Evidence of meeting #87 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was communities.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I'll leave that question hanging.
You talked a little earlier in your opening remarks and in replying to the questions from Mike about the role of telecom companies in getting them in place. How receptive are you finding companies when you ask if they can come up to these communities and build infrastructure so that you have Internet access? Where's the threshold? Where do they say it is or is not worth it for them? What are you hearing?
11:30 a.m.
Member, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
We have one service provider for most of the territories, with another smaller group as well in Nunavut and part of the N.W.T. I'm not sure exactly where the threshold is, but it does require significant subsidies to even deliver a land line type of phone service. This is not a place where the business case will ever work without a subsidy.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
That's fair.
Out of curiosity—I don't know the answer to this—in the far north in the territories, how do the electricity grids work up there? Is it through generators in each town? I assume that's how it works.
11:30 a.m.
Member, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Yes, that's correct. We are almost exclusively diesel, and there is some hydro in the southern part of the territories.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
All right.
I consider Internet access to be extraordinarily urgent, the biggest priority for rural Canada. Would you agree with that?
11:30 a.m.
Chair, Rural Forum, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
We think it's part of infrastructure. Some of the programs the federal government is offering will provide some of the municipalities with some funding for the expansion of broadband services.
It's very urgent. The point has to be made that for the money being spent, I think it's really effective. Every dollar that's spent on infrastructure will bring rural business. It will add to the economy of the country, because it will not only attract new businesses to rural Canada but will also enhance the ones there and make them more effective. I think it's money well spent, and it's very wise for the federal government to take on this issue.
It's not as if they haven't heard from FCM on this issue. We've been pushing for some time, through some of the members like you. You realize this is very important, and we're glad the committee is talking to us today about this issue.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
One thing I find in rural Quebec, where I am, is that a lot of communities have a backbone into their communities, and I get constant calls to my office from people seeing a fibre optic line going by their house but not being able to connect to it. Do you run into that a lot, the perception that we have the backbone in a huge amount of the country but the last mile is seriously missing?
11:35 a.m.
Chair, Rural Forum, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
I think Sara would agree—she probably wants to comment on that too—that the last mile is really important. You have to have both, as you realize. You can't have one without the other. It is very frustrating.
I know we have that in our communities too. The companies are putting in new fibre optic lines, but they're connecting to the towns and the cities, and the rural areas are not able to use it. We think that's why we need to have more towers put up in our areas. They can use those towers for other things besides just broadband; they can use them for cellphone coverage as well, and that will help our rural areas.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Internet in my area is principally on relay tower signals, but we're in a very mountainous area, so that's also not very effective. A good tower will connect to eight clients, so the economics tends to not be there for that as well.
11:35 a.m.
Chair, Rural Forum, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Yes, that's an issue as well.
Maybe Sara wants to comment.
11:35 a.m.
Member, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Our emphasis is definitely on backbone. We don't even have the speeds coming into the community, let alone being able to participate. Until that backbone is addressed, the last mile is irrelevant.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
That's fair enough.
I have 30 seconds left. I'll hand them over to Mr. Longfield, who has a quick question for you as well.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you. I have a quick follow-up for Mr. Orb around the smaller service providers.
You mentioned SaskTel. I'm wondering about the opportunities for FCM to partner with some of the smaller providers to also create jobs within your communities.
11:35 a.m.
Chair, Rural Forum, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
The position of FCM is a good question. I think FCM itself is not willing to partner. Of course, the municipalities will partner. As for the provincial organizations, I can just give you an example from Saskatchewan. SaskTel, our provider, has offered to do some pilot projects in communities where they don't have any cell coverage at all or have very limited Internet. We're looking at doing some pilot projects to see how that can affect us a year along.
It varies so much across the country. I think every province has a different idea. Basically, we all want the same thing: we want basic.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Thank you very much.
We're going to move to Mr. Jeneroux. You have five minutes.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you both for attending today's meeting.
Would you mind quickly commenting on the standards put in place for the minimum speeds that were recently announced? We hear some providers say that it's very low. Some are saying that it's quite high. I'm curious as to your opinion.
11:35 a.m.
Chair, Rural Forum, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
You'll have to remind me. Are you referring to the five megabits per second?
11:35 a.m.
Chair, Rural Forum, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
I think we can say that we believe that's a good place to start. It's a minimum. I think the issue is that as time goes on, if they're delivering by towers, those towers do get overloaded. However, I think it basically provides some high-speed Internet, and we need that basic service. We'll be able to build on that in the future. We think it's a step in the right direction.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
Is it too high, too low? Would you rather see it higher, or are you happy with where it is? Do you have any comments on that?
11:35 a.m.
Chair, Rural Forum, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
I probably would like 50 megabits per second. We know what the issue is. As technology changes, the apps that we use on our computers and phones increase, so we need more data. We're constantly relying on data to operate our businesses and to communicate, and more and more is used.
Basically, we have to have a threshold where we can start. The idea is to deliver this minimum across the country to all the rural communities and northern communities as well. It's a good starting point.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
Recently I saw some announcements out in the eastern Canada with regard to some of the connectivity. We have yet to see any in western Canada. We were told by the minister to expect something when he was here before us.
Is this a concern of your members? Are they eagerly anticipating these announcements? Have they been in communication with the minister recently?