Evidence of meeting #15 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was spectrum.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Senior Director, Regulatory Affairs, Cogeco Inc.
We have been working with the commission in terms of being able to better define the mapping and so on. We're also working with them to update and modernize the information they have from all the different carriers.
With respect to ISED and their hexagon mapping issues, we're certainly having a look at what they will propose to see whether it's beneficial to us or not.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Terrific.
To stay on that one—the clock is ticking here—I was working with the University of Guelph. I know there's been a Yale review panel as well with industry and academic collaboration around these types of issues. The R2B2 program at the University of Guelph is a rural and remote broadband study that's going on under confidentiality agreements. I signed an agreement in order to see their work. They're looking at the commercial platforms as well as the technical platforms.
Looking at safe places to do these studies, could any company that's here tonight address how we're working with academic institutions as safe places to review commercial and technical matters that can then come toward CRTC and government bodies?
President, Rogers for Business, Rogers Communications Inc.
Maybe I could give a little bit of context. We're focused on the 5G space, which, as you know, is new technology being deployed across the world now for wireless, bringing speeds and capacities and coverage that we haven't seen prior. We've been using that as an anchor point for work with the University of British Columbia, Communitech down in southwestern Ontario, and a number of other universities. It's very similar to what you just described, as a place to bring real-world problems and to have university and research capability.
Frankly, some campus locations provide a nice little hotbed to test the capability of these types of services—at UBC, for example, for things like autonomous vehicles and sensor and IoT tracking. That's one way we've done it in a handful of locations across the country.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
It really seems like we are at a pivot point. Personally, I didn't know what a Zoom was until COVID hit. Now everybody is seeing other uses, new uses, and remote working. People are saying that sometimes remote working is better than working in an office.
Business is going to change in terms of what they're going to ask from networks. I wonder about the capacity for us to deal with those questions, both from industry as well as from government regulations.
President, Rogers for Business, Rogers Communications Inc.
We would agree with that comment. Our organization exists across this country, and as we think about that time when we return to work—hopefully, reasonably and safely soon—with 26,000 employees, we need to think about how we do that. That will lead to a very different way in which we deploy our forces across the country and a different way in which we use our real estate.
As we do that, it leads to different thinking in terms of the technology and the capabilities we have that will allow people to connect—like this—in [Technical difficulty—Editor] environment.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
This one is for the group. In the last Parliament, I was on the industry committee, and we did a study on broadband. We saw the competing interests of rural versus urban, profit in the urban centres, no profit in the rural centres, small users, large users, MVNOs entering the market and taking up some pipeline, and then the United States and some of the priorities that were being put through the United States in terms of giving preferential treatment to some customers.
These issues are very tricky, and I think the CRTC needs to...or maybe we as politicians need to look at the CRTC structure and see how we could give support in a different way for you to bring your product to market.
We have a nod of the head from Rogers.
President, Rogers for Business, Rogers Communications Inc.
Is it complicated? Exactly, yes it is.
Liberal
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
At the last meeting of our committee, Deputy Minister Kennedy told us about the desired mechanism, which is that for every dollar invested by the federal government in rural broadband access, but also in all government programs, the private sector should invest one dollar.
My question is for the people from the companies here today who are service providers.
Are you satisfied with existing programs? At this time, is it still appropriate to invest in the construction and maintenance of the network? By "appropriate" I mean cost-effective. Is it cost-effective for service providers to invest in the regional network in 2020?
Ms. Labrie from Cogeco could answer first.
Senior Vice-President and Chief Public Affairs and Communications Officer, Cogeco Inc.
Good evening.
That's a good question. Our main activity is to invest in the regions. Obviously, the population density is lower there than in urban areas. We are committed to investing in the regions.
The farther away you go from major centres, the more you find regions that are underserved or not served at all. Of course, this costs even more, hence the importance of establishing partnerships with the various levels of government. Over the past year, I think there has been an impetus on the part of the federal and provincial governments to work together. Everyone can work together.
We made recommendations regarding the federal connect to innovate program. The next program is the universal broadband fund. We have made recommendations to improve the programs, including clarifying the criteria, which we sometimes found to be too vague.
We also want to make sure that this program is technologically flexible and that we don't necessarily focus on the transport infrastructure, but on the final points to be connected. The network needs to be flexible, both in terms of its backbone and the last mile, to meet the connectivity needs of Canadians.
We have made recommendations. We need to continue to work collectively, all together, to address connectivity needs.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I find it interesting that you talk about working together.
Earlier, the Rogers representative said that the wireline network is 50 to 200 times better, but that it takes a lot of time and money to expand it. He talked about the digital divide—I find the term interesting—between urban and rural areas, and the need for sustained investment in the network in the regions.
My question is for Mr. Prevost, from Rogers. Is the federal investment in this network sufficient or adequate, particularly in these times of the COVID-19 pandemic, where the need for connectivity is greater?
President, Rogers for Business, Rogers Communications Inc.
Fundamentally, telecom is an industry that needs density. The economics of telecom are very simple: The more people you have in an area, the less costly and the easier it is to serve them, period, full stop. That plays out in a country of our size, with such low density. It makes serving, particularly the substantially rural Canadians, very difficult.
There have been some good steps taken to create programs to work together, but there are many overlapping programs with different requirements. It would be very helpful to have them be more co-ordinated, connected and using similar criteria so that we get the biggest bang for the buck, the biggest leverage.
As well, as a presenter said earlier, there are a lot of costs we carry that we feel are unnecessary: the long delays getting permits, the difficulty getting access to poles, to ducts, to infrastructure and deploying services. That, frankly, is a waste of money and time. If we were able to find a way to do the latter more efficiently, I think we could do the former better as well and reach deeper into rural Canada than we have so far. That includes connecting programs across rural municipalities. Regions, provinces and the federal government all have overlapping, and sometimes not consistent, expectations.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you for your answer, Mr. Prevost.
I have a question for you, Mr. Geheran. As a representative of Telus, you mentioned earlier that even though it costs 30% more to invest in the regions in terms of connectivity, the 20-year rollout is not working and that the spectrum approach needs to be rethought.
Are you satisfied with the programs in place, and how could they be improved to ensure their effectiveness? Would it require more money, or shorter time frames?
Executive Vice-President and Chief Customer Officer, Telus Communications Inc.
It's a very good question, but there were two points mixed up in your interpretation.
The 20-year deployment of spectrum means that we are not getting Canadians served by good LTE wireless coverage. It could be because the spectrum is just not being utilized and the infrastructure or the towers haven't been built.
When I talked about the 30% more that it costs to build, that was for the fibre network that we are extending into our rural areas across our provinces. That has a very long payback period. It is very expensive, and the government funding programs to date have been inadequate. They are not well suited, they take too long to process and they don't release the capital in a timely fashion that makes it efficient to get a better return for the taxpayer.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sherry Romanado
Thank you very much.
The next round of questions goes to MP Masse for six minutes.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair, and to all of the witnesses for being here.
At the last committee hearing, I got rather animated with the minister and some of the answers we heard. I'll tell you the reasons why and where I'm going with this vis-à-vis solutions for our current problem.
As a New Democrat, I've always believed that the service is essential for Canadians and is also very much a part of equality. To hear the minister talk about this being part of equality and then people having to wait until 2030 is very frustrating for me, because since I've been elected I've seen the governments collect $20 billion plus from spectrum auctions—most recently, with one being $3.5 billion—and roll out basically only a portion of that at $170 million a year for the next 10 years, with the hope that we actually connect Canadians by 2030.
This pandemic has heightened, I think, the experiences of people and the inconveniences of being returned to social isolation, being disengaged from the community and not having an opportunity to run your business. There is a whole series of different things that are crucially important and that I think could be an advantage for our country.
Here's one of the things that I would like to ask about. Perhaps we can go in reverse order for answers to this question. I believe Xplornet was last, so it would be Xplornet, Telus, Rogers and Cogeco.
If we redeployed our spectrum assets that we've collected, and the current spectrums that are coming up, to be reprioritized to be extensions into connecting Canada, is it possible to do so within about a three-year period, with maybe some cleanup in the fourth year? Again, if we use our spectrum, the assets we have accumulated that the government hasn't spent to date and the future ones, with the directive to connect Canadians, is that a possibility? I'll certainly be looking forward to seeing how we can change things.
Maybe we can start with Xplornet and then go back in reverse order.
Chief Legal and Regulatory Officer, Xplornet Communications Inc.
Thank you. That's a great question.
To us, there are four key things that you need to succeed with rural broadband. You need money, you need spectrum, you need access to key infrastructure and you need co-operation.
The barriers that you encounter in different rural areas of this country are different. Sometimes the problem isn't money. Sometimes it is economically feasible to serve certain areas but you can't get the spectrum to do it, or you can't get the municipal co-operation to do it. Or you can't get access, as some of my colleagues here have mentioned, to things like poles or other key infrastructure.
It's those four things brought together that are needed in order to achieve success. Some of them we can control, and I assure you that all of us attempt to do our best to control it.
In answer to your question, it all depends on what problem you're trying to solve where and what combination you use, but in theory, yes, you could do it, if you use the right combinations across the country.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you very much for that answer.
I want to make sure we get everybody in here. I believe Telus is next, then Rogers and then Cogeco.
Executive Vice-President and Chief Customer Officer, Telus Communications Inc.
Thank you. It's a great question, and I believe it is doable were we to get an alignment of the release of the monies of that magnitude you talk about to make it worthwhile nationally. I believe that if you can align private capital with provincial and federal capital, you can get a great contribution on the part of everyone to make these projects economical, and you should have the will then to remove the barriers such as access rights of way and other impediments that typically slow down these projects.
Never before has the circumstance been such that I think you have the foundation where everyone is on the same page, sees the need and should have a bold ambition. If you don't set a bold target with aspirations of completing the work, completing it economically, reporting on the expenditures appropriately and demonstrating that you've provided connectivity to citizens—not to hubs or libraries or schools, but to citizens' homes and businesses—then I think you can say it would be something in our legacy that this country could be proud of.
Senior Vice-President, Regulatory, Rogers Communications Inc.
For Rogers, we agree with everything that has been said so far. We do think that the funds from the spectrum auctions should be devoted to bettering telecommunication services. The one caution we would have is that a three-year target strikes us as really ambitious, because we're talking about places that are very far away, very cold and, in some cases, there is only a winter road or six weeks in the winter to get materials to that location. There's also a limited number of skilled installers to do some of this work.
While three years would be a fabulous target, we think it might not quite be achievable in that time frame. Again, you're probably talking about the last 1% to 2%, which are the hardest, so that might need a more extended time frame. We do need to be realistic.
NDP
Senior Director, Regulatory Affairs, Cogeco Inc.
That's fine, I have very little to add to everything that has been said already. Everything that has been said is pretty much in the ballpark.
Access to support structures is key. We've had permits outstanding for almost three years, so that is a barrier that needs to be removed. The target that you suggested of three years is very ambitious, but there are things that could and need to be done.