Industry Committee on March 26th, 2013

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

I appreciate it, and we can elaborate on this.

I have just one other comment.

As far as the future of digital wireless is concerned, I'm very excited about the opportunities. We've had a recent presentation from Rogers. I have one-year-old and six-year-old grandsons. They know how to work the tablets better than a lot of adults, and they are obviously part of their future.

Maybe you could share a little bit in your comments, as can anybody else who wants to, what you see in five years. Will it be a remote-controlled drone from your smart phone in five years? Where are we going?

[Bernard Lord]

Hopefully we won't get to that point, but we can remote control a lot of other things. For instance, last week we had a very good conference on mobile payments and using mobile technology for payments. We're planning a conference on mobile health and using mobile technology and mobile wireless technology to improve health outcomes for Canadians. The power that we are unleashing with these new technologies, most people would not even have imagined was possible ten years ago. Frankly, what's coming down the pipe is even greater than anything we have today.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

That's very exciting. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Lord.

I couldn't imagine that I would have to interrupt one witness this many times. It's evidence of your popularity.

Now we go on to Mr. Harris for five minutes, please.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Well, it's probably going to continue. Of course, we already have remote-controlled helicopters that are operated by cellphones.

Mr. Lord, you spoke briefly in your opening remarks about fighting wireless device theft. Of course, we have a private member's bill that's going to come before the House, Bill C-482, brought forward by Mike Sullivan, the MP for York South—Weston.

Does the CWTA support that bill?

[Devon Jacobs]

Yes, we do. In fact, when we made our announcement back in November of last year we called on the government to bring in legislation, such as there is in the United Kingdom and Australia. There was also legislation pending in the U.S. Senate on this. We were pleased that Mr. Sullivan decided to take this up as well.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Excellent. Thank you.

Now, going back to the protocol with the FCM, don't worry. You mentioned that the FCM should be congratulated on this, and they were, at the last meeting on this subject.

They mentioned that part of the reason for the protocol was that they found the Industry Canada regulations and rules lacking. You spoke earlier about the inefficiency, if provinces all do their own thing and then the federal does another, saying that it is going to create a hodge-podge system.

Do you think it might not have been simpler if Industry Canada had strengthened the rules and regulations?

[Bernard Lord]

The rules and regulations of Industry Canada are good. What we needed was a protocol to identify the flexibility required to meet the needs of different communities. We can understand, and we appreciate, the frustration of some municipal leaders across the country. That's why we reached out to them. We felt that we, our members, could do a better job of working with municipalities, and they also felt that they could do a better job of working with us.

We feel that this approach—our doing it voluntarily—is better than the government stepping in. These technologies change very quickly. I'm always concerned when governments step in and set up rules that two or three years later become obsolete.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Well, I mean, that speaks to the responsibility of government keeping up with the times.

[Bernard Lord]

Oh, absolutely.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

An efficient government will keep up with the times, make those changes, and work with industry and municipalities to make sure that happens.

But certainly the protocol is to be applauded, and I hope we see more of those kinds of developments.

Your last presentation before the industry committee was of course during the e-commerce study. You did very briefly speak about the role that government does have to play in rural areas. I remember our time got cut off at that point, so would you like to elaborate on where you would like to see the government play a role in rural areas?

[Bernard Lord]

We've talked today about the needs of rural Canadians. We've seen in the past governments use public funds for public good to deploy infrastructure. We do it on a regular basis currently in Canada, whether it's at the federal level or the provincial level. We do it for roads, we did it historically for electricity, we do it for water. That's part of essential infrastructure.

So if we decide in the 21st century that connectivity is essential to the fabric of the country, and that economic models will not support it, then that's the place for governments to step in.

I know that last time, in 2008, there was an auction, and it yielded $4.3 billion to the federal government over the span of ten years. That is money that could be used, and is being used, for whatever decision the government wants. It could include helping deploy infrastructure and support deployment in other parts of the country where it's not economically feasible.

Those are legitimate policy options that are open to any government to consider and then decide whether they want to do it this way or not. Some of that is being done now. The federal government did announce a $225 million fund to deploy broadband in rural communities.

Now, those are options, and that's why we think we can be part of that solution, as can others as well be part of the solution.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Without getting into too many specifics, would you like to see some of the money from the upcoming auction actually set aside to help with that development?

[Bernard Lord]

We mentioned in our submission to the finance committee that this could be used for issues that are important to connectivity and the digital economy in Canada. That also includes public safety. Part of the spectrum is being set aside for public safety.

From what we hear from provincial and municipal governments, they may not have the funds to actually use that spectrum. The last thing we'd want to see is that spectrum go unused.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I want to give Xplornet an opportunity to jump in here.

[Allison Lenehan]

Thank you.

It's interesting, because we want to keep going back to subsidy. I'll say, just to make sure I'm really clear, that is for rural. That's the only thing I'll comment on; it's for rural broadband deployment. That is not our issue. We have private capital that will do that. We have technology that will continue to improve it.

It's interesting that we want to auction off the spectrum and then turn around and perhaps use those proceeds for infrastructure to do the exact point that I'm making on spectrum, which is, simply, create the policies and procedures that allow rural Canadian access to the spectrum in the first place, and then do what you wish with our public funds. I'm sure you have other places to use those.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lenehan and Mr. Harris.

Mr. Warawa, for five minutes.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair, and my thanks to the witnesses for being here today.

I want to use my example before I go on to present a question. I've had a BlackBerry—members of Parliament have had BlackBerrys for years. You find out how important this tool is. It's not just a phone—you can communicate, research, do it all. It's a great Canadian technology.

My wife had a flip phone. It quickly became more and more obsolete. All it can be used for is phoning. To try to text on a flip phone is extremely difficult. I told my wife I'd try to figure it out and show her how to do it. It is really hard compared with a gadget like this. I bought her a BlackBerry and traded in the flip phone. She's now able to text.

My guess is there are a lot of Canadians who are getting into the technology, which means that we have a need for additional capacity within the system. It's going to continue to grow exponentially. There are a number of us around this table who have a background in municipal government. I was on city council for 14 years. One of the challenges we had was people coming to a council meeting as we were considering a new tower. There was a lot of opposition whenever new towers were coming into the community.

To be able to make this happen and continue to grow capacity for this changing technology, from what I'm hearing, we need to have additional towers. That's one of my questions. Objections to towers include health issues and the devaluing of property. Mr. Easter is losing calls; maybe he needs some more towers or maybe he needs better technology to provide that service. I don't know what the issue is. I'm really happy that you have a protocol through the chamber that will allow you to take a serious look at this and provide accurate information.

So what would you say to a person who doesn't want an ugly tower in his community and believes it will devalue his home? What would you say to that?

[Bernard Lord]

First of all, you'd be right to point out that people are moving from feature phones to smart phones. About three years ago, one-third of Canadians had smart phones. Last year, it was over 50%. If you look at the 18 to 35 age segment, it's over 75%. So you can see where the trend is heading. Most people now are switching to smart phones. For that, we need more capacity. To satisfy that capacity, we need more sites.

I would tell someone to try to sell his house if he had no wireless coverage. Good luck with that. The younger generation of 18 to 35, a lot of them don't have land lines. They depend on wireless coverage. They depend on wireless coverage not only for phones but also for 911, calling an ambulance, or calling the police. That's why this service is essential.

As to how the tower or the site looks, that's what the protocol is there to help us with—to identify what our members can do to satisfy the specific needs of different communities. I can expand on this, but I want to be respectful of time.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Please.

[Allison Lenehan]

Can I help out a bit? There's new infrastructure. It's a great way to solve it. But there are two others. The first is with existing towers. This can be enabled by spectrum, without having to build more towers. The second is, as Mr. Lord pointed out, to keep in mind that a lot of the traffic going through the phones in the home is in fact on your home network. If we don't like the tower, we can upload through satellite. So think of it as whether you're urban or rural. If you do it through your home network, it does not require more towers. There are multiple ways for us to build more capacity. It's not simply to build towers. I think we should take a look at that. Spectrum is one obvious solution.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Mr. Warawa.

Now on to Mr. Thibeault.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll direct my first question to the folks from Xplornet. In your previous testimony, and in one of your answers, you were talking, with some frustration, about the spectrum not being utilized. Is that an example of what's happened right now with Shaw purchasing a large amount of spectrum, not utilizing it, and Rogers looking at buying the spectrum from Shaw once the time limit is up? Is that the type of frustration you would agree with? Is that what you're talking about?

[Allison Lenehan]

Here's how I'll put it: because specific companies, specific spectrum frequencies, are less important to us, generally we can use anything, 3.5 or lower. So yes, that is an option, but again a lot of that spectrum is also urban based. That would be less applicable for what we are interested in doing.

That is one area to look at, but the key is just making our public resources not only available but put to use as quickly as possible. Think about all the places we could enhance our broadband service around the country if we simply put to work what's already available.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

We as parliamentarians, and especially this committee, could talk about and maybe bring forward recommendations, something along those lines, to really change some of the requirements that are put to telecom companies when it comes to when they have to implement the spectrum. If you buy it, basically what you're saying is use it or lose it, right?