Industry Committee on May 9th, 2019

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Could I comment on that, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Go ahead.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Again, I agree 100% with regard to affordability being a crucial issue for every single family and every household in Canada. We are all confronted with this reality, and in rural Canada, it's often even more acute because there is less competition.

I would pose this question to the honourable member: What lessons should be drawn from a decade in government where a directive was issued by the then-minister of industry to the CRTC around the prioritization of competition? I think the results speak for themselves. That directive did not work. That effort on the part of the Conservative government of the time did not achieve affordability outcomes that Canadians can appreciate now. We are still suffering from unaffordable plans in comparison with other jurisdictions.

On top of that affordability problem, we have major rural access problems, which is what motion 208 goes to. The amounts of fiscal stimulus applied by the previous government were by any measure inadequate, as you point out, to roll out Internet in rural Canada in any manner that provides for equity in digital infrastructure. That seems clear to me.

I did not seek in my motion, nor am I looking today, to turn this into a partisan issue. I think that governments—present, past and prior to the Harper government—bear responsibility for these inequitable outcomes. On affordability and on access to high-speed Internet and cellphone availability in rural Canada, I think there has to be a recognition that the past policies of the Conservative government didn't work. We owe it to our constituents collectively to work in the present, live in the present and deal with the fact that all of our constituents wanted high-speed Internet yesterday and wanted cellphone coverage yesterday. My constituents wanted it two weeks ago when their houses were flooding and they were trying to put sandbags all around them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you.

We're going to move back to Mr. Graham.

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

Whatever happened with the motion last year—I looked at the record and I wasn't there for it—we are under a directive of the House. I think it's incumbent upon us to act seriously on it.

To Michael's comments before, I have a large rural riding that's quite a bit bigger than Wellington—Halton Hills, which I know quite well because I used to live in Guelph. I'm sure you're not allowed to talk on a cellphone or a CB radio when you're driving, but in my riding there are signs saying which channel of the CB radio you have to announce yourself on to pass safely through these roads. It's a very different environment that we live in. I have to go 200 kilometres at a time on dirt roads to get to events in my riding. This is the reality we have. It's channel 10 in some areas and channel 5 in some areas. You have to use them.

Enough of that. I know that Rémi and Richard both have very large rural Quebec ridings and I want them to get in on this. I'd like to give Richard a quick chance to jump in.

[Richard Hébert, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Graham.

Mr. Amos, thank you for being here.

We know that access to digital infrastructure is extremely important for Canadians today, to secure safety and health or economic development in our regions. This is what your motion indicates.

As stated in the pre-Budget 2019 brief I tabled, in my riding of Lac-Saint-Jean, 22 of the inhabited regions of the territory have neither cell service nor Internet. That is the case for the RCMs of Maria-Chapdelaine and Domaine-du-Roy.

In your opinion, what measures could be taken to advance and facilitate co-operation and the deployment of wireless infrastructure in our rural areas?

Can you tell us how your study of motion M-208 could help your riding and others such as mine, Lac-Saint-Jean, to obtain better digital wireless infrastructure?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Let me begin, Mr. Hébert, by thanking you for your presence, as parliamentary secretary and government representative for small and medium businesses. We know very well how important it is to support SMEs in the regions with the necessary digital infrastructure, so as to ensure their success. If we want to export, be on the cutting edge and seize business opportunities, we must have this technology.

In my riding as in yours, there are reeves, mayors, councillors and municipal managers who are crying out for help, loudly. Since our election, we have seen an increase in investments and financial support.

I am thinking here particularly of Connect to Innovate, a $500-million program over five years, which in its turn called on the financial participation of the province and the private sector. This program led to overall investments of over $1 billion. However, the Connect to Innovate program did have one gap: cellular services. The program was focused on high-speed Internet services.

I wish the new multi-year budget investments announced by our government also included cellular services, or that the investments in high-speed Internet included improved cell services. We see the convergence of wireless and Internet technologies. However, neither I, nor the electors, the elected representatives, the reeves or mayors in my riding, are technical experts. We want to better understand the path to follow if these two components are to meet with equal success.

We also want to see various models in action. I'll give you an example. In my riding, projects of about $13.4 million in total are being carried out by a private company, Bell Canada, in order to help about 3,200 households in 29 communities. There is also a $7-million project, and half of the funds for that are provided by the non-profit organization 307net; financial support is also provided by the municipality of Cantley.

So, those are some examples of different models made possible by the financial measures taken by the federal government and the support of the provincial government. I think that the discussions that will take place over the next months or years will be aimed at determining the most appropriate and affordable models, with a particular focus on non-profit organizations. Not only must these models satisfy technical requirements, they must be affordable, as the opposition member just said.

[Richard Hébert, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Do I still have some time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

You have a few minutes left.

[Richard Hébert, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Amos. We are very grateful to you for having introduced this motion. As you know, this important matter has been under study for some time. I myself live in an outlying region, and I can bear witness to the difficulties we have because of the lack of cell services and access to the Internet.

Let me give you some examples. In my own house, I have to stand in a particular place to be able to get a cell signal and use my phone for calls. It's impossible anywhere else in the house. In addition, if I want to download La Presse in the morning to read it, I have to shout to my boys to get off the Internet so that I can have access to my newspaper. There is an upside: when my boys disconnect and go and play outside, this is probably better for their health.

So this is a big concern in the regions. As you know, studies were done and our government included $1.7 billion in the 2019 budget to ensure that necessary infrastructure is put in place.

The government has just finished auctioning off the 600-megahertz band of the spectrum. It had reserved 43% of the available spectrum for regional suppliers in order to facilitate access to the Internet in the regions.

You mentioned the directive sent to the CRTC by former minister Bernier to get that organization to encourage increased and more affordable access in its decisions.

My question is both simple and complex. In your opinion, what more must we do to ensure that, without further delay, Canadians in all regions have access to wireless or wired Internet services? What is missing in all of the measures we have put in place over the last years?

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

A very brief answer, please.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you for your question.

I well remember that time once when I was driving toward Rivière-du-Loup for a Liberal Caucus. It was one in the morning, I was a bit lost in the Parliamentary Secretary's riding, and I could not consult my mobile phone GPS, for the reason we are discussing today. It also raises the whole issue of public safety.

Your question is indeed complex, but I will try to give you a simple answer.

In your study, aside for the opinion of private sector experts, it might be useful to find out about the academic opinion on the Telecommunications Act. For instance, it might be useful to ask ourselves whether, rather than trying to count on non-binding objectives, we should not strengthen the current legal provisions around access to the Internet, to give the CRTC a hand and obtain better results.

I'm asking the question without knowing the answer. It may be that we have to amend the act itself to enable this stricter and stronger regulation and impose solutions not only on the private sector, but also on governments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Mr. Masse, you have the final two minutes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to follow up on that. It's a good point.

You mentioned the notice directives by Maxime Bernier and then subsequently Navdeep Bains, and the differences between the two.

If you had a directive right now, where would you focus that in terms of the CRTC, to direct the companies? I believe that the system is broken, but if a directive is what we're at right now, what would you do with that?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

To return to the earlier question that I just responded to, I think my starting point would be that one does have to look at the law itself. If a directive is being applied, it's to provide greater clarity to the regulator as to how certain objectives should be achieved. Perhaps if the law were more clear, and particular outcomes were sought, for example, rural access, then better outcomes could be achieved without having to provide specific direction.

Is it a good thing, generally speaking, to seek greater competition? Absolutely, for the consumer, that's a good thing. Is it proper and appropriate to seek greater affordability? Absolutely, but I'm not sure—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

What would your directive be? What would be helpful? I guess that's what I'm looking for. Is there a special carve-out that you're looking for that the CRTC should really zero in on right away? You could send them that message now. That's what I'm trying to provide the opportunity for.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Sure. I think the regulator is listening to this conversation. It's hearing the desire and has heard the desire through its own “Let's Talk Broadband” and has heard that desire for rural Canada to achieve universal access. Standards have been established. Funds have been allocated.

Of course, as a rural MP who is representing many communities that suffer from a lack of access, I would love to see greater direction provided with regard to the importance of rural access. Our government has taken such a giant leap in terms of the fiscal measures that I think there's great hope for rural Canada through the universal broadband fund, through the CRTC's fund, and potentially, through the Canada Infrastructure Bank. These mechanisms are there. I think the question is, how will this funding roll out and incentivize further behaviour?

We can also assume that the corporate sector, the telecommunications companies across Canada, are going to read this testimony. They're going to hear the voices of members from across Canada and they are going to recognize that this is a national issue that has received unanimous approval from Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you.

That's all the time we have left for today.

Thank you, everybody. We will see you next Tuesday.

The meeting is adjourned.