Industry Committee on Feb. 27th, 2007

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Monsieur Vanier, I believe one of the prominent points you came here to make was that you're concerned that in a deregulated environment your organization would have to constitute itself as a telecommunications company and manage its affairs as if it were a private sector organization in order to be in compliance with regulations. Is there anything specific that causes you this concern within the proposed variance order or the TPR report itself?

[Michel Vanier]

First of all, RISQ is obviously not a very large organization. It does not have the necessary analysts and researchers to do an in-depth review of the bill. We rather chose to state our concerns independently from any direct reference to the bill per se. We would require somewhat greater means in order to do more in-depth research on these aspects. You will understand that a non-profit organization has very limited means, especially when it is funded by the education sector. So, no, to my knowledge there is not, but that does not mean that that is so.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

I guess one of the issues, for example, would be that you're actually facilities-based. RISQ owns a fibre optic link that runs throughout the entire province. There could be a question as to whether under CRTC order you would be able to provide wholesale access to private sector companies that for some reason may want very high bandwidth pipelines for movies or whatever. Is that basically where you envision some of the concern coming into play?

[Michel Vanier]

Indeed, this example is something that would create serious problems for us, because at the present time, according to our letters patent, RISQ's activities are limited to the research and education sectors.

As I mentioned in the brief, RISQ does not resell structures or even assets to telecommunications companies falling under the Telecommunications Act. If we were to indulge in such activities, that would be in conflict with our letters patent. This is one of the reasons why we do not want to be regulated by the Telecommunications Act. We wish to remain a private network for those purposes which are ours.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

As someone not involved in the commercial marketplace, I believe there is no real or perceived threat to an organization such as yours. The federal government also operates and contributes to a very large, high-speed, ten-gig pipeline throughout the entire country. That obviously is a different set of circumstances.

Would you be able to describe to us your involvement with the private sector in being able to fulfill a province-wide network of very high bandwidth links, whether it's Bell Canada, Vidéotron, or others that have participated with you? Do they use that backbone for commercial enterprises?

[Michel Vanier]

The partnerships that we have developed with the private sector and the telecommunications industry mostly involved the construction of the network.

RISQ has indeed purchased fibre optics from telephone and cable companies. Each and every year, RISQ pays out a lot of money to telephone and cable companies for the maintenance of its network. This is the first type of partnership we have had with the telecommunications industry.

In answer to your other question, I would say that the telecommunications industry does not use RISQ's very broad capabilities for commercial ends.

It does happen that there is some overlap with the telecommunications industry in Canada. You will understand that universities, in the context of their research mandates, are developing more and more links with industrial research centres. For example, the International Telecommunications Institute, whose headquarters are in Montreal, is a member of RISQ and is able to utilize RISQ's infrastructure in order to test new protocols.

I would also mention that a certain number of industrial research centres, that have activities that tie in with universities, can also be members of RISQ. The rules are somewhat similar to those that apply to CANARIE, the federal organization, which is governed by Industry Canada.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Krewski, do you have any data that suggests the proliferation of more cell towers due to increased competition is of concern from a population health point of view? What's the major thrust of your presentation to our committee?

[Prof. Daniel Krewski]

We've been looking at radio frequency field exposure from multiple sources. The main source of exposure in communications is probably the mobile phone handset, because you hold it close to your head and the field strength is strongest right at the tip of the antenna. If you look at base station transmitters, the fields drop off very quickly as you move away from the transmitter. Ambient measurements have shown exposure levels to populations to be less than 1,000-fold from what you would get from a hand-held device.

The big concern is really with mobile phones themselves, rather than the upwards of 5,000 base station transmitters we have across the country now.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Byrne.

We'll go to Monsieur Crête.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I would like each one of you to tell me if deregulation, as proposed, will have a short-term impact on your activities and if it is a source of concern.

[Michel Vanier]

Our main concern in this regard is access to infrastructure. That was the second point that I made in my introduction. Since RISQ is not a telecommunications company, it does not have the rights of way that telecommunications common carriers and cable operators are able to have. We must therefore deal with telecommunications companies. Typically, we will use a cable that is comprised of 144 pairs of fibres; we will own 2, 4 or 6 of them, somewhat in the way a condominium works.

We are entirely dependent upon access to the infrastructure of telecommunications companies. If the access fee to this infrastructure were to increase... This matter is presently before the CRTC and no decision has yet been rendered. We are concerned by the repercussions that such a decision might have in the area of infrastructure access, especially if there were to be an increase in the cost.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Could you explain to us the repercussions of such a decision?

[Michel Vanier]

That is a decision that would involve not RISQ, but rather Telus.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

What would the fallout of such a decision be for organizations such as yours?

[Michel Vanier]

It is difficult for me to try to guess at how far the Commission might go. I can but look at various scenarios. For example, if we were prevented from accessing this infrastructure, we would be forced to relocate our fibre optics and our equipment throughout the province. Our network covers 5,000 kilometers. In the worst-case scenario, that would involve millions of dollars in extra costs for us.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Krewski, I would put the same question to you. Will the deregulation of telecommunications have repercussions for you? Will the present directive with regard to local telephone service or the winds of deregulation that are blowing at present have any concrete impact on your organization?

[Prof. Daniel Krewski]

We've been focusing our work primarily on wireless telecommunications. If I understood the previous discussion, you're looking more at fibre optics and other forms of transmission.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

If, as planned, certain zones were deregulated, there could be a traditional telephone service company, a cable operator or any wireless phone service. Would that have an impact on you?

[Prof. Daniel Krewski]

So if we look at the whole network, including land lines, fibre optics and wireless links, is there any area in there where we would have some concerns from the population health point of view?

Is that the question?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Yes.

[Prof. Daniel Krewski]

When you're looking at land lines, I think the potential exposure to radio frequency fields is not an issue. As I said previously, the things people talk about when we look at wireless are hand-held mobile phones, where the device is held close to the body. As I commented earlier, base station transmitters' field strengths or ambient levels where populations reside are far lower than anything you would experience from a hand-held device.

There are other potential sources of exposure starting to become more common, such as wireless computer networks. We may be in the presence of wireless communications right now, if there's a local area wireless network. But again, the field strengths there would be more akin to those you might experience from a base station transmitter, and much lower than you would experience from a hand-held device.

So all the focus, from a health point of view, has really been on the mobile phones themselves.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Crête.

Mr. Arthur.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Professor Krewski.

My question is not a joke, but something I would like you to address. Since you're very interested in the link between these electromagnetic rayonnement and human health, have you been able to debunk the urban legend of a cellphone making a car explode at a gas pump?

[Prof. Daniel Krewski]

I think that is indeed a legend. It's not an issue we've been asked to communicate on, but there's no scientific basis—

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Only when the user is smoking a cigarette.