Industry Committee on May 9th, 2019

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I don't have comments to make on the decisions made previously by this committee. I would say that members of this committee have treated motion 208 with all of the seriousness that it—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

It's not about motion 208. It's about whether or not we actually had an opportunity to study the situation in Ottawa with the tornadoes, which was was turned down by this committee. There was a particular motion moved and it was a study. Do you think that should be studied here at this committee, or why do you think that was turned down?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

As I said, I won't speculate on motives for any—

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

If I could interject for a moment....

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

It's a fair question. It was raised by the witness here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Hold on.

The witness is not a part of the committee and can't really speak to why something was turned down in committee, especially as we might have been in camera at the time.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

No, we weren't.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

I don't see how the witness can speak to why the committee as a whole turned something down.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

It's a part of your caucus. I expect those conversations might have taken place, given the fact that the member raised it as a serious issue as part of something here. I think that would have brought some light to it.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I'm happy to answer. As the chair indicates, I'm not going to speculate on decisions made in meetings where I wasn't present.

The focus today ought not to be on what might have been in the past. Who is to say if the wording of the motion that was previously brought was adequate or if the study that would have been proposed was going to be comprehensive?

What is proposed here in motion 208 enables both the public security and the economic development aspects of both Internet and cellphones and the connection between the two. Perhaps it was a missed opportunity at that point, but maybe this is a more comprehensive opportunity right now.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Those are my questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chong.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks for introducing this motion. I'm looking forward to the committee's study.

I just want to make a point on this, Mr. Chair. I think this lack of access to Internet is certainly a problem in rural and remote Canada, but I think there's another thing that we also need to focus on. I think the bigger problem is less about accessibility to Internet services and more about the unaffordability of Internet in rural and remote areas. I'm going to give you one example to highlight what I'm talking about.

If you live in a city in this country, or in an urban area, you can get 100 gigabytes of Internet for $49.99 a month. You can get unlimited Internet access for about $69.99. Those are the latest pricing plans on the big telecoms' websites. If you wanted 200 gigabytes of access in a rural or remote area over a wireless Internet, which is often the only option available, you can get that wireless Internet, but that 200 gigabytes would cost you somewhere between $800 and $1,000 a month.

I have constituents in my riding who have this issue. It's not that they can't get the Internet access. It's that they can't afford to pay upwards of $500 a month for that access. I put that in front of the committee as something to consider.

You can look at products such as Rogers' Rocket Hub and Bell's Turbo Hub. That covers most rural and remote areas, and even if it doesn't, for about $500 as a one-time installation charge, you can get somebody to install a Yagi antenna to boost the signal to get the Internet. I think most rural residents would be prepared to pay $500 for installation costs. The problem is that the ongoing monthly costs can be well upwards of $500 a month for pretty moderate Internet usage.

That's an issue that as a committee we need to consider when we're drafting our report: It's not only access to the Internet, but it's the cost of that Internet for rural and remote households, many of which are actually in the exurban areas of some of the country's largest city regions. My riding is in the greater Toronto area, and large parts of the north part of Halton region and the southern part of Wellington county have access to Internet, but most people don't have it because it's just so expensive to have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Mr. Oliver.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thanks very much for bringing forward motion 208 and for the discussion on it. Congratulations on how quickly it went through the House and the all-party support for it.

Like Mr. Chong, I live in Halton. I live in Oakville. We have great coverage down there, but I drive up to Guelph and along the way I lose cellphone access and I'm out of touch. That's almost something that you expect to have with you all the time, and I'm out of touch for about 15 to 20 minutes. I'm driving by farms and houses knowing that all those people are living without wireless. They probably have fixed service, but they don't have that wireless service. It is a real issue and it's closer to home than I think many people think it is. When I think about how reliant we are on our wireless communications, it's a really important issue.

I'm also aware that you've brought the motion forward and there's limited time left in this sitting. There are three areas that you targeted for INDU. One was looking at the causes of and solutions to the gaps in infrastructure for wireless. The second was fiscal and regulatory approaches to improve investments in wireless infrastructure. The third was the regulatory role of the CRTC.

Of those three, what is the priority? When you were speaking to Mr. Masse, I kind of heard that it would be the CRTC regulatory role, or do you think it's incentivizing more investment? What do you think the priority would be for the committee in the time that we might have to look at this?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thanks for that question. I really appreciate it, because I did want to provide, in a respectful manner, that kind of prioritization. I do think the CRTC ought to be the focus, and that's just simply because we are legislators and we have the opportunity to review the Telecommunications Act. That is ongoing.

I think it would be important to appreciate that major aspects of the fiscal component have been addressed. The CRTC is providing a degree of financing. The federal government has provided financing over the past several years and is looking to provide even more.

I think the question is, what more can be done? How can the telecommunications sector and the private sector be further stimulated? What options—

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Could you give us some examples? You've looked at this, obviously, and thought about it quite carefully. Like you, I'm a non-technical guy. Other than net neutrality, I haven't ventured too far into the CRTC space. What specific recommendations would you have to improve the regulatory role, in terms of the provision of wireless infrastructure?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

If I were in the seats of members of this committee, I would want to ask the CRTC what options there are, in terms of legislative reform, to better enable the institution of the CRTC, as regulator, to generate superior access outcomes. That's what we're talking about in this motion: access. I do appreciate Member Chong's comment about affordability. It's important to all Canadians. In the areas that are most affected in my riding, just in the past couple of weeks, we're talking about a region that has a median income of $22,500 per capita. These are individuals who can ill afford to pay the exorbitant amounts being charged right now.

The CRTC has been challenged with the affordability question, as well. Indeed, previous governments have had the opportunity to address that affordability question. It continues to bedevil both regulators and governments.

I think we need to be asking the CRTC about the access question. As Member Graham pointed out, if you don't have access, the affordability question is moot. We need to get to that access question.

With respect to, for example, the objectives of the Telecommunications Act, when the regulator is balancing affordability and access, how is that being done? Are there opportunities to change how that's done?

I do note that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development recently brought forward a directive to go to that issue of affordability. There's clearly a willingness on the part of our government to address that question. I think Canadians do understand that our government is very strong on the affordability question, but could there not be consideration given to a directive around access? I would ask this question of the CRTC as well. What would best enable them, or what is limiting them right now, from achieving access as an outcome they have identified themselves?

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Again, I'm a bit new to this, but the committee has done a study on broadband connectivity in rural Canada. This is the linking of spectrum and breadth of spectrum to infrastructure. The committee heard from witnesses that they felt one licence was often too broad and covered both rural and urban areas. The rural areas then got insufficient attention when the company that owned the spectrum divvied it up.

Is there an issue with connecting infrastructure investment to licensing for spectrum? Have you thought that through, or am I off the mark on that one?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Again, I acknowledge my technical limitations. If spectrum auctions—and I understand that specific spectrum auctions are in the offing—can be focused on particular rural-access outcomes, I believe that would be the appropriate policy approach to adopt.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Exactly, yes. Do you think part of the awarding of that would be evidence of willingness to invest in infrastructure, in terms of incentivizing that investment?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Exactly. In some cases, a fiscal tool is required to stimulate. In other cases, a regulatory mechanism is required to force. In other situations, such as the spectrum auction circumstance, I think it's a question of directing the auction to achieve that policy outcome.

Again, an all-of-the-above strategy is required. I look forward to that kind of issue being addressed in the rural economic development strategy, when it's prepared.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Absolutely. That's good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

We're going back to Michael Chong. Go ahead.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to go back to this issue of affordability. I represent a rural riding. We don't often get a lot of.... Rural Canada often is overlooked just because it's a lower and lower percentage of the overall population as the country increasingly urbanizes.

However, the example that I'm going to give you next reflects the reality of rural residents not just in Ontario, but also in Quebec and the Maritimes, as well as in Newfoundland and Labrador. I'm just going to use a very local example to Wellington county to really draw to the attention of the committee what I'm talking about.

The monthly cost of Internet and heat for a resident of the City of Guelph in Ontario is about $150 a month. Because residents are on natural gas, they'll pay about $100 a month maximum to the local gas company to heat their homes in the winter, and their Internet bills are about $50 a month. That gives them about 100 gigabytes of high-speed Internet access.

A resident who literally lives two miles outside of the City of Guelph in rural Wellington county will be paying $1,300 a month to get the same service for heat and Internet access. It is $1,000 for heat because there is no access to natural gas. Most rural residents are on oil heat and that costs about $1,000 a month. Most rural residents spend $4,000 to $6,000 a winter to heat their homes through oil heat. Internet access for 100 gigabytes is about $300 a month.

I bring those figures to the attention of the committee. That's very similar to residents of rural Pontiac and rural Gatineau where there is no access to natural gas and where there is no access to affordable high-speed Internet. When you drive through much of the countryside in eastern Canada and see homes being torn down, there's a reason for that. They're just too expensive to carry because the regulators, both federally and provincially, over many decades did not roll out rural natural gas or rural Internet the way that we rolled out rural electricity and rural, plain old telephone service.

As a result, we are now struggling to keep up to try to fix this problem with regard to the heating of homes and access to the modern information highway. Like I said, the example that I've given is the reality of rural Canadians throughout much of central and eastern Canada. It's $1,300 a month to heat your home and to get high-speed Internet access, versus somebody literally a mile away in a built-up urban area who is paying $150 a month. That's one of the things that I think our committee needs to look at.