Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 21st, 2019

[Jerome Berthelette]

I think that, at the time, we were looking at how the program was designed. We were looking at making recommendations that would help to ensure that the department achieved its goal, which was to try to maximize the private funds. At this point, with the knowledge we have, I'd say they're being fairly successful at achieving that goal. But we haven't audited this, so I think I will hold off on saying whether it is as successful as it could be until we've actually audited what has transpired so far.

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

Okay. My assessment of what I'm seeing is that, if there's any problem to identify here, it's that there simply wasn't enough money in the program to begin with. But as for the operation of the program, I have trouble finding the problems that have been identified in the audit.

I do have questions for the other witnesses as well, and I'll move on to them. I might come back to you later on.

Mr. Scott, you mentioned that you have a limited but important role. Do you find the CRTC's hands are tied in any way, and is there any way for us to help untie them?

[Ian Scott]

No, I don't believe the commission's hands are tied in any way. We have a very constructive working relationship with ISED in relation to these and the development of broadband maps and ongoing coordination. We too will assist the department in the federal-provincial-territorial discussions. So, no, the commission has a somewhat different role because we are an arm's-length, independent agency, so there are times when we are more insular, for lack of a better term. We must be, to respect our arm's-length relationship.

No, there are no impediments to our working toward fulfilling these broadband objectives.

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

One of the problems that I keep running into is market position abuse by a large telecom, mainly Bell, in our area. Do you have the tools in your mandate to deal with the problems brought up by vertical integration in telecom and market position abuse, for example, making it very, very difficult to get onto hydro poles to put a new fibre line on for a different company?

[Ian Scott]

There are a number of elements packed into that question. Perhaps I'll—

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

Feel free to take it apart.

[Ian Scott]

—take the last one first.

You're aware, I'm sure, that there is currently a review of both the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act under way. The government established a review panel that will be making its recommendations. We've made a public submission to that panel. One of the issues we have highlighted is the current and future importance of passive infrastructure, in particular as we look toward the deployment of 5G mobile technology. There will be more and more devices to be deployed not only on traditional rights of way, whether they be provincial or municipal, and poles, but also things like municipal-controlled or -owned bus shelters, lamp posts and so on. This will represent a formidable challenge in the future, and we have pointed out that as the legislation is reviewed, it will be very important that parliamentarians pay particular attention to that issue, so that we have a resolution, so that we'll be able to ensure that both broadband and wireless technology in the future is effectively deployed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Scott and Mr. Graham.

I will now move to the opposition and Mr. Dan Albas.

Welcome to the committee. You have seven minutes.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I certainly appreciate all of the testimony here today. I look forward to your expertise on this report.

Further to Mr. de Burgh Graham's comments, I heard the member for Pontiac last night bragging about how much money they'd received in a largely rural area. The reality for people in Logan Lake is quite opposite from that of Mr. de Burgh Graham. You'll have a café owner who can't get sufficient download speeds to charge their customers' Interac and they have to give free coffees that day. That's a problem. I certainly appreciate that we're focusing on it, and I appreciate the Auditor General making this one of his audits.

I'll start with the CRTC. Mr. Scott, why did you cut your speed target in half from 50 megabits down to 25 megabits?

[Ian Scott]

I am very pleased to answer that question because the premise is incorrect, with all due respect. We did not cut it. The target is 50 and we look forward to seeing that target fulfilled.

In the decision that we released when we set out all of the details for how one could apply for the fund, we allowed that we'd accept—in certain circumstances—applications for 25 megabit service where it can clearly be scaled up to 50. The reason for that is if we had not made that decision, there would be a lot of communities that would wait until well after 2021 because they simply couldn't get to 50 from where they are today, which might be three, four or five megabits per second.

We were not limiting but expanding the potential number of communities.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Sir, with all due respect, you can say that you did not cut it in half, but the reality is that your proposals for projects mandate a speed of 25 megabits and half of the proposed target. To the Canadians I speak to, that sounds a lot like a cut. If you think that 50 megabits is necessary, why would you only accept projects that seek to deliver half of that?

[Ian Scott]

For the reason I just said. If we insist on accepting applications that can only reach 50 megabits, many of those communities will not be included. It's not to say that they will not get to 50. We will only consider applications at 25 megabit per second that have a clear path to 50. It will result in more communities receiving a higher grade of service sooner than they otherwise would.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

It does sound, sir, like you're saying that there are two-tier communities. While I do recognize there are costs and there are unique situations, one would think that you would come forward with an actual project plan that would deal with that.

[Ian Scott]

We have, sir.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

We'll let Canadians decide, sir.

I'd like to move over to Mr. Knubley.

Deputy minister, I asked you a few months ago if your department would ensure that rural fixed wireless customers would not be negatively impacted in the upcoming government clawback of the 3,500 megahertz. At that time, you expressed to me that you would do your darndest to make sure that rural residents weren't negatively impacted. Is that still your position on this critical issue? I'm hearing concerns from rural Canadians that think the opposite.

[John Knubley]

That's still my position. The 3,500 issue has not yet been moved forward, but it will be in due course. As I mentioned in my opening remarks on the 600 side, we did set aside 40% of the spectrum for rural purposes.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Sir, I do appreciate that this is a very complex file, but when your department is speaking about clawing back the 3,500 megahertz spectrum and there's no certainty that they're going to keep it, that is cold comfort.

Further in the Auditor General's report there have been many calls for a complete strategy to addressing the deficit in Internet access for rural and remote Canadians. Even in your own comments you talked about very well-known Canadians—David Johnston, former minister Manley—who have worked long on setting out some of the basic principles toward seeing a national standard and to see rural Canadians fully joining the economy.

So far, the government has refused to produce such a strategy as the Auditor General sought. Why the refusal to develop a strategy thus far? What is the status of the strategy spoken of in the report?

When Canadians hear that the principles have been outlined since 2001 and yet they have the Auditor General saying that those principles have not been formulated in a plan, you can see some of the skepticism. Again, I go to places like Logan Lake, Keremeos and Princeton, where they have concerns about their high speed.

[John Knubley]

The strategy since 2001, consistent with the Johnston task force, has been to do with a staged approach to addressing the gaps in the broadband service for Canadians. We have had five programs since 2001, contributing $1 billion overall, from a government perspective, to addressing and fixing these gaps.

In light of the decision that broadband is a basic service and our goal of 50/10 megabits, we are working with provinces and the private sector, recognizing that we have a common objective. We have a time frame of addressing this 10% in 10 to 15 years. Again, we formalized, much more than in the past, our working groups at the federal-provincial level. As I mentioned, the ministers met last fall and committed to meet the goal of 50/10 and to develop an integrated strategy related to this. In that context, officials are working together to develop, province by province and territory by territory, how we will proceed on this basis.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Sir, that does sound oddly like a plan to have a plan. Can you tell us what its status is? When will this plan be forthcoming?

[John Knubley]

We have a plan. We have an objective of 50/10. We know that there is another 5% that will evolve through the private sector in the next five years, and we are working together with all the stakeholders to address this 10% gap.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Okay, well again, an objective is, I think, Mr. Chair, different than a plan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Albas and Mr. Knubley.

We'll now move to Mr. Christopherson, please, for seven minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, all, for being here again.

I want to start, as I often do, with the focus right at the beginning.

On page 6, it says:

This audit focused on whether Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, according to their respective roles and responsibilities, monitored the state of connectivity, and developed and implemented a strategy to meet the connectivity needs of Canadians in rural and remote areas.

The conclusion on page 26 says:

We concluded that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, according to their respective roles and responsibilities, monitored the state of connectivity

—so, congratulations—

but did not share enough detailed information publicly. We also concluded that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada did not develop and implement a national strategy to improve broadband Internet connectivity to a specific service level in rural and remote areas.

That's going to be the focus of my comment.

However, I do want to start on a positive note and, where I can and where it's deserved, give some credit. Mr. Berthelette, in paragraph 5 of his opening remarks, advised:

Mr. Chair, with respect to the state of connectivity in Canada, we found that the Department relied on complete and accurate data to inform policy-making aimed at addressing the connectivity gap in rural and remote areas.

So, by the looks of it, you did a good job on data. Data has been a major priority for us in this term of Parliament, so congratulations on that. That's well done.

Now I want to get to this business of a national strategy because there is a piece missing and I'm not getting it. There are 12 years of studies that say that we need a national broadband strategy. Yet, Mr. Berthelette, you say in the third paragraph of your opening remarks.... To be specific, it states that for 12 years we have needed a national strategy.

It says:

However, at the time we finished our audit, the government had still not agreed to take that step.

I know that they have, subsequently, but at the time, no.

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada indicated it was reluctant to establish a strategy with an objective that could not be reached with the available funding.

Mr. Berthelette, would you just expand on that, please? It sounds backwards to me, but again, if you would just reiterate your findings....

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Berthelette, or is it Mr. Le Goff?

[Philippe Le Goff]

Mr. Chair, at the time of the audit the department was provided with a set amount of money that was, from its perspective—and I think we can share that perspective—not enough to meet the needs of Canadians.