Industry Committee on May 9th, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

We're moving on to the second portion of our committee today. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we're going to do a study of the subject matter of private member's motion 208 on rural digital infrastructure.

Today we have with us the mover of that private member's motion, William Amos, MP from Pontiac.

Sir, you have 10 minutes. You have the floor.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate the speed with which you and our colleagues here have agreed to address this issue. I want to thank the members, both of the party I belong to but also members opposite for their unanimous support yesterday. I think that puts Parliament in a good light, and I think this is obviously a crucial issue for Canadians coast to coast. Whether you live in urban or rural Canada, you care that rural Canada is connected.

The exclamation point was placed on this issue in the Pontiac context by the tornado last year and the floods this year. I don't want to wax poetic about that stuff. People who are suffering from floods currently, who have basements underwater, want us to get down to brass tacks, so I'll try to do that today.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this before you and I appreciate also that you organized as a committee to get to this quickly.

I know that the people in my riding of Pontiac are grateful to you, as well as all of those who live in Canada's rural regions.

Of course the digital infrastructure is an important issue that includes various aspects touching on regulation, finances and the private sector, and the influence of federal, provincial and municipal governments is not always clear.

Since last November, that is to say since I tabled the motion, the situation has changed somewhat because of Budget 2019. We have to be very honest and very clear about that. When a government makes promises and plans for large budgets of approximately $5 billion, it is because, in my opinion, it recognizes the importance of this issue.

Since this motion was first brought forward, the government, with its 2019 budget, has really taken a major step forward. Major steps were taken prior. In the 2016 budget, there was $500 million over five years for connect to innovate. That money has been brought forward in a variety of ridings, my own included, where 20 million dollars' worth of projects have been announced as compared with $1.2 million to $1.3 million in the riding of Pontiac in the decade prior. Major steps are being taken already, but this new budgetary investment is really important.

Where do we go from here? How does the study that would move forward through INDU advance this? I think we need to look to the new Minister of Rural Economic Development. I think we need to appreciate the fact that the government has seen fit to establish this new institution, which is great news for rural Canada, and recognize the responsibility of Minister Bernadette Jordan to develop that strategy and incorporate the issue of digital infrastructure. When one reads the text of the motion, which goes specifically to cellular infrastructure, it's there that we find the first nexus of interest between where this Liberal government is going and where this unanimous motion brings us.

The connection is the following. Such significant investments are planned to be made for the next several years, over $5 billion in a decade, including a new universal broadband fund of $1.7 billion and the CRTC's fund of $750 million over five years that is on the cusp of opening. These are such significant funds that Canadians have reason to be optimistic, but there needs to be greater clarity, in my mind, as to how cellular infrastructure is enabled through this.

Like most Canadians, I'm not a technical expert. I don't know how fibre-to-home infrastructure outlay can enable cellphone service, but I am led to believe that it does. I think that what we need to see is clarity so that the Canadian public has confidence that these investments that are forthcoming will deliver not just high-speed Internet results on the ground for rural Canada, but also cellphone results. Obviously, both are crucial for economic development reasons, for community preservation and development reasons, and also for public safety reasons, as has been discussed in the House during the course of debate around M-208.

I think that it would be a valuable contribution on the part of this committee to discuss how cellular infrastructure can be accelerated through the government's own plans and to also draw upon witness testimony to secure the best ideas possible for achieving this.

I note that this committee has done very good work in relation to Internet in rural Canada. I appreciate that. I applaud that.

However, the specific issue of mobile or cellular telephony infrastructure has not been discussed in a complete manner. It would be essential to do so. About ten mayors in the Pontiac believe that this is one of three priorities in the region, and I know that this is also true in other regions of Canada.

In addition to the technical and economic aspects, I would like to see this committee discuss the public safety aspect. The mayor of Waltham, Mr. David Rochon, told me that he would like us to send carrier pigeons to his community so that people can communicate better. He does not think that there will be a mobile telephony system to respond to emergencies, such as when people ask for sandbags or more precise information about water levels.

If the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security does not have time to consider this matter, it would be important for this committee to do so.

I think I'll conclude by requesting that a critical eye be brought, with regard to the role of the CRTC and its regulatory and incentive-creating functions, to help generate a greater impetus towards Internet and cellphone infrastructure development. The 2016 report, “Let's Talk Broadband”, brought some significant advances in terms of establishing standard upload and download rates, defining what high speed is, identifying this as a crucial issue and enabling the creation of a fund. That $750 million over five years I'm sure will be put to good use. I think, though, that we as parliamentarians need to engage in a dialogue with the CRTC to explore what more can be done, and this committee, I believe, is the ideal organ for that dialogue.

We now have before us the CRTC's preferred approach. Does Parliament believe this is adequate?

I for one don't believe that $750 million over five years is sufficient. I believe that the CRTC can go further, and I would like to also explore the Telecommunications Act, which is presently being reviewed. I would like to see how the act enables the deployment of cellphone and Internet infrastructure, and how it could be augmented to better enable it.

With those comments, colleagues, I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you also for the support. I think this motion is demonstrating some positive collegiality, and that's appreciated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you very much.

We're going to rush right into questions, starting off with Mr. Graham.

You have seven minutes.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Amos, for guiding us in the right direction on the matter of cellular services.

At 7:00 a.m. this morning I took part in an interview with Ghislain Plourde, from CIME FM, to discuss your motion. I think it's extremely important.

Since our meeting in the beginning of 2016, we have worked very hard on telecommunications. Together we made presentations to the CRTC in 2016 to move this file forward. We had some major successes with Internet services. We studied the Internet services file in this committee, but we aren't making much headway on the cellular services file.

We have experienced problems in connection with this in our respective ridings, in the context of the current disasters.

Can you give us a picture of what is happening with cellular services in your riding?

In Amherst, in my riding, people from various services have to meet at city hall to discuss the situation and then go back out into the field, precisely because they are unable to communicate on the ground.

Is the situation the same in your riding?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you for your very relevant question. I commend your efforts on this issue since you were elected. I know that your fellow citizens in the Laurentides—Labelle riding are really grateful to you for the way you have focused on these issues, not only Internet services, but also cellular telephone services.

As to public safety, it's clear that we could imagine extremely serious consequences for people who happen to be in regions where there is no signal, but it's also a matter of effectiveness, as you mentioned.

It's not only about the mayors, councillors, municipal employees or first responders who are on the ground. Clearly, all of these individuals whose responsibility it is to respond to emergencies must be able to communicate. However, there are also neighbours helping each other out and communities that get together to support each other, as is the case at present. We see that these people are much less effective without cell services.

We also know that members of communities like Waltham will no longer be able to use the pager service as of June.

The lack of technological capability to allow for a proper response to emergencies is another aspect of this issue.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Should we be looking for regulatory solutions, and not just financial ones?

We will not have access to the paging system either after June 30. It will no longer exist. We will no longer be able to call our first responders to have them respond to emergencies on the ground. This is very serious.

Are there regulatory solutions we could look at?

When we ask Bell what it's doing to re-establish or extend the paging service, it replies that it is not obliged to do so. When we ask the CRTC if it is obligatory to provide a paging service, it answers no, there is no obligation to provide that service, which is nevertheless essential in our regions.

Do you see any regulatory solutions?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

With regard to regulations, I would say that what is essential is the way in which the CRTC interprets its mandate under the Telecommunications Act.

The act sets out public policy priorities, priorities as regards competition or the promotion of competition, or the advancement of access to services. There are a whole series of objectives described in the law. However, these objectives are not classified in order of priority.

Some years ago, in 2007 or 2008, I believe, Mr. Bernier, who was the minister at that time, sent a directive wherein he asked the CRTC to put the emphasis on competition. In my opinion, we should find a way to send the CRTC a clear message and even perhaps a directive on the overriding importance of access.

I do believe the CRTC understands the issue, but there is a need to provide direction to it about this.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

It has to be guided in the right direction.

If furthering competition is the main objective, but there is no access to the service, we have accomplished nothing. Zero is still zero. We can't support competition until there are at least two service providers. Even if there were only one, we wouldn't be any further ahead.

Do you agree with that opinion?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Absolutely. We have to set objectives, and the CRTC must take all the needed legislative, regulatory and financial measures to enable complete access. The budget set an objective of access for 100% of households by 2030. In order to reach that, we have to take all of the necessary regulatory and financial means.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

There are steps before we reach the 100% target; we are aiming for 90% by 2022, and 95% by 2026. The last segment of 5% by 2030 will probably be the most difficult to attain. Is that correct?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Yes.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Fine.

Thank you for working so hard on this file, Mr. Amos.

I will give the minute I have left to Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I have less than a minute, but I'd like to, first of all, thank you for bringing this forward.

The committee here has studied broadband. We talked about it in 2017 and 2018. We've gone to Washington to talk about connectivity, the north-south satellite network and the opportunity that might provide us.

We talked about 5G, but you're talking about areas that don't have 3G or 4G. You're talking about carrier pigeons now. I know it was a bit of a joke from the mayor, but some way or another we have to connect, whether it's via satellite or via towers. Is it a 5G play that you're looking at, or is it just getting some basic 3G service?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I must admit that I'm not a technical expert. As regards the particular technology that would be brought to bear, I would have to say I'm agnostic. I just wouldn't be able to provide a sufficiently informed opinion.

What I would suggest though on cellular is just any access. There are just dead zones. If one drives from Parliament Hill directly west down Highway 148 on the north side of the Ottawa River, the phone will cut off about five or six times between here and the end of my riding, which is about a two and a half hour drive. Those are just the dead zones. There are black holes, entire communities, that aren't served.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

Thanks, William.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you.

Mr. Masse, you have seven minutes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Amos, for being here and congratulations on your bill being passed in the House. It's a motion, really. There's a big difference between a bill and a motion, and I've passed both, but it's good that it's a subject that continues to rise.

You're aware that the committee had an extensive review on this. What was missing out of the committee's report that you'd like to have on another review? What specifically did we miss out or not adequately cover in our report?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I think that's an important question. Specifically what was missing in my estimation was a comprehensive treatment of the cellular issue, and the linkage between the provision of high-speed Internet—whether that's through fibre to the home, satellite technology or otherwise—and the advancement of cellular infrastructure and coverage across rural Canada.

It's one thing to have access to high-speed Internet—and every Canadian deserves it, absolutely—but it's another thing to go into the regulatory and fiscal measures that would enable better cellphone coverage. They are similar problems that we have throughout rural Canada, but it's not obvious that the two have identical solutions.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Is there any other part, other than just the cellular, in the report? Did you agree with all the recommendations of the report? I don't have time to go through them, but is that something I'm assuming is correct? Is there anything else you thought was missing that we could enhance?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

What I would like to see treated more comprehensively is the issue of how the CRTC in its regulatory function, and how the Telecommunications Act as it currently stands, could be augmented to better enable both regulatory and fiscal solutions. There may be limitations that—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I don't disagree with that.

I'm going to move on to another quick question, if I can. You mentioned the tornadoes and their affect on Ottawa. What were the failings of the cellular service at that time?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

In September of 2018, I was on the ground in the small community of Breckenridge in the municipality of Pontiac the day after the tornado. The Premier of Quebec; the Minister of Transport at the time, André Fortin; and Mayor Joanne Labadie were there. We were on the ground—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

What was missing though?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

We would be 500 metres away from each other at different homes asking what we could bring—if they needed water, or what support did they needed right then—and we weren't able to relay the message to the emergency response officials or to each other. If the mayor needed to come to meet with an individual I had just encountered, I would have to go and meet up with her personally.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Are you aware that this committee turned down an opportunity to study that—by your members from the Liberal Party? Why do you think this was not an appropriate body then to study it, if you agreed or disagreed with them?