Finance Committee on June 1st, 2021

[Suzanne Kennedy]

I don't know the details of it but I think the gist is that, yes, it's not producing anymore.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

It is relevant, Mr. Chair, because remember that this payment or this backfill arrangement is extending this agreement to 2023. I believe 2023 is assumed to be the end, because the Sable Energy Offshore Project has expired.

I have a second question. With regard to Bill C-20, why are we duplicating legislation? Bill C-20 specifically addresses this, and now is it being superseded by the BIA. We saw this happen, I believe, with Bill C-25 as well. We have these different pieces of legislation, and then the BIA comes along and basically supersedes them. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Ms. Kennedy.

[Suzanne Kennedy]

That's correct. I would add, to your other question, that equalization works with a two-year lag and a three-year moving average. The money received in 2018 will continue to impact equalization payments until 2022-23.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Shall clause 202 carry on division?

(Clause 202 agreed to on division)

(On clauses 203 and 204)

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Ms. Kennedy, for being here for four different divisions.

We're on part 4, division 17. The lead is Andre Arbour, and I see he is here.

On clauses 203 and 204 on the Telecommunications Act, please go ahead if you can, Mr. Arbour.

[Andre Arbour, Acting Director General, Telecommunications and Internet Policy Branch, Department of Industry]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening. My name is Andre Arbour. I'm the acting director general of telecommunications and Internet policy at Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada.

Clause 203 is an amendment to the Telecommunications Act intended to help facilitate the coordination of broadband infrastructure funding. The Government of Canada has a number of programs that help support broadband infrastructure expansion in underserved areas that are not served by the market. This includes, for instance, the universal broadband fund out of ISED.

The CRTC, as the sector regulator, also has a broadband fund that stems from its authorities under the Telecommunications Act. The CRTC fund is a bit different from your typical programming. Since the CRTC is an arm's-length regulatory tribunal, the fund is supported out of a levy on the telecommunications industry, so it does not come out of the CRF.

The amendments here are intended to help facilitate coordination with the CRTC fund. If passed, they would do so in two ways.

One would be to limit the nature of appeals that could be filed by parties regarding CRTC broadband projects. There are currently three avenues of appeal under the Telecommunications Act. These avenues of appeal are generally intended for broad-based complex regulatory decisions that affect the entire industry. The concern would be that if these were applied to individual broadband projects, they would just slow down the rollout of those projects unnecessarily.

The amendment would remove two of those avenues, to the Governor in Council and to the CRTC itself. Applicants would still have recourse to the Federal Court of Appeal if they wished to challenge a decision.

The second outcome would be to facilitate the sharing of broadband project information between the CRTC and other federal departments and agencies, and with provinces and territories. This would better facilitate the rollout of broadband projects.

Finally, clause 204 would just correct an imprecision in the French language of that section to better reflect the English and the intent of that section.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I don't think there are any questions on clause 204, probably. It's pretty straightforward.

On clause 203, we have Ms. Jansen.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I want to seek some clarification.

Are you suggesting that this is going to speed up the process because now people will have less of an opportunity to appeal a decision? Is that how you're going to speed up the process, by giving them less chance to appeal? If they get turned down, they get turned down flat. They don't have another option.

[Andre Arbour]

I would say there is a range of actions that ISED and other departments have taken to help speed up the rollout of broadband programming. This amendment is not intended to be the main tool for that.

However, there are concerns that appeals could be launched against individual projects. That would then essentially halt the delivery of those projects unnecessarily.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

What I said, then, was correct. Basically, you're saying that if you get turned down, you get turned down. There's very little other appeal process, and that's how it's going to speed it up.

[Andre Arbour]

Applicants would still have recourse to the Federal Court of Appeal if they wished to challenge a funding decision on matters of law or jurisdiction. They just would not have recourse to file a parallel appeal with the Governor in Council or with the CRTC itself. There would still be one avenue available.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You've mentioned that there are several different streams of funding that would be available for applicants. This was just one of them. Is there a chance that this could create duplication in funding for the same project?

[Andre Arbour]

We already have processes in place to avoid duplication in funding projects. A key instrument of this is broadband maps that ISED maintains in partnership with the CRTC; if you can imagine a jigsaw puzzle between existing project infrastructure coverage, as well as proposed projects, analysis is done by ISED engineers to avoid overlap between projects or with existing infrastructure.

However, we do have some constraints on how quickly and easily we can do that analysis, limited by the information that can be shared outside of ISED and the CRTC with others, including provinces and territories. We make it work, but it's more complicated than it needs to be. This amendment would help to streamline that.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

This amendment is particular to situations for funding under-serviced areas.

[Andre Arbour]

That's correct.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

How do you define an under-serviced area?

[Andre Arbour]

In the context of the legislation, we are not defining that, given that technology and what is an adequate level of service can evolve over time.

In terms of the government's overall connectivity strategy and the targets embedded in our current programming at ISED, the CRTC or elsewhere, our target is a minimum download speed of 50 megabits per second and a minimum upload speed of 10 megabits per second.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

My riding, for example, is almost 20,000 square kilometres, and I have lots of areas that would claim to be under-serviced. I believe they probably are, and that's just because there's no business plan for service providers to service rural residents or smaller communities.

Is this fund going to address that need?

[Andre Arbour]

The government has committed to extend service at this target speed to 100% of Canadians, so yes, the intent is to address gaps wherever they exist.

These amendments are minor and involve some coordination issues, but cumulatively, $7.2 billion has been allocated for the expansion of broadband infrastructure.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thanks, Mr. Arbour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

That was my question: What's the scope of the problem? You say the government has identified that at least 7.2 billion dollars' worth of investment has to be made from the federal government to get 100% of Canadians up to a certain broadband speed. Is that right?