're starting to expand the scope of this unnecessarily if we start to add other individuals at this point who aren't narrowly focused on the task at hand: How did this happen, and how do we make sure it doesn't happen again?

     Before I go to Mr. Dong and Mr. Kram, my understanding is we have an agreement. It was agreed by all parties before this meeting to invite Minister Champagne, the CRTC and Rogers. Now we're debating whether to invite the public safety minister for these meetings.

    Mr. Dong.

     Chair, I want to apologize to you that it was my mistake in missing that part. As to Michael's friendly amendment, I'm happy to add inviting Minister Champagne to the motion, which is fine. At the same time, I agree very much with Nathaniel's input. I can speak for myself. I want this study to be focused on Rogers and the CRTC to make sure...because again, this is not the first time this has happened. There are lots of things that need to be clarified. We've seen the subtle changes in communications on Rogers' part over the last few days.

    Again, many questions need to be answered, and I want this study to be focused on what happened on July 8.

    Mr. Kram.

    Mr. Chair, the way I see it, we should have some short-term goals and some long-term goals for this study. In the short term, I think it's important to have Rogers, the CRTC and Minister Champagne appear before the committee as soon as possible. I believe the motion said by the end of this month. I would also like to leave the option open for when Parliament resumes in the fall to bring in other relevant stakeholders as well. Let's focus on the short term in the short term, but not limit our options down the road.

    I'm also in favour of having Minister Champagne appear. As for the public safety minister, I don't know how that got into the motion, but if there is a will among the room, I am certainly willing to go along with that. If we want to leave him until the fall, that's okay too.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Kram.

    Mr. Champoux.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I want to thank the honourable members for their comments.

    Mr. Erskine‑Smith said we needed to focus on what happened on July 8. I would remind everyone that, as Mr. Boulerice pointed out a moment ago, people really suffered because the outage deprived them of access to 911 and other emergency services.

    When you're talking about public safety issues that serious, I don't think we are straying from what we are trying to do by asking the Minister of Public Safety to appear and tell us what he's thinking in terms of fail-safe mechanisms and backup solutions.

    Should we instead always leave public safety in the hands of other organizations and depend on the safety measures they take when it comes to 911 and other emergency services?

    Personally, I'm not opposed to having that discussion at a later time, if that is the will of the committee, in order to focus on the actual outage and ways to avoid these consequences going forward.

    However, the committee really needs to take an in-depth look at the collateral damage that a similar outage could have in the future. I think that's a much more serious problem.

    Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

    No one on the committee questions that. Given the discussions that have taken place, all the parties represented at the table want to hold those meetings. Everyone wants to get to the bottom of what happened and get answers to the important questions that were raised, including about public safety.

    That is why the motion, as brought before the committee, refers to at least two meetings. There is, however, the idea of remaining open to taking a deeper dive into the issue when we return in the fall. That may be what you're concerned about.

    It may very well be appropriate to hear from the Minister of Public Safety, but the two meetings may be why the two parties agreed on the three witnesses proposed. I just wanted to give you a bit of context.

    My understanding is that Mr. Kram's amendment to invite the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry has unanimous support. However, the matter of inviting the public safety minister, as Mr. Champoux and Mr. Boulerice are proposing, is still outstanding.

    Go ahead, Mr. Boulerice.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I won't say any more about having the public safety minister appear. The committee members will decide whether we vote on that subamendment.

    I do want to revisit one thing, though. I'm hearing two different things. In English, I'm hearing “two meetings”, but in French, I'm hearing “at least two meetings”.

    Mr. Dong was asked earlier, and according to him, what he said was “two meetings”, not “at least two meetings”.

    What's being referred to in French is “at least two meetings”. That needs to be cleared up.

    According to the text I saw and what I heard, the reference is to “at least two meetings before July 30”.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Dong. The language “at least two meetings before July 30” leaves the door open to more meetings in the fall.

    Is that correct?

     I proposed in the motion to have two meetings before July 30, but I'm open to adding the words “at least”. It's up to the committee.

    That's what I'm seeing in the text of what was circulated. It's “at least two meetings”. Is that correct?

    I'm okay with that.

    Thank you.

    Is the matter of inviting the Minister of Public Safety still being debated? I believe Mr. Champoux proposed that.

    Are you amenable to revisiting that in the fall, so we can focus on the actual outage?

    I'm quite amenable to revisiting that in the fall.

    Great.

    Now we go to Mr. Généreux.

    I am supportive of having the Minister of Public Safety appear at some point, but I'm not sure about hearing from him at the first two meetings.

    If we have two meetings, we need to coordinate the appearance of two ministers on the same day, depending on how long we meet for.

    The motion doesn't specify how long each meeting will be. Are we talking about two-, three- or four-hour meetings? It also doesn't say whether the two meetings will take place the same day or two days in a row.

    Are those things we're ready to work out now?

    No. My understanding, Mr. Généreux, is that it will depend on the availability of House resources.

    Since the parties had come to a fairly solid agreement, I discussed it with the clerk. We could meet the 25 and 26 of July, so a Monday and a Tuesday.

    We would have to see whether the two meetings could be scheduled on the same day, but they would be consistent with our usual practice. In other words, they would be two hours long.

    We now go to Mr. Deltell, followed by Mr. Erskine‑Smith.

    Then, if the motion is adopted, discussions on the two meetings could get under way.

    Over to you, Mr. Deltell.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Good afternoon.

    It's clear from today that not everyone is available in the middle of the summer.

    If, by chance, both ministers were available and we could get everything done the same day, we could schedule a large chunk of time in the morning and a large chunk in the afternoon. We could hear from the Rogers and CRTC representatives in the morning, and the two ministers in the afternoon. That way, we could cover everything, but the witnesses would all have to be available, of course.

    I think each time slot should be three hours long, not two. We're flying a little blind right now, since we don't know who will be available in two weeks.

    Don't forget that the Pope will be here, so there will be a lot going on those days. Keep that in mind. I mention it for the member who will be welcoming his Holiness the Pope to his riding.

    Thank you, Mr. Deltell.

     We have to adopt the motion before we invite any witnesses.

    Go ahead, Mr. Erskine‑Smith.

    I think that's a wise counsel, Mr. Chair, so let's move to doing that.

    Go ahead, Mr. Kram.

    Mr. Chair, for the sake of clarity, could we get you to read the motion one more time so we're all on the same page?

    Absolutely.

    I'll read the whole motion:

    Is everyone okay with the text of the motion as I just read it?

    (Motion as amended agreed to)

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Before I let you go and adjourn this meeting, it's very important for us to adopt our budget for the study on small and medium-sized enterprises.

    I see Mr. Généreux's hand is up.

    Go ahead, Mr. Généreux.

    As Mr. Deltell said earlier, if it were possible to hold both meetings the same day—ideally July 25—we could be in Ottawa Monday morning, fresh and ready to go.

    It's a bit trickier the rest of the week. Of course, we could find people to stand in, but as members of the committee, we want to be the ones at the meetings to the extent possible. If we could do it all in one day, that would be ideal.

    Duly noted, Mr. Généreux.

    Everyone around the table loves Ottawa, but it would be nice to be there for the shortest period possible or, at least, no longer than necessary.

    The clerk and I will do our best to figure out the best possible arrangement.

    Now we need to adopt the budget request for the study on small and medium-sized enterprises. Witnesses need reimbursing.

    A total of $17,750 is being requested for the study on small and medium-sized enterprises.

    Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the budget?

    (Motion agreed to)

    Thank you very much.

    Your comments are duly noted, Mr. Généreux and Mr. Deltell. Mr. Kram mentioned that to me as well. We will do our best to have as condensed of a schedule as possible the week of July 25.

    Please be aware that the deputy chair, Michael Kram, will be the one chairing the meetings, since I'm not available. Rest assured, you'll be in good hands. I asked him to be as fair to the Liberal members as I am to the Conservative, NDP and Bloc Québécois members.

    Seeing nothing further on the agenda, I want to thank everyone.

     The meeting is adjourned.