Finance Committee on Feb. 17th, 2016

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Thank you very much.

My next question is for Kurt.

You said that usage in Canada is one of the highest in the world in terms of data, which is good to know. Around this table I'm sure everybody has one or two phones. One of your suggestions was about the depreciation rates on the capital cost allowance on infrastructure equipment. You said the benefit from that would be reinvested into the wireless infrastructure.

Is there any component of that suggestion that could be transferred to customers? We may use a lot of data, but we also pay a lot more in Canada than in other countries for it.

[Kurt Eby]

To answer that question, we don't typically pay a lot more than other countries that use a similar amount of data. You'll see these countries that use similar amounts of data on similar quality networks pay about the same, especially on an affordability basis.

The request is that this change would free up more capital to invest, and that's what we're here pursuing.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Is it strictly from an infrastructure perspective?

[Kurt Eby]

Yes, exactly.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

I have had interactions with people in your industry. I used to be a co-op student at Bell Canada back in the day...well not too far back in the day. We used to get scolded for the fact that it was so much more expensive to operate a cellphone here than it was with our partner in the south, the United States. I still hold that to be true. When I speak to my family members down south, and the infrastructure is about the same, they say they have a great network. We have a great network here, yet our Canadian customers pay a lot more.

This industry is heavily regulated by the CRTC, and it's basically all the big major players making a lot of money.

You're asking for additional funds here, and you're saying you're going to invest it in infrastructure. I get the economic argument, but is there any realization to say that customers should be saving from this as well?

[Kurt Eby]

Again, it's about infrastructure.

To go back to what you said about the U.S., the World Bank just released data this week on the affordability of wireless. Looking at what people pay on average as a percentage of their monthly income, wireless is more affordable in Canada than in the U.S.

A recent study showed that the slowest LTE network in Canada is faster than the fastest LTE network in the U.S. I think on that level we do quite well.

I don't talk to my members about pricing or what they charge consumers at all. We're not allowed to do that as a trade association, so I can't comment on that.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Fair enough.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'll have to cut you off right there, Mr. Grewal. You didn't leave much time to share with the parliamentary secretary.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

My apologies.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have 30 seconds to do justice to five great submissions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll turn to Mr. Richards. I believe Mr. Richards was the chair of the all-party tourism caucus last Parliament.

Mr. Richards, the floor is yours.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Correct. You can probably guess where a lot of my questions will go as the official opposition critic for tourism.

My riding has our beautiful Rocky Mountains in it, with Banff and all it has to offer, and Canmore, so tourism is obviously a prime focus of mine. I do have some questions for you, Ms. Bell, but never fear to the other panellists. I do have some colleagues here who I'm sure will have some great questions for you as well.

There are a couple of areas that I want to ask about. You mentioned in your remarks about what we call the connecting America campaign. I'm going to quickly read from the press release that you put out after last year's budget. The quote from you says, “Today's federal budget promises to improve Canada's global competitiveness in attracting U.S. visitors, and strengthen the travel industry's ability to create jobs and wealth for Canadians in every region.” It goes on to say, “The federal budget includes important measures for the Canadian travel and tourism industry, specifically a commitment to invest in TIAC's Connecting America marketing proposal.”

With that context in mind, I'm really glad to hear at the recent federal-provincial tourism ministers' council that it sounds like the current government which is still in its infancy is looking to continue with that investment that we had announced in our budget last year. I certainly hope we can see them follow our lead on a few more things like fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets, but that's another story.

I want to get a sense from you, though. Obviously there is a lot of opportunity there right now. The low dollar you mentioned is a small part of that, but obviously, a lot of other factors come into play as well, including the fact that we're investing in marketing. You mentioned the desire to see an even greater investment for marketing through Destination Canada. Are there a couple of other suggestions you might have on ways the government could build on the increased visitation that we're seeing from the United States? I've heard it from the tourism operations in my riding, from people all across the country. In fact, just before I came here, I was talking on the phone to an operator on one of the ski hills and he was saying that they've seen about a 15% increase in business this year over last year, and about half of that was coming from the U.S.

Could you give us a couple of other specific ideas or suggestions on ways that we could build on the opportunities that there are from the U.S. right now?

[Charlotte Bell]

There's no question that building awareness in the U.S. through marketing is clearly the primary way of doing that. You can see there's a direct correlation between the amount of money that was invested in the past and visitation. You can see when Destination Canada or the Canadian Tourism Commission stepped away from U.S. marketing. Those numbers reduced significantly. There were other factors that you have to take into account. There was 9/11, SARS, the economic downturn. There are a number of other factors that played into that, but the reality is that in order to really build those numbers, we really need to capitalize on the opportunity that we have now. There's an economic recovery that's happening in the U.S. Now 40% of Americans have passports, which was not the case 10 years ago, and the loonie is low. While we have this opportunity it is time to take advantage of it. If we wait too long. what will happen invariably is we will go back to the levels we've seen in the past.

Year to date, U.S. visitation is up 8%, and to some extent I think that's related to the low dollar. We just want to make sure that we're capitalizing on that.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thanks.

I have just a little bit of time left and I want to ask about parks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You have one minute, and that includes the answer.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I want to ask about parks, because in the Liberals' platform, they talk about wanting to limit development in parks. That's really a contrast, I think, to what you saw with us. Obviously, just last year there was $2.8 billion in investment in parks infrastructure. I think it's so important to provide good products and good visitor experiences for people in our national parks. I wonder if you could give us your thoughts on that. Do you think it's important that we continue to invest in great new visitor experiences and products in our parks?

[Charlotte Bell]

We absolutely wholeheartedly agree with the position that we need to ensure our parks actually are providing opportunities and great experiences for people. Also, our members are working with Parks Canada to do that in an environmentally responsible and sustainable way. We will continue to do that.

Yes, it's very important for us.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you both.

Mr. Caron.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I found it interesting that both Mr. Nepton and Mr. Eby said the same thing during their presentations. We had seen Mr. Nepton's presentation beforehand, but not Mr. Eby's. The difference is that Mr. Nepton, of the AIDE-TIC, suggests that the accelerated capital cost allowance—

Is the interpretation coming through?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I wasn't sure if it was working.

I was saying that you are both of the same mind regarding the accelerated capital cost allowance. But Mr. Nepton said that it should be conditional upon companies providing service to rural and more remote areas.

Looking around, I see that four of the five members around the table represent rural areas: Mr. Richards, who represents a more or less rural riding; Mr. Champagne; Mr. Easter; and myself. This is probably also the case in Mr. Champagne's riding, since I'm somewhat familiar with his region, but at least 8 or 9 of the 39 municipalities in my riding do not have access to cellular services. They can rely only on satellite reception. The problem is that the companies wanting to set up in these areas can't be competitive because high-speed services aren't available through satellite.

I understand why you don't invest in rural areas. It makes sense. The last 5% is the most costly, and I get that.

But back when land lines were the norm, Bell Canada had a monopoly in exchange for meeting the obligation of providing everyone with service. Since then, the market was opened up to competition in an effort to bring down prices. Unfortunately, that has happened at the expense of the regions, which are not being served and will receive no better access. The more networks improve, the more marginalized remote areas become because they don't have access to the services that would allow them to participate fully in the economy.

Mr. Nepton, my first question is for you, since I had a look at your model. At the end of the day, you work with the regions, the RCMs, the municipalities, to obtain the necessary capital to build cellular towers, which you in turn make available to the various companies who could then provide services through the network. Is that right?

[André Nepton]

Yes, that's correct.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

To date, how many municipalities and areas that were not previously served by one of the big telecoms, or any telecom, have you provided services to?

[André Nepton]

In Quebec, we are already present in the Haute-Côte-Nord, Saguenay and Lac-Saint-Jean regions. And now, in the communities of Villebois and Beaucanton, for the Eeyou Istchee James Bay regional government. In all, 16 cellular telecommunication sites have been built in collaboration with the communities, who provided financial contributions. The AIDE-TIC provides expertise as a developer and advisor. It struggled to pull together the necessary funding and was involved in the day-to-day construction. We were then able to bring service to 18 communities at a fairly reasonable cost, especially given that they meet the specifications of the big companies.