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?