A single directed program could be much more efficient in identifying where to direct funds, rather than relying on funding applications across the number of funding envelopes.
To give an example of something the current government has done with a directed funding initiative that's extremely helpful, the government has committed to connecting Iqaluit, which is in Nunavut, to a transatlantic cable that will give that city direct fibre access. That's a very targeted investment that the government identified for an area where the money could go to connect the city in a direct way that will improve connectivity issues in a remote area, and then they opened up an RFP for who wants to carry out that project that's been identified as a priority.
In contrast, the way it works now is that there are multiple, as you are aware, funding programs that different subscribers apply to with various projects, and based on the projects that are proposed and the existing priorities, the best ones are selected. But there's no overall mission or plan to identify where are the key areas with the most urgent gaps to fill. So it's very much left to what proposals come up.
Also, there's the issue of identifying different efficiencies around the use of spectrum. For example, perhaps a more efficient way to maximize the utility of spectrums is to force spectrum holders who are not building in rural areas to make that spectrum available to other municipalities or local indigenous groups to build their own infrastructure over that spectrum to address local needs while that spectrum is sitting unused on a cost-recovery basis.
Those types of solutions could emerge if a more strategic and holistic approach were taken to addressing where the actual challenges are, as opposed to just the current divergent approach that's being used.