Industry Committee on Oct. 24th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Mr. Richardson.

Now on to Mr. Thibeault, who I think is going to cue it up and then share with his colleagues.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Very quickly to Mr. Lord, you were talking about the coverage being 99%, I think it was, except for remote and under-serviced areas.

I represent the riding of Sudbury, a great city. We have great service in the city. Go 20 minutes outside the city and you cannot get service. I'm meeting with constituents, businesses, who are saying they can't even access online banking because they have to use dial-up. And if anyone remembers what dial-up was like, it was like watching paint dry to see this thing come up. When you're part of that 1%, it's a huge issue. The government could come in, I believe, with broadband, but is there anything that companies--telecom, or whoever--are looking at doing to start addressing and helping that 1% in the remote and under-serviced areas?

[Bernard Lord]

It's happening now. The surface area that's being covered continues to expand.

That's why I said earlier that if there is one place government can step in, it's there. Governments have stepped in before for similar reasons. In the case of electricity, government stepped in to support remote and underserved areas, because economically it didn't work. If government decides that this is an area that's so important that everyone needs to be covered, then this is an area where government should step in. But it should step in in such a way that it remains neutral in terms of technology and doesn't step in the way of the rest of this that will happen on its own.

I'm certainly not advocating what took place with electricity when the government decided to nationalize electricity. I don't think that's the solution, and I want that on the record.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

All right.

I'll hand off to Madame LeBlanc.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

I would like to pursue the discussion on the same subject. I believe that Canada has innovated tremendously because of the challenges it faces relative to its territory, its climate and its demography.

How can we continue to innovate in order to overcome the challenges we face in the digital world? Indeed, we must be able to serve everyone and to avoid having two classes of citizens: those living in urban areas and those living in rural regions, those who are younger and those who are older, etc.

[John Weigelt]

That's an interesting question.

I have the good fortune to be able to look at the worldwide environment with my colleagues in similar roles. It's interesting to see how some other nations have solved some of the tough challenges of reaching out to disadvantaged regions.

I point to an example in India, where they essentially used off-the-shelf Wi-Fi—those wireless access points with specialized antennas that cost $30 from Radio Shack—and were able to project the Wi-Fi signal 30 miles and were therefore able to support five eye clinics in order to do cataract surgery. There, in an inexpensive way, they were able to connect up a community using wireless across a broadly distributed region, with one connection to a central hub.

As we look towards that kind of disadvantaged region, are there some similarities here in Canada that we can look at and say there may be a school or a library or a hospital that is an anchor institution, and that we could broadcast from that facility to reach some in the community, perhaps reaching out the 20 or 30 kilometres for businesses in Sudbury? We could do so, looking not at a gold-plated solution but one that provides meaningful access, and does so inexpensively.

It has the follow-on advantage of being able then to project that experience of reaching out to a widely distributed community, when we look at serving regions like those in India or to build out the infrastructure in Africa as that continent emerges and requires that foundation—or even in China. So it's about leveraging the experience that we have in reaching the community and seizing business opportunities elsewhere in the world.

[Bernard Lord]

Allow me to say two things in answer to your question.

In Canada, there already exist solutions to those problems. Let us take, for example, New Brunswick. Indeed, 100% of New Brunswickers have access to high speed Internet. That is one example. Various technologies have been used to reach this objective.

One must however be careful. There are different technologies that exist and that can provide acceptable results, but that do not necessarily deliver the best results everywhere. Indeed, certain technologies give better results in areas where there is a higher concentration of people than elsewhere.

I would like to add another very important thing. We are talking about innovation, but it is not solely up to the government to innovate. Individuals everywhere must innovate. It is fine and dandy for the government to adopt all sorts of policies and programs and to spend all of the money at once, but if individuals fail to adopt innovation as simple second nature, there is nothing that the government will be able to do. It is therefore essential to encourage people to adopt the technology and to innovate. Innovation also means changing one’s way of thinking.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lord.

Now we go on to Madam Gallant for five minutes.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As Canadians become more dependent on their mobile phones for paying bills and doing transactions, they're also increasing their data use. There are different plans for data use, and people are often told they can do whatever they need to do and that these plans will cover it. But as they use their mobile phones more and more, they get a surprise bill of several hundred dollars for one month.

My question is, what measures are in place, for consumers who are using their devices, to know where they are, so to speak, in terms of data usage as they use their devices through the month for these different applications?

[Bernard Lord]

There are different mechanisms in place to enable consumers to know. First and foremost, consumers obviously need to know what plan they have, if they have a plan. Is it prepaid, post-paid, and how does it work? That's number one: the consumer needs to be informed, needs to have that information.

But there are different programs that you can access from your smart phone. You can look at your account and see, minute to minute, how much data you've consumed and where you are in your plan. Certain devices have apps that will do it for you, and there are providers that will send you notices to let you know you're getting close to your limit.

So there are different options. I will not say there's one option among all carriers; some see a competitive advantage in the way they interact with their clients to give them that information.

What's important is to make sure that consumers can get that information so they can make choices for themselves.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

How can consumers and businesses save money at a per-transaction level? By using a phone to make payments, for example, they are using air time, which has a cost; whereas in making a payment online using the Internet, their router cost is already covered by the subscription, and a paper copy of the transaction can be printed for reconciliation purposes.

On the part of business, the start-up costs for SMEs are very costly, the flat fees to accept electronic payments are very high, and unless all of their customers are agreeing to pay online at once, they're in the hole for several months.

So can you explain to me how both the consumer and the SME that wants to accept electronic payments can save on a per-transaction level?

[Bernard Lord]

Not all mobile payments will go through the wireless networks. What you described as the monthly fee part of your package at home for Internet use could be the same on your device, because the consumer has that option. The consumer has the option of buying different plans that will satisfy his or her needs. I think protecting the choice of consumers is what's essential to making markets work.

But some of the e-technology that's being envisaged and some that is being deployed now does not communicate through the broad wireless network. When you're using near-field communications between your device and the receptor, it's not going through the wireless network per se, so there is no additional fee in that sense.

There are different options for consumers, and consumers will want to use what works best for them. They may be willing to pay a fee, and in some cases they may not be. It depends on what they want. The merchants will respond to their consumers. That's why we see most merchants accepting credit cards, even though there is a fee to the merchant. There is a small percentage of merchants in Canada that will not, because they don't feel it's good for their business. But they have that choice.

I think protecting the choice of the consumer and protecting the choice of the merchant is what is essential to making markets work.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Going back to the cloud technology, which is really more secure, cloud technology or a stationary server in one place that could be vulnerable to hacking?

And if a consumer is accessing a server or a cloud—for example, Google Cloud Connect, whereby you can have multi-access schedules as long as your connectivity and electricity are in place—how does the basic consumer know what kind of technology he or she is accessing when doing business?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Cheryl, you're actually out of time.

Can you make that answer very brief?

[John Weigelt]

For the most part, the service providers will have, in their terms of service and their acceptable use policies, a description of how that service is provided and whether or not it's provided inside or outside of Canada.

I think it's important to note that trying to compare the security of a server and the cloud is very difficult. You might have a very secure server and an insecure cloud or vice versa, because, fundamentally, the technologies can all be secured or they may be left with the doors wide open.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Weigelt. I appreciate that. I know that the clock sometimes makes it difficult.

Now we move on to Mr. Regan for five minutes.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lord, the second point you make is that what the industry minister requires is greater predictability and longer-term planning for spectrum access and allocation.

Should there be set-asides? Should there be caps?

We're hearing about an auction or auctions for the 700 megahertz band and the 2500 megahertz band. Should those be separate or together?

[Bernard Lord]

As I'm sure you can appreciate, Mr. Regan, I represent a lot of members. Some of our members are for it and some are against it. We're for our members.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Bernard Lord]

So we are in favour of options. But different members have different points of view on whether or not caps should be set aside, and I'll let them work that out with all of you. What's important overall and where there is agreement is that there is a need for more spectrum and a schedule to release the spectrum over time.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Does someone else on the panel have an answer to the questions I just asked?

You wouldn't touch it, would you? They are all clients of yours, right?

That reminds me, in 1970s, there was a fisheries minister in Nova Scotia. There was a dispute among fishermen, and the fishermen asked him who he supported. He answered that he supported the fish. Good answer.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Let me turn to a report from the Chamber of Commerce that says the government should undertake a comprehensive public awareness program to educate the private and not-for-profit sectors about their new obligations—this is under the Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act—and that organizations should be provided sufficient time to implement compliance programs. If spam is bad and we're against spam, then when should somebody be able to send an email to somebody who hasn't asked for that email? What are the circumstances in which a message that's seeking business should be able to be sent? Isn't that the question?

Who would like to answer that?

[Chris Paterson]

It should be as soon as reasonable consent is met.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

What's that?