Transcription, Audience du 19 avril 2023

Les participants et l'endroit

Tenue à :

Centre culturel Kwanlin Dün
Whitehorse (Yukon)

Participants :

• Présidente : Vicky Eatrides
• Membres : Adam Scott, Vice-président, Télécommunications
  Claire Anderson, Conseillère, Colombie Britannique et Yukon
  Nirmala Naidoo, Territories/Conseillère, Alberta et Territoires du Nord-Ouest
  Ellen Desmond, Conseillère, Région de l’Atlantic et Nunavut
• Conseiller(ère)s juridiques : Alexander Ly
  Michel Hogan
  Stephanie Willsey
• Secrétaire : Dale Moore
• Gérant(e)s d'audience : Celia Millay
  Nicolas Gatto

Table de matières

Présentations

1812 Northern Rockies Regional Municipality

2018 Daniel Sokolov

2189 Shadhäla Äshèyi yè Kwädän, or Champagne and Aishihik First Nations

2332 Taku River Tlingit First Nation

Engagements

2268 Engagement

2446 Engagement

2451 Engagement

Transcription

Whitehorse (Yukon)
19 avril 2023
Ouverture de l'audience à 9 h 00

Whitehorse (Yukon)

--- L'audience débute le mercredi 19 avril 2023 à 9 h 00

1808 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, everybody. Let's begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional territory of the Kwanlin Dün First Nation and the Ta'an Kwäch'än Council. We pay respect to the Indigenous peoples and their Elders.

1809 Alors, bienvenue à la troisième journée de notre audience. J'aimerais aujourd'hui introduire notre secrétaire d'audience, Dale Moore.

1810 MME MOORE: Merci beaucoup, Madam la présidente.

1811 I would like to mention that the Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in government will not be presenting today, and that we will be starting the day with the Northern Rockies Regional Municipality. They're joining us by Zoom today. So I will ask you all to present yourselves and you can start your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

1812 MR. GILBERT: Thank you. Good morning. Am I audible?

1813 MS. MOORE: Yes, we can hear you clearly. Thank you.

1814 MR. GILBERT: I'm Mike Gilbert. I'm Regional Development Officer for Northern Rockies Regional Municipality. I am accompanied by my colleagues, Gabrielle Jacob who is our Land and Natural Resources Coordinator, and Rob Blain who is our Technological Services Manager. And as is our custom, before engaging fully, we will begin with a territorial acknowledgment from Gabrielle.

1815 --- Pause

1816 MS. MOORE: Is it possible that your microphone is on mute?

1817 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, we can't hear you, unfortunately.

1818 MR. GILBERT: In the interests of expediting the process, I can take up for Gabrielle.

1819 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you.

1820 MR. GILBERT: And as the Northern Rockies Regional Municipality respectfully acknowledge the Indigenous Peoples of the region including the Dene, Cree, Dunne Tsaa, Tsááʔ çhé Ne Dane, Dene Tha' and Kaska peoples and the enduring presence of the Metis community, each with cultural and longstanding connections to the land base in Northeast B.C. and all of whom we hope to share the benefits of these proceedings.

1821 To begin with, Northern Rockies is B.C.'s sole regional municipality, occupying about 10 percent of the province's land mass, northeast corner of the province. For further reference that's larger than the country of Austria. We're spanned by the Alaska highway linking us north and south, and those in the Yukon are quite familiar, no doubt, with that route, and likewise we have a connection to Northwest Territories, immediately Fort Liard, through Highway 77.

1822 Over that span of territory, we are populated by 5,500 roughly residents with approximately 3,500 in and around the administrative centre of Fort Nelson, and from there we will proceed.

1823 We share major concerns expressed with other intervenors, and in the interests of trying to make our essential points, we will make passing reference, but I think there's largely a consensus on many of the issues, what the issues are, and how they should be dealt with.

1824 The NRRM feels, though, aside from that, particularly that our needs are not being addressed by the incumbent on a par with many or most of its other subscribers, and that the NRRM fears that its needs and circumstances may be lost in the formulation of the Commission's response to this exercise, in that in many ways we are an outlier, being a provincial jurisdiction, geographically different, economically different, and a very separate part of the, seemingly, of the incumbent's customer base.

1825 We see broadband and connectivity as an equity issue in that, again, there is a consensus, I believe, as has been expressed by the Commission and by other participants, that broadband service and connectivity has come to be a basic need, on the level of other utilities. The service is even more important, we feel, to Northerners who use it as a levelling device to access services that are proximately available to others in the country, particularly to the south.

1826 In the case of the NRRM, the disparity between north and south is particularly exacerbated in that we have a different level and we feel a different level of treatment by the incumbent and we have disparities in service and cost among the users within the Northern Rockies itself. So taken down a level, we feel that users up and down the highway are particularly disadvantaged within our own region.

1827 Affordability is a topic of conversation, the lack of affordability. Again, we contribute to the consensus that it disproportionately affects socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, families, and to a degree businesses.

1828 On that topic, the NRRM has previously submitted that affordability should be referenced to the mean cost of services in rural areas to the south. While we still feel that is a useful metric, we are persuaded that we may wish to reconsider and modify our position, given a bit of time to digest the substance of PIAC's presentation yesterday, which is one of the sources that we have -- one of the sources of learning we have had by participating in this process. So we may wish to modify the on the record position that we have stated.

1829 With regard to competition, currently Northwestel is the sole terrestrial provider of retail and wholesale bandwidth in the Northern Rockies. It is a virtual monopoly, and we find ourselves at the whim of that for-profit organization.

1830 Particularly with regard to wholesale -- and this has been mentioned before -- its price structure and levels of accessibility preclude the intrusion of competitors. We have had numerous conversations, we've been vigorously recruiting others to come into the market, and we have had numerous conversations which have terminated very quickly when they've had a look at wholesale rates.

1831 The NRRM is presently dependent, as said, completely on the decisions made at a corporate level in the interests of the corporation, rather than we feel, exclusively in the public interest. We see competition and the introduction of competition necessary to incent a whole variety of things which have been mentioned by other participants, which have been on the record, acknowledged by Northwestel in advocating for funding, and which I believe are also recognized through the discussion. We won't belabour those points at this point.

1832 The NRRM recognizes the difficulty related to the generation of a positive business case. We don't argue that. But we believe that there are mechanisms in the hands of the CRTC, including subsidization, that can be used to mitigate that. And when performing the work leading up to the formulation of our Connectivity Strategy for the region, we received a positive response from 80 percent of respondents to the idea of the provision of some sort of government subsidy to allow the conditions to be improved, rates to be improved, and across the board those issues to be addressed that have been identified.

1833 Aside from the general issues with which we agree, and which have been well-established, and I'm sure which will be reiterated by subsequent presenters, we have some that are specific to us. We split those concerns into two areas. One is those items that refer to Fort Nelson proper, the administrative core of our region. We are subscribers to services provided by what is effectively a second-tier telecommunications provider, and all the evidence we see is that we are a second-tier customer and an orphan child as far as that service provider is concerned.

1834 Only the area proximate to the core of Fort Nelson has what is referred to as high-speed broadband access. While the CRTC has approved and Northwestel offers 150 megabit download service to other customers, Fort Nelson's maximum service is limited to 125 megabits because existing infrastructure can't do better. Important case in point, current delivery is also reliant on end-of-life copper infrastructure. Residents surrounding Fort Nelson proper are limited to DSL service, so that's the outlying area, not far distant from the centre of our population density.

1835 Although Fort Nelson is designated as meeting the base target of 50/10, users report and anecdotal experience is that this is simply not the case. But were we to concede for the sake of discussion that that were the case, it still needs to be highlighted that that is currently being delivered by end-of-life infrastructure, with all the issues that that brings in terms of reliability, quality of service, and offering no degree of future-proofing.

1836 Rural NRRM, predominantly those communities located on the highway north and south of us, are there and they serve a number of functions, not just centered on themselves, but they also provide services and public safety to that other served population of between 300,000 and 400,000 of those who transit the Alaska Highway annually. These communities express frustration, sometimes in very colourful terms, in that they lie within tens or hundreds of metres of Northwestel's North-South fibre backbone, but do not have the opportunity to connect to that backbone. Again, they're relegated to DSL, if service is available at all.

1837 That leaves these communities with little or no ready access to a range of government, medical and other services, a situation which affordable access is needed in order to correct.

1838 Northwestel's broadband service outside of Fort Nelson, limited to ADSL, with maximum speeds of 15 megabits, where service is available. As an example, one consumer, a tourist service on the highway, is paying something in excess of $2,300 monthly for 15-megabit service, which does not even scratch the surface of the expectation of what his customers have when they come up highway.

1839 MS. MOORE: Excuse me, Mr. Gilbert, you have two minutes left in your presentation. Thank you.

1840 MR. GILBERT: Thank you. I will skip some of the other items that we had included and hope they will emerge in questioning.

1841 There is further evidence that Northwestel sees us differently from its other clients. For example, in the 2022 list of broadband projects selected for funding, showed six approved to Northwestel in the Northwest Territories, eight in Yukon, none in B.C. and, to our knowledge, none applied for in B.C. The NRRM has no indication that this is going to change and that we are stuck with the status quo indefinitely.

1842 We have a list of recommendations that we hope will stimulate discussion and they are as follows. We recommend the explicit inclusion of the NRRM in requirements established for Northwestel-served jurisdictions as a result of the Commission's consideration of these proceedings. We recommend the establishment of an accelerated timetable to place the NRRM on a par with others in the far north, including replacement of end-of-life infrastructure.

1843 We recommend that a sense of urgency should be reflected in the efforts to codify and implement policies and regulations intended to respond to the issues and recommendations flowing from the process.

1844 We recommend a clearly defined standard for affordability, subject to discussion, and I hope questions will be asked. That that should be established and incorporated in a regime of rates that maximizes access and doesn't disadvantage Northerners.

1845 We recommend a revised rate structure to be implemented, which will eliminate discrepancies between rural and remote users in the far north and in the Northern Rockies.

1846 We request that, should an incumbent not be willing to provide relief to financially disadvantaged individuals and families, ensuring reasonable level of basic access, that the Commission should mandate such a program.

1847 We recommend that measures should be taken to facilitate and encourage the establishment of competition in the provision of connectivity services in the far north, including making adjustments to wholesale transport rates and availability.

1848 We recommend that where the need is demonstrated -- and I will repeat -- when need is demonstrated to the Commission, subsidies should be made available to achieve the objectives of greater affordability, access, competition, and service quality, in order to foster competition.

1849 And we further recommend that any subsidies should be portable and include the possibility of subsidization of wholesale rates, again, where such can be justified by evidence presented to the Commission for review.

1850 And finally, we suggest to the Commission that the National Contribution Fund is a viable source to support such subsidies.

1851 Thank you. And apologies for claiming more than our share of time. I hope we can get to some of the other points we would have liked to have included through questioning, and we are more than happy to respond to Commissioners' questions.

1852 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, and I should note that you will be given an opportunity at the end to add anything that we may have missed in the opening remarks.

1853 Just a quick word of thanks. Thank you for joining us. Really appreciate you sharing your concerns with us as well as some of the proposals that you would support to help address those concerns, so thank you.

1854 I am going to turn things over to my colleague, Commissioner Naidoo, to lead the questions for the CRTC. Thank you.

1855 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you so much for being here today and presenting to us. I enjoyed reading your submission and reading your presentation ahead of time today.

1856 You mention in your presentation that any potential subsidies should be portable and should also include subsidization of wholesale rates.

1857 So if the CRTC were to create a new subsidy, do you think it should reduce rates to all customers, or should it be focused on low-income households specifically?

1858 MR. GILBERT: No, Commissioner. Thank you for the question.

1859 I would segregate those two pieces and say that we see the exercise as two parts. One is in ensuring that rates take -- a rate structure is fair and reasonable to all and brings us as close to parity as is realistic with the rest of Canadians who participate on the internet.

1860 Referring back to our earlier point that equity has a -- there's a bit of a tint to the use of the word "equity" in our case and in the case of northerners inasmuch as we do not have options to access services as would be available to other Canadians to the south. So I think that addresses the issue of subsidies vis à vis rate structure, if that's to your satisfaction. Otherwise, the issue of providing everyone some level of reasonable access to allow them to become meaningful participants in our society and to execute the necessities of daily life, I think, is separate from that and I think that a subsidy should support that.

1861 Again, we rely on that phrase "when demonstrated to the Commission". And we've included that phrase deliberately because we are without the means or the information to assess those things, so we cannot make that an absolute statement that it should happen thus and so, and we don't presume to prescribe the methodology under which that would happen. But we express that as an objective, I suppose.

1862 Anecdote to back that up. The local Fort Nelson district school system, when the pandemic compelled the shutdown of schools, we discovered very quickly when instruction went online that there was a significant proportion of our students who were unable -- families of students who were unable to participate in day-to-day live instruction and the exchange of learning materials. The school district was compelled to start a shuttle service, a paper-based shuttle service, to exchange packages back and forth, but we were exchanging those things with households that were shut out from other resources and who did not have the benefit of access to teachers for their learning.

1863 That's a very concrete example. That's a stark example. But it's replicated in other areas such as health care, mental health.

1864 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Mr. Gilbert, thank you for that. I did read that in your submission. I appreciate you bringing it up again. Obviously, that was a huge issue for your community.

1865 I wanted to move to satellite internet services. In your view, do you think that there should be an internet affordability subsidy for satellite-dependent communities?

1866 MR. GILBERT: Yes, but no. It is our position and our preference that fibre to the premises is doable across our region and that that is preferred. It ensures future proofing. It ensures, we believe, greater reliability, and it is a preferred solution.

1867 The "no" in my answer comes from the fact that two things are happening as we speak as far as LEO satellite is concerned. And when we speak of LEO satellite right now in our region, we're talking about Starlink.

1868 Out of desperation, many customers and potential customers of Northwestel have migrated to Starlink. There are issues -- and I'll take a minute to mention those issues momentarily, but Northwestel, in some of its arguments, relies on the concept of not being able to generate a positive business case; therefore, not being able to access funding that would allow for upgrading infrastructure and delivery of better service. So it's the business case issue.

1869 Every day that goes by, more people out of desperation migrate to Starlink, further diluting that business case.

1870 The other issue associated with that is the obvious one, and that's the front-end cost, and beyond the front-end cost, the outlay, which until recently amounted to about $1,000 in our locations. There is the fact that Starlink offers a single tier package, which in terms of cost rivals the high-end package that Northwestel offers where it's available.

1871 That, again, is something that excludes those families that we want to bring into the tent, that we want to ensure have full opportunity to participate. So that's the yes, but no.

1872 It has been -- I will say it has been a godsend to many up the highway who have gone from 5 meg and 15 meg DSL to 200 meg satellite. The weakness associated -- what we're finding, at least, the weakness associated with the current technology is that it easily meets the download speeds but struggles to meet the upload speeds.

1873 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very for that fulsome answer. I really appreciate it.

1874 In your intervention and also in your presentation today, you mentioned that there's a dual rate structure in NRRM between Fort Nelson and outlying more rural areas.

1875 MR. GILBERT: Right.

1876 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: I believe you're pitching a tariff schedule to address that situation, and I wanted to give you an opportunity to explain a little bit more about that and also how you think a tariff schedule would work.

1877 MR. GILBERT: Quite simply, what we envision as a tariff schedule is simply a flat rate for all NRRM users, period, that currently and even in the future, were better service to be provided, if a two-tier pricing system exists, people that are already disadvantaged in terms of access to services and so on would be further disadvantaged and burdened with an extra cost. We look at the examples of -- we tend to -- pardon me, Commissioner. I'll reorganize my thought a bit.

1878 We tend to view connectivity services, broadband in particular, as a utility on a par with other utilities. It has come to that level. Government has an expectation now in certain areas that they are communicated with online, and it makes it very difficult to get to services, information and assistance by any other means. There is that complex delay of phone back and those kinds of things. So it's virtually a necessity for people to have that kind of access.

1879 And to have a two-tier system where people who are disadvantaged by virtue of their location or further disadvantaged by a pricing structure is unreasonable, and what we see with utilities is that in many areas, and we've recently completed -- just to draw a parallel, we've recently completed an exercise through the B.C. Utilities Commission to do with the application of postage stamp, province-wide single pricing for natural gas. That is -- we see very little difference in terms of the cross-subsidization model there and the cross-subsidization model available to the CRTC as an option, particularly if they draw on the source that we were talking about, inasmuch as our argument would be in that regard that the benefit of providing services in our region and in the north is not exclusive to our region and the north.

1880 We are here and we provide cultural contributions, social contributions, and most certainly financial contributions to the overall economy. So we don't think that it's a handout when we draw on that overall economy to support services that we find necessary to deliver and to do what we do.

1881 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Right. Thank you. Thank you.

1882 I have a lot of questions, so I'm going to ask if we can just -- I want to make sure that we get through them all and I want to make sure that my colleagues also have a chance to ask questions that I may not have asked, so I'm going to move on. I don't mean to stop you because I can see you're very passionate.

1883 You mentioned in your presentation also about affordability standards and how you really believe that they need to be established on a basis that specifically doesn't disadvantage northern consumers, both individuals and businesses.

1884 I just wanted to get some clarification on that. Are you envisioning an affordability standard for the entire country and then, adding to that, that it should not disadvantage the far north, or are you pitching -- or do you think an affordability standard should only apply to the far north?

1885 MR. GILBERT: I think we're confining our remarks to this current round of hearings. We're not sufficiently grounded in the national picture to be able to make prescriptions, but what I do think is that in terms of affordability, there should be a level of affordability, a standard of affordability that someone in Toad River should be able to look at the rates that they're paying and the reality, the realistic nature of them being able to access it with financial resources available to them that does not put them in a different category from other Canadians.

1886 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Okay.

1887 MR. GILBERT: Does that answer your question?

1888 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Kind of. I guess what I'm asking is, are you pitching -- I would envision an affordability standard as being specific to the far north, and I'm just trying to figure out if that's exactly what you're trying to say. Okay.

1889 MR. GILBERT: Yes. I think for the purposes of this discussion, that's a yes. Were you to ask the other question and ask us to go away and come back, we might have a different answer and we might account for some differences, but in this case we're talking about the far north, yes.

1890 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Okay. Thank you for that.

1891 I want to talk about outages now. Many parties to this proceeding, I know that you've been following it all week long, you've seen that they've raised concerns about the frequency and the duration of internet outages in the far north, and I see members of your team already nodding their heads. You're very clear on that.

1892 I wanted to get to one of the things that you said in your intervention. You cite some issues that lead to outages in the NRRM, and I wanted to give you an opportunity to expand on what you think some of the issues are and that you think that the CRTC can help with.

1893 For example, I know that you mention in your intervention, you mention fibre optic cables and the risk of fire with them, how you need to have some redundancy. So if you can just expand on that a little bit in reference to outages?

1894 MR. GILBERT: Okay. Okay. I would preface any remarks by drawing the Commissioners' attention to our repeated statements on the nature of our existing infrastructure, that it is end of life and it cannot deliver up to the level that has been promoted elsewhere. We were specifically excluded from the upgraded packages as a result.

1895 But I would like to defer the question to my colleague, Rob Blain, who is much better grounded in that area.

1896 MR. BLAIN: Thank you, Mike, and thank you, Commission.

1897 The seriousness of our outages are compounded by all of our telecommunications services relying on Northwestel. We've had several instances with, upon a week's notice, they've said, "We're shutting down for four hours", which shut down our internet through Northwestel, the advanced internet for the corporates and government, which is a separate internet, the telephone service here, long distance calling and the two cell providers that float on Northwestel equipment. Unlike most areas where cells are interconnected, we are too diversely located so that our cells actually come back to the landline system. So by shutting down the central office, they, in turn, shut down all communications except for satellite communications and two-way radio, which have a limited range.

1898 We had an exercise of this earlier this year where we had to coordinate all the emergency services throughout our entire community based on having no communications. We posted firefighters on the main streets to accept calls. This is one instance of a scheduled outage.

1899 Another instance would be when we have an unplanned outage. We had a oversize load take down the lines that -- the aerial lines over a road that services our landfill. We called Northwestel. They said, "Yes, we'll get to it in 14 days", which at that time was typically their response time for everything.

1900 Fourteen (14) days later, they sent a person out, I found out. On the 15th day, I called them to ask them what the resolution was and they said, "Oh, yes, we sent someone out but they realized they needed an aerial truck and we can't do that without two people. We'll come again in 14 days".

1901 So here we are, 28 days with a service down, which is ironic because you see them working around town with the aerial truck, one person, all the time.

1902 It seems to be that there's a prevailing attitude, and I tread lightly on this one, that spend as little as possible in this area and just try to milk some more money out of the area.

1903 The cable plant -- in the residence that I live, in the block, the cable plant is actually rotting away. In many cases you'll pull RG6 on one end and RG59 on the other end of a single cable.

1904 We've had cables that have been laid in ditches for years at a time. When the residents complain, Northwestel still comes out, puts some orange caution tape on, electrical tapes it on, and leaves it for another year.

1905 We've got the --

1906 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: So are you saying that the CRTC should ask people to -- how would you characterize what you think our role would be in helping with that situation?

1907 MR. BLAIN: Thank you for that question. That's what I was hoping I would hear.

1908 I believe that the CRTC would need to provide a greater oversight role with Northwestel. Northwestel has received exceptional treatment in all other areas, including the implementation of next generation 911. They have an extended timeframe, et cetera, et cetera. I say we have exceptional service here, and please don't quote that exactly because the exception is not a positive thing. The rest of the country has this; the exception is Northwestel.

1909 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Okay. Thank you very much.

1910 I'm just conscious of our time, so I just want to make sure I get through some of the questions. I read your submission thoroughly and I really wanted to give you an opportunity to answer all the questions that I have.

1911 Automatic refunds. You've seen that a lot of the intervenors that have come before us, we've asked that question. What do you think about automatic refunds in outage situations?

1912 MR. GILBERT: As an organization, we don't have an opinion. I think as individuals working on the file, I think there's pretty much a consensus that there is a relatively -- it contributes to a relatively glib response, as Rob has cited, to service outages, so that in particular instances, for example, 24-hour internet outage to a residence involves two or three phone calls, being put on hold and receiving a $3.50 deduction on monthly charges, which effectively eliminates the opportunity for refunds. So the alternative being automatic refunds to incent the company to do things in a preventative way, and I would take the opportunity to -- the door that that opens is that it is well established that the installation of fibre and fibre to the premises significantly reduces maintenance costs. Significantly reduces maintenance cost.

1913 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Okay, thank you.

1914 Do you have a view on whether the CRTC should impose new requirements on Northwestel to improve transparency and availability of information in the case of outages?

1915 I'm sure you know better than anyone in the room when an outage occurs whether people are able to get answers or are able to know when the system might be up again, and so I just wanted some input from you on that.

1916 MR. GILBERT: I would refer you back to Rob's earlier comment about, yeah, we got very short notice on a complete shutdown of service, almost as a "by the way", so that's an advance notice.

1917 To keep it short because I know we're all pressed for time here, we're in a tight box, I would use the example of how B.C. Hydro functions. If we have a hydro outage, I can hit a site, I can track response time, what action has been taken and ETA for repairs within a reasonable length of time. Otherwise, we are left with a whole variety of situations where there may be a general service outage and you have people in their individual residences running around trying to reset routers and fix a problem that isn't theirs. So yes, we support the idea of transparency.

1918 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you. Thank you very much.

1919 Many parties pitch two possibilities for reducing internet costs in the far north. One is to introduce a subsidy for retail rates. The other one is to introduce a new terrestrial wholesale high-speed internet access service available to competitors but, I mean, you've heard through the last couple of days that some have brought up that if the CRTC were to reduce retail rates that that could also impact the margins for any wholesale services.

1920 So I just wanted to get your take on whether you think that the CRTC should be seeking to make changes in both the retail and wholesale markets at the very same time.

1921 MR. GILBERT: Yes. Simple answer, yes. And those rates would relate -- as the distinction has been made previously, we would make the distinction to transport rates as well. We think that those are two very different items, objective being reasonable cost, fair cost to the end customer, and an open door to competition.

1922 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much.

1923 I wanted to talk about competition, so that was a really good segue. I'm glad that you took us there.

1924 I notice that both in your submission and also in your presentation today you -- competition plays quite prominently. You suggest subsidies to foster competition, and you also talk about how subsidies can help with, you know, affordability and access and so on. But I wanted to dive down a little bit into how you think that subsidies could help to foster competition. How do you see that working?

1925 MR. GILBERT: Well, again, I refer back to our other point about subsidies where justified by cost. The subsidies where justified by cost would bring wholesale rates down to a level where it's realistic for new competitors to enter the market using bandwidth that is provided through Northwestel, so accessing the backbone in some fashion or other.

1926 But likewise, subsidies, because we hold out the prospect that there might be an interested third party who, if the business case were sufficient, might want to lay new fibre of their own. Because along the highway there are numerous underserved areas that they could catch as whistle stops on their trip to and from the Northern Rockies.

1927 So how do we see the contribution that subsidies could make? It could make it realistic for a small local operator to try to enter the market with a package of options that were tailored, based on local knowledge and response to customer-driven requests, to provide a service that would fit the community.

1928 And I guess that one of the dimensions of that is we would like to have some locally based presence, because right now everything is by phone, by email, and online web, whereas Fort Nelson used to be a major service centre for Northwestel, complete with housing and so on as technology and the market has changed, that is no longer the case. We have an office building that is used for service personnel and storage only. There is no face to the public. It is done through a -- it's farmed out through a local business.

1929 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Okay. I have one last question, but I want to give your colleague a chance to jump in there because I noticed that you put your hand up. Please go ahead.

1930 MR. BLAIN: One of the examples of this is that Northwestel serves the State of Alaska with internet through the same fibre that runs through our community. The only reason I assume that this is viable is because it is not regulated, because it is in the United States of America, not Canada. Yet the company is profiting from this fibre line to Alaska, as indicated by their extreme impatience when there was a fire encroaching on the lines, and they asked us to help them.

1931 So I think they can do it. I don't think the will is there to do it within B.C. because they don't see us as being in the same financial playing field as the Territories. Thank you.

1932 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you. Thank you both.

1933 Last question before I hand it over to Madam Chair and open it up to my fellow Commissioners to ask some questions of their own.

1934 In your submission you talked quite a bit about concerns about DSL service in your region. What do you think that the CRTC can do to address those issues?

1935 MR. GILBERT: At the heart of correcting that problem is the argument about return on investment on the part of the incumbent and/or others. And that is basically that funding is not available, not readily available on the capital side. But the discussion about capital funding is generally off to the side, I think, because were the incumbent handed fibre free of charge, I think they would still make the argument that they can't operate it at a profit. So that's where the subsidies come in.

1936 It's an extremely sore point, and in our regular discussions with Northwestel, we raise it, and that is that despite multiple intakes from multiple funding opportunities, they have yet to make a submission for anything in the Northern Rockies. Period. And some of these options, including those offered by the province, offer up to 90 percent of capital cost.

1937 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much.

1938 That's all I have, and I'm going to let my colleagues ask any questions they may have. So, Madam Chair, back to you

1939 THE CHAIRPERSON: Great. Thank you so much. And I'm hoping that our presenters will give us another 10 minutes or so of your time.

1940 I will hand things over to Commissioner Desmond now.

1941 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Good morning, and thank you for your presentation this morning.

1942 I just have a couple of questions. The first question I have relates to your proposal of a flat rate, postage stamp rate, and I think you referred to the fact that that was something that they did for natural gas in your region.

1943 I'm just curious how that actually works in that, I mean, clearly Northwestel operates a business, they need to have their costs recovered, so the rate would have to be reflective of their costs. If a postage stamp rate would be established, those costs would need to be recovered, and those who perhaps have lower costs now would be paying slightly more and those who have higher costs maybe would have a lesser charge. But at the end of the day there would be customers who would be paying more to establish that postage stamp rate.

1944 So I'm just curious if you see a risk in that proposal, that some customers ultimately would have to subsidize others in your area.

1945 MR. GILBERT: Go ahead, Rob.

1946 MR. BLAIN: Yeah. If I can just start with saying that one of the predicating factors for this would be a modernization of their plant. Going off their aging, decaying cable plant and their aging decaying telephone, which, you know, several years ago they had 2,000 lines in the exchange. I now believe they're almost under 1,000 lanes in the exchange. So obviously cable TV and DSL is not the way to distribute, it's a diminishing return. If they were to implement a fibre network, then the service costs would be extremely less, because fibre has traditionally proven that it requires less maintenance than copper.

1947 On to you, Mike. Sorry.

1948 MR. GILBERT: And Commissioner, I would reframe the picture that you've presented as follows -- that first of all, to answer your question about the postage stamp rate and how that looks. In the case of natural gas, natural gas across the province, for most of the province, with some historic exceptions, is delivered by Fortis Gas. Fortis Gas operates under the supervision, it reports and deals with in terms of its rate structure, with the BCUC, just as Northwestel does with the CRTC. In order to change rates, they need approval.

1949 But as far as establishing cost, the way that that's done on the postage stamp basis is they justify their operating costs, they present them for review, and that's part of our thinking in the wording that we've included this morning. They justify their costs to the BCUC, that reviews them, puts them through a process available to the public, transparent to the public for comment, and then is awarded a cost-plus. So it operates on a cost-plus basis.

1950 Secondly, because it is a postage stamp rate and it involves cross-subsidization across a broad area, there is no variability in that rate, there is no upcharge to current customers. It's just that others are brought into the picture at a justifiable cost.

1951 And in what we are proposing, we would envision subsidy to offset any increase to allow for a harmonized rate package.

1952 We are not wedded, nor do we purport to have the whole methodology worked out. It may be that that flat rate apply to basic service, with premium services to be added on at market rate. But we envision a basic service across the board.

1953 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you. Just with respect to subsidies, and I appreciate that's part of your proposal, that there be a subsidy provided. And if I understood your presentation this morning, your proposal is that that subsidy would be portable and available to competition, if there is competition in your area.

1954 One of the responses Northwestel has provided is that if a subsidy is portable, competition could pick and choose where they wish to roll out their service, leaving some areas without the benefit of competition, and as a result, Northwestel then would be still rate-regulated and be providing service in that area, where the competition could pick and choose the maybe less-cost areas to provide service. So it would advantage some parties, but not all. I just wondered if you wanted to comment on that.

1955 MR. GILBERT: I would love to comment on that. I'm very glad you asked that question.

1956 The cherry-picking argument is one that we have -- we've talked about internally here as recently as last evening among us. And what I would suggest is that in defence of monopolistic situation, I think a mirror needs to be held up to the way the company does business. And in the case of Northwestel, if you look at, for example, the Every Community project, from our perspective drips with irony, because the map that is included in that effectively draws boundaries for every community around profitable areas. B.C. is not included in that map, and I'm sure that people in Nunavut have some sensitivity to it as well. But that's not every community.

1957 It does, however, betray the company's approach to who its important customers are and who the leftovers are, who the orphans are, and who's sitting at the kids' table.

1958 So I think that in the case of that cherry-picking argument, I would suggest that that's precisely, under a virtual monopoly, what Northwestel has done. They're picking where the investments go. They're not reinvesting any of the profits derived from the larger area into our less-profitable area. So cherry-picking is happening now, we would suggest.

1959 And I think the argument has been made that competition has a number of positive side effects and I think that I would expect, first of all, because the absence of affordable connectivity is a choke point on our economic development, whoever gets involved will be likely to benefit from improved economic circumstances. And we have had numerous businesses approach us on an exploratory level that have stepped away, identifying cost and availability of bandwidth as a deterrent factor, and sometimes an exclusively deterrent factor from them relocating here.

1960 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay. Thank you.

1961 And just very briefly, my last question relates to overage fees, and you've talked about the impact of that and the costs of excess data and how that's impacted your community.

1962 When I read the Northwestel response, and they specifically refer to your concern that you raised.

1963 MR. GILBERT: Right.

1964 THE CHAIRPERSON: They identify that they forecast by the end of 2023 that almost 94 percent of the terrestrial internet subscribers will have an unlimited plan.

1965 So I'm just curious whether or not you still have a concern about the data overage fees, or if you believe there will be a resolution to that, given their proposal that that should be resolved by the end of 2023.

1966 MR. GILBERT: Well, that will be resolved by people who can afford to subscribe at their rates, whether that be unlimited or not. I think it doesn't deal with a number of our issues, and if in fact it is resolved -- that's yet to be shown -- but if it is resolved, I would say that there is probably potentially a puddle of revenue that has been generated over the years that could be ploughed into reinvestment.

1967 I think the notion of restricting access by capping bandwidth again is -- imposes yet more disadvantage on a disadvantaged group of subscribers and keeps other subscribers from accessing service, period. So overage charges are part of that and remain so for the time being at least, and that's our comment.

1968 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: I think your colleague wanted to add something as well.

1969 MR. BLAIN: Yes, one of the issues that makes me believe that this is not attainable is the fact that B.C. is the only area within Northwestel operating area that cannot support a 150 meg speeds. It's a 125 capped. They are at their max. The core equipment is saturated. There is not the ability to deliver more. When they introduced unlimited, they introduced it to those that were subscribing to the highest package for a -- what they called a nominal, and I would argue that -- increase in fee, or you could subscribe to it as a standalone at a much more exceptional fee than having the top tier. So it's -- economically it was offered but it was not offered in a forward manner.

1970 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you so much. That's all, Madam Chair.

1971 THE CHAIRPERSON: Great, thank you. So we will go to Commissioner Anderson for a question and then we'll wrap things up.

1972 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Hi there. Thank you for your submissions and thank you for the presentation today. They were both very helpful.

1973 I wanted to talk about competition and specifically the idea of mandating a wholesale high-speed access service in Northwestel's territory, and I note in paragraph 23 of your submissions, you discuss that the introduction of competition would dilute TSPs, or participating TSPs' revenue streams, and then you further go on to say that there should be or there could be CRTC support in this regard.

1974 I was wondering if you could just elaborate a little bit further on both the support as well as the source of support, because you've talked about subsidies but it would also be -- it would be great to hear a little bit further on this and where you think the support could come from, whether it would be the National Contribution Fund, or if you had any further ideas? Thank you.

1975 MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Commissioner. My answer to whether we would look to the National Contribution Fund is our recommendation 10 today and, yes, we would. We see that as a viable source, or something like it. But it's a model. And I think -- many of our recommendations today go to objective, rather than method. So that if some other method is more suited, that's probably something we can support. We offer them as suggestions only, because we do not have the depth of engagement and understanding to make it prescriptive. But when we see something, we like it. We've stepped away, for example, from the idea of full support for using Connecting Families as a model for subsidies. This is an aside to your question, based on PIAC's presentation yesterday.

1976 I wonder if Rob has a comment on -- this is more his turf than mine.

1977 MR. BLAIN: I think you've done a very good job covering it. But the costs, definitely there should be some contribution from the National Fund. It's not going to be a single-hit resolution. This is a problem that has been created through neglect for years, and the infrastructure being in such state of decay that, you know, for example, we can't, for 911, they have no ANI/ALI information. Any other telecom provider in Canada provides ANI/ALI information and is preparing for the next generation.

1978 In this case, because of the antiquated state of the equipment and the disrepair, that is not available to us. We can have basic minus 911 and that's the extent. When we argue it with them, they say, "Well, the CRTC won't let us", which unfortunately you are being used as a shield. It's either "They won't let us" or "We can't ask", but they don't ask. So I think you're being used as a bit of a scapegoat in this, and the funding from that fund is necessary to bring it back up to a standard. Thank you.

1979 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you.

1980 And then I just wanted, along the lines of competition, to note in your submissions that you had discussed working with other service providers to try to establish competition. And I was wondering if you would be comfortable with sharing just a little bit of those experiences, because I guess, if we were to contemplate opening up the network to competition, in your view would there be a lot of potential entrants? And I'm asking because you've put it on the record, so it would be great to hear more.

1981 MR. GILBERT: Most definitely. I'll try to take that one and you can follow up, Rob.

1982 We have to be cautious, because a lot of those discussions -- well, there aren't a lot of those discussions. There are some of those discussions. We have had a lot of preliminary discussions that have been walked away from because of wholesale rates, and other reasons.

1983 Those discussions that continue, I think would be very much encouraged by the kind of opportunities we suggest. The introduction of subsidies, etcetera, the opening -- variety of mechanisms to open the door to competition. We were intrigued, for example, by SSi's reference to open gateways. That might have some application in our situation. But I think competition would come. You asked if many. I don't think many, but I do think those that come might be even singular, but would be very significant and be very impactful.

1984 And my observation on the entrance of competition in a positive way on pricing and service to users is the -- even with the limited incursion that Starlink has made to date, we have seen Northwestel move to consider shifting pricing, upping service. And, I suspect pre-emptively, I looked at their website yesterday and there is a relatively vague timetable ending in 2050 where they identify all communities, all 96 communities, I believe it is, served by having access to bandwidth beyond that prescribed as a minimum, the 50/10 minimum. I suspect that has something to do with the new entrant, the satellite entrant, and what others may come.

1985 I do think Northwestel has room to move in its profitability structure, but that is pure speculation on our part. It's just the nature of the way they do business suggests that they have the kind of war chest they can tap into that would make that happen.

1986 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you very much. I'll pass it back to the Chair.

1987 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. In the interests of time, perhaps I can just -- perhaps I can just combine my last two questions.

1988 And one is, you've obviously heard from a lot of the other intervenors, you've made references to other submissions. Curious as to whether there's anything that jumps out at you that you think we should pursue in terms of lines of questioning with Northwestel or others.

1989 So that's my first question.

1990 And then my second question is really just an offer if you would like to add anything further before closing out. Thank you.

1991 MR. GILBERT: And I appreciate the fact that we've gone well over time. I wouldn't want to presume that because we were bumped up into an empty slot that we got the full hour instead of...

1992 If we were to formulate a question for Northwestel, a single question, and the CRTC, as our interested big brother, were to ask that question of them, I think that question would be, "When?". Very simply put, "When?".

1993 When will you make a reinvestment in this part of your service area? When will you feed this orphan child of northern Rockies?

1994 And then to -- so if that suffices as an answer, I think that is our question, "When are you going to move on this?".

1995 And I reinforce that, Madam Chair, with the stuff we've put on the record this morning and previously, and that is that the current situation nominally identifies our core community as having 50/10 service. Yet again, at the risk of beating a dead horse, I'll say that that is being currently delivered over decaying end-of-life infrastructure with no end in sight. We know of no plan to do anything about that, and if satellites are brought into the picture to deliver higher bandwidth down, the distribution mechanism, the infrastructure in the community and in outlying communities, is not there. We don't see anything that would make us comfortable that that investment is going to happen, and that's why our question is "When?".

1996 We are, after all, part of Northwestel's service area.

1997 MR. BLAIN: Mike, you just may want to mention that fibre to the home has surrounded us at all of our borders with Northwestel --

1998 MR. GILBERT: Yes.

1999 MR. BLAIN: -- but has not crossed the border into B.C. yet, and they have no plans to do it.

2000 MR. GILBERT: So we have fibre to the home in Watson Lake on our Northwestel border -- or on our Yukon border. We have it in Fort Liard on our Northwest Territories border, and we don't have it, and yet -- again, I'll reinforce, it was expressed most colourfully to me again this week that a particular individual who would like to tap into high-speed bandwidth can see it, see where it would be, could drive a stake in it without walking 50 metres from his front door, but can't do it and is stuck using very expensive DSL.

2001 I guess in terms of would we like to add anything, we have made as a specific recommendation, presumptuous as it may be, but necessary, we feel, that the northern Rockies be explicitly noted as an area to be served in any regulatory action that the Commission should take because we seem to be -- and I've listened for this, I've listened for this through the hearings and I will continue to listen. I have not heard a specific reference to the northern Rockies in all of the discussion. We do not see it on Northwestel's map.

2002 When they talk about -- even in the updated website, when they talk about service being updated and everyone being included, no community in northern Rockies is named and northern Rockies is not identified as a priority area for service.

2003 And at the risk of putting words in someone's mouth, I'm sure over the mountains in Stikine the concern is similar and to the south of us in the Peace River regional district area served by Northwestel likewise, including a number of Indigenous communities, there is no reference made and they are in similar or worse circumstances than we.

2004 And I guess the second point I would leave off with, and I was wondering if we would be asked because we have avoided including it in any of our submissions, is a question on reconciliation.

2005 Reconciliation, as per -- indicated by our practice of doing territorial acknowledgments at the beginning of any engagement, is important to us. That front end statement was the outcome of a lengthy process engaged in by Ms. Jacob on behalf of the northern Rockies in order to repair damage that has been historically done and mend fences with our neighbours. We're very conscious of that.

2006 We are having initial discussions that have not fully developed. Part of what we do not want to do is disrespect further our Indigenous neighbours by presuming to prescribe what would be good for them. After all, that is exactly what has happened that has resulted in the need for reconciliation.

2007 So we have stayed mute on that point other than to say we are more than happy to collaborate. We would love to see some of our area First Nations involved in the delivery of services, but certainly to benefit from services delivered at an affordable cost. And we don't have the data, but we have the suspicion that even just five kilometres south of us, the Fort Nelson First Nation, there are a number of potential subscribers on Reserve No. 2 that are not subscribed because of affordability considerations.

2008 So that takes me as close to the line of presumption as I will go in terms of speaking for any of our Indigenous neighbours, but we would not want the impression left that we have bypassed the idea of reconciliation. We see this as vital, and to quote an overused quote, "A rising tide lifts all ships". What will benefit us will benefit our neighbours as well and we're happy to share in that and break trail.

2009 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. So I'll jump back in before my mic gets cut off, your mic gets cut off.

2010 Let me just say thank you for the concluding remarks and we've all made note of your question, "When?".

2011 So thank you for participating in the proceeding generally, thank you for jumping in and being agile this morning to kick off day three with us so just very appreciative of your participation. Thank you very much.

2012 MR. GILBERT: Thank you very much. Thank you to the Commissioners.

2013 And I commend the Commission on the tone of the sessions, that they are informal, and I think as such they're useful and generate frank responses. Thank you.

2014 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

2015 MS. MOORE: Thank you for attending today. We will take a 15-minute break and we will be back at 10:35. Thank you.

--- Suspension à 10 h 21

--- Reprise à 10 h 41

2016 MS. MOORE: Welcome back, everybody. We're going to go to our next presentation. Please present yourself, and you have 15 minutes for your presentation.

2017 Thank you.

Présentation

2018 MR. SOKOLOV: Good morning. My name is Daniel Sokolov. Welcome to the Yukon. Thank you for taking the time to come here. Let's put it to good use.

2019 These were the basic questions for the hearing today. I'm going to present suggestions for the long term, medium term and short term, starting with the latter.

2020 I think a lot of things have already been put in motion, but it's important to finish the job, I call it F4, finish the job faster, especially for families and low-income households.

2021 I think the first important thing is to prevent bill shocks. I know the CRTC has a lot of experience with that from the mobile/wireless market. In the fixed internet market, it's not a big topic across Canada because usually internet rates, internet packages are uncapped. They're not necessarily up here. Only if you're affluent can you afford an uncapped package. So I think bill shocks are something we have to put our attention to.

2022 First thing is I think that a cable package, including overage charges, should never cost more than a faster cable package that has more data included. So that would mean there -- if you, for example, take a Northwestel package for $80 a month, with overage charges, it should never cost more than $150 a month, which is the price for the uncapped package. You would still have a worse deal because you get less bandwidth, but you shouldn't be charged more than everyone else who can afford $150 a month.

2023 Similarly with DSL. There is no uncapped service. But I've seen cases where a family with two kids was hit with some $700 of overage charges, which is really hard for them. It would have been a lot cheaper, it would have cost a fraction if they had signed up for a second DSL line. I think it should never cost more than a second DSL line if that data allowance that comes with that is enough. It just doesn't make sense. It's also not a good business for Northwestel if they have to put two DSL lines to one property just because they have two children in school who have to use video to go to school.

2024 The next step, then, would be uncapped data option for those who need it most. Not everybody can afford 100 megabits or more, not everybody needs 100 megabits or more, so why are there no uncapped packages for lower bandwidths? It doesn't make economical sense because if I only have, say, a 15-megabit line, I just can't transfer that much data as somebody on a 150-megabit line in the same hour. So these smaller packages are putting much less stress on the Northwestel network.

2025 Why are there no uncapped packages? It doesn't make sense.

2026 The third step in the short term, I think, is in relation to the recently introduced flexibility that Northwestel was granted with their residential internet plans. I basically support the flexibility for Northwestel above the price floor.

2027 The proceedings to get permission to change the price plans were really very long. However, I think the way Northwestel has been using this flexibility is abusive.

2028 The first thing they did was some small price changes for the most expensive packages, $200 -- above $200. Now, what they were saying when they applied for this flexibility, they said we need that to compete with Starlink.

2029 Starlink is $140 a month and it's not uncapped. So why are they lowering the prices for the capped[sic], really expensive plans, but not -- for households who can afford hundreds of dollars a month but they're doing nothing for families who can't afford the uncapped plans, the smaller ones, or even the one that's currently $150 a month. The cheapest uncapped plan, the least expensive uncapped plans that Northwestel has is $150 a month. It's $10 more than the capped Starlink package. Why didn't that price change?

2030 I think the argument they used is not related to what they're actually doing now.

2031 The second thing they did was an anti-competitive move to help their parent company in the wireless market. If you have Northwestel internet and you also sign up for Bell Mobility, you get a $480 discount spread over two years.

2032 They're using the monopoly they have here to get an edge in the wireless market. This has nothing to do with competition with Starlink. I think this is an abuse of special market power and has to stop.

2033 This picture you see here is the Moose Creek Lodge. It's a family-run tourism business on the highway between Stewart Crossing and Dawson City. The fibre runs along that highway. The property can't get fibre because there's no branch off that fibre so they're on a crappy DSL.

2034 They tried with Starlink. They bought it, they installed it. They paid Starlink. They got great internet an hour in the morning and two hours in the evening. It doesn't work the rest of the day. They don't know why, and there is no support worth tha tname from Starlink. So after a few months of paying, they just cancelled it.

2035 What I'm trying to say with this is Starlink is not a panacea. It doesn't solve all the problems for us here in the north.

2036 This may be better news. You see these men here installing fibre to the home. This is a home in Haines Junction, supported with over $40 million from the Broadband Fund. That picture was taken in early September, so over seven months ago. And according to the Northwestel website, Haines Junction now has fibre to the home, and they do have fibre to the home except it's dark fibre. It's Potemkin fibre. There's no service on it.

2037 They said originally, "Well, it'll be soon". Then they said it'll be a few weeks. Then they said, well, early in 2023. Now they say, well, some time in 2023.

2038 The problem is this homeowner decided not to take Starlink because there was fibre put in their home, right, but it's still not there.

2039 Now, the question is, what did Northwestel tell you that they did in Haines Junction?

2040 I also hear that all the buildings in Haines Junction that have underground DSL have not received fibre yet. I haven't been able to confirm that, but that is what people from the community tell me.

2041 Haines Junction is the third-largest community in the Yukon after Whitehorse and Dawson City.

2042 The problem is Northwestel took the funding, they have to write quarterly reports to you, and these reports are secret. We cannot see whether Northwestel is telling you what they have done. We cannot see if our tax dollars are actually used for what they have told you.

2043 So I think there has to be some things going faster with these things you have already put money to.

2044 Turning to the medium term, I think we need fairer plans and we need some flexibility there. Northwestel has now received flexibility with their prices. I think now it's time that they give some flexibility to their customers.

2045 The golden rule for affordability, which is a very important issue here for this hearing, is stop paying for things you don't need, but Northwestel is forcing us to do that. If you want faster upload, you also have to pay for a larger data allowance. If you want uncapped, you also have to pay for a high downlink and uplink and so forth, so these are always bundled. But that doesn't meet everybody's needs.

2046 Maybe someone has kids in school, they have to do a lot of video conferencing, they need more upload, but it doesn't mean they need a 100 megabit download line.

2047 So I think that this pricing system that we have leads to that, that wealthy households who can afford hundreds of dollars a month to send to Northwestel, they get much a better bang for the buck than the low-income households or families who can't afford that, and that is unjust.

2048 Now, I don't need to remind you section 27 of the Telecommunications Act says rates have to be just and reasonable. But they don't just say that rates have to be just and reasonable. They say every rate charged has to be just and reasonable.

2049 So how is it just that a wealthy household gets a lot more bang for their buck than low-income households who can't afford the $200 to $300 a month plan?

2050 The second thing, I think there will be a continued need for subsidies in the north. There could be one-time subsidies that go to operators who build infrastructure. Ideally, that would be a company that's not already with special market power up here so that we can jumpstart competition, but infrastructure that's subsidized should always be with open access so that Northwestel or anyone else could go in and use this infrastructure at a regulated rate.

2051 As it pertains to ongoing subsidies to support households, I think those should go directly to the households, not directly to the operator, and the households can decide whether to spend it with Northwestel or maybe with a wireless plan if that meets their needs or -- I know that Ecotel has acquired rights for wireless frequency use here in the Yukon. They don't have infrastructure yet. Maybe they will come. So if the households have the money, then they can decide where to spend it.

2052 Turning to the long term, the problem is, no secret, it's very expensive to build infrastructure here. Distances are large, customers are few, conditions are nasty. But I think there are ways how we could reduce the cost of installing fibre, and I found some examples in the U.S.

2053 For example, the states of Maine and Utah and a number of local governments, they have rules that say dig once. If you build some other infrastructure, a road, a bridge, a power line, a pipeline, a railway, something like that or a large edifice, you have to put in oversized fibre ducts or dark fibre.

2054 And I think if we did that in the north whenever we redo a road -- and we do it quite often here because the conditions are harsh, roads have to be resurfaced and rebuilt. And if every time we do that we put in an oversized fibre duct, over time we create a very nice network of these ducts and then anyone could go in and blow in a fibre at a fraction of the cost than if they have to go and dig up the road.

2055 This is a long-term project, and I think there is a role in the CRTC for this. This is not something that the CRTC can order, but I think the CRTC could convene a roundtable with the northern governments, territorial, First Nation, the municipalities, the federal government, and just use your technical expertise to guide these governments there, that this is an option. And I'm thinking here not only about the big highways, also about municipal roads so that eventually maybe even the municipality itself, if they want to connect a school with the Ministry of Education, for example, they could use these fibre ducts to put their own fibre in.

2056 A company could do that, local, maybe a First Nations operator could start putting in their own fibre in, and so over time we would have our own infrastructure at a fraction of the cost.

2057 The second thing I think is -- for the long term is to outlaw exclusivity agreements for infrastructure. At the moment, what happened, Northwestel took over $40 million to build fibre assets here in the north like the picture I showed you. They turned around and sold it to a third party.

2058 Next thing they leased it back for 20 years, according to the press release, the full capacity, so now nobody else can go and lease it. I don't think this is a good way of spending our tax money.

2059 Similarly, Northwestel has an exclusive agreement with OneWeb to resell their satellite capacity. I haven't seen any offer of it. They're just blocking the market. Nobody else can now go and have a deal with OneWeb to provide satellite service in the Yukon. It's only Northwestel.

2060 I think these things are not helping with competition and, at the end of the day, they're not good for consumers.

2061 I don't have a problem with Northwestel leasing that fibre or leasing OneWeb capacity, but other people should have the opportunity to do that as well.

2062 Thank you very much. I'm looking forward to your questions.

2063 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your submissions and your presentation this morning. Really appreciate it.

2064 I will turn things over to Commissioner Desmond to kick off the questioning for the CRTC. Thank you.

2065 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Good morning. And thank you for being here. I recognize that as an individual you're taking your time and your energy to be here, and I really appreciate that. I know it's on your own dime, so it's important and we appreciate your contributions.

2066 And I also appreciate that you've done your presentation in three parts. I think that's really useful to look at things from a short-term, medium-term and long-term perspective. So that's been really useful as I've crafted my questions this morning.

2067 I wanted to start with the short-term solutions that you identified. I guess it's on your third page of your presentation.

2068 And you do talk about the uncapped data options and that they should be available for those that need it most. And I asked the same question to the previous presenter where I believe Northwestel in their reply says that by the end of 2023 they estimate that 94 percent of their residential customers will have access to an unlimited plan.

2069 So do you think that that issue itself will be resolved in the short term?

2070 MR. SOKOLOV: No because access doesn't mean affordability. I have access to a Bentley if I want; I just can't afford it. What's the point?

2071 I see where the uncapped and the capped, Northwestel price plans meet, the difference is $10. So between -- if I remember that correctly, about $140 for the 100-megabit uncapped and 150 for the -- the other way around, 140 for the capped and 150 for the uncapped plus tax and wireless modem charge.

2072 So I don't see why we couldn't add $10 to the internet 15 or internet 20. Internet 20 is $80. Why can't I have an uncapped for $90?

2073 If I can have a 100-megabit plan and just pay extra dollars for uncapped, why can't I have a 20-megabit plan and pay an extra $10 for uncapped? I think that is much more of a concern.

2074 The difference between capped and uncapped is much more of a concern for the lower prices than for somebody who can afford $200, $300 a month. Well, maybe they pay a few overage charges that one month that they downloaded a new game or something, you know. But those that have a hard time, they can't afford the 150 or the 300-megabit plan, they are the ones who need the uncapped options because they can't observe their children all the time, they maybe don't have the expertise to know what their systems are doing and they're running into hundreds of dollars of charges.

2075 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you. I just wanted to get your perspective on whether you felt that was resolving itself with time. But I do hear your comment with respect to affordability and how important affordability is.

2076 Just on that note, I do see in your presentation that you suggest in the medium term that there should be ongoing subsidies provided not to the operators but to clients or to consumers.

2077 So I'm wondering if you could speak a little bit more about your concept of what those subsidies would look like. Should it be targeted to low-income individuals, should there be specific accommodation made for Indigenous communities? How would we structure a subsidy, in your mind?

2078 MR. SOKOLOV: I'm not the expert on the socioeconomic flow of these things. I think one option would be to have it as a taxable subsidy because then people who pay a lot of tax would have to pay -- would get, in effect, a lower subsidy. That would be one option.

2079 I could see -- I don't think I would differentiate between First Nations and non-First Nations. I would rather look at the economic substance of the household, and then I think a lot of First Nation households would be in that low-income group anyway. If there is the odd First Nation household that is very high income, I don't see why we would subsidize them.

2080 However, I also understand that there is a high cost of administering all that and it's a relatively small population.

2081 So what we currently have here in the Yukon is that the Yukon Government subsidizes electricity bills by a flat $50 a month. We have -- compared to other parts of Canada, we don't have very cheap electricity and it's been going up a lot, so they do that $50 a month per account, which is not socially just, but my understanding is if they would try to do it socially justice, the cost of administering would be so high that the money goes to administration rather than into the support of the people, so I don't think it's wrong how they're doing it.

2082 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you. Because I did have a question to kind of ask you how the Yukon Government structured that electric subsidy, so you've answered that.

2083 At the same time, though, other intervenors have suggested that the Commission should establish a standard, an affordability standard. So I think what I'm hearing you say is that the administrative costs of doing that in your mind would outweigh the benefit of --

2084 MR. SOKOLOV: I'm not saying that. I'm saying that could be. I'm not the expert in administering these things, but I understand it is a challenge to figure out how much money a household made, and until we get the tax -- you know, the tax return, it takes time, and there's a delay and maybe we have to pay it back, et cetera, et cetera.

2085 I remember from when I lived in Nova Scotia, there was HST credits that households got, but only to a certain income, and that even years later the CRA was saying, oh, here's extra money, and the next year, oh, you have to actually take it back and you had a change in your household size, now you have to pay us back. But then another year -- so it took years to actually come to a conclusion there. I don't think that's worth it for such a small population as we have here.

2086 I understand this is a challenge between being socially just with a subsidy and the cost of administering it. Yeah, I don't have the numbers, how much the administration will cost.

2087 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: No, and that's fair. I just wonder if you've turned your mind to who would fund the subsidy? Please turn your mic on. Excuse me, please turn your mic on.

2088 MR. SOKOLOV: Sorry. Anyone. We don't care. We just need to solve the problem. Like it could be the federal government, it could be the territorial governments, it could be a levy from the operator, which goes back on the bills at the end of the day. It could be, I don't know, from the liquor tax. For us on the ground, it doesn't matter so much. Somebody in Ottawa should figure that out.

2089 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: That's fair. I don't think you did -- you haven't addressed that in your submission, so I just wanted to question whether or not you had given that some thought.

2090 In your mind, would the subsidy be extended to satellite service communities as well?

2091 MR. SOKOLOV: Yes.

2092 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: One of the questions I wanted to ask you relates to your submission, and it's at paragraph 21 where you talk about the fact that Northwestel has already taken steps to preclude other service providers from participating as competitive -- competitors in the Yukon region.

2093 I'm wondering if you could just expand a little bit on what you've offered in that paragraph? You speak about the OneWeb reseller, the 20-year exclusive use agreement, and I think there's a third step as well. I'm just wondering if you could add a little bit more detail to that?

2094 MR. SOKOLOV: I'm happy to.

2095 So this is from -- I'm not privy to the contract itself that Northwestel signs, unfortunately. It would be an interesting read. But from what they have issued as press releases, what they made public information. So they made an exclusive agreement with OneWeb, which is an operator of low earth orbiting satellite fleet that Northwestel is their exclusive reseller for the north in Canada. That means nobody else can sign a deal with OneWeb without Northwestel agreeing to it, and so nobody else can provide access to that infrastructure. And so far, I've checked the Northwestel websites, I don't see any offer of OneWeb services that Northwestel is actually providing.

2096 The other thing is they have sold virtually all fibre assets they have in the Yukon to a third party and are leasing it back for 20 years -- "virtually all" is what it says in the press release. Then according to that press release it also says that the full capacity -- that Northwestel is leasing back the full capacity for 20 years. The full capacity is already leased out. Nobody else can lease capacity on that infrastructure. And most of that infrastructure was subsidized by the Broadband Fund, over $40 million. So I don't think that was the idea behind the Broadband Fund, that you give the money to Northwestel and Northwestel builds and sells it and then closes -- and leases it back and closes access for anyone else for 20 years.

2097 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you. One of the comments you said in your submissions as well is the fact that funds or rebates should not be used, essentially, to improve the monopoly situation that exists here in the Yukon. In your mind, by offering subsidies or a flat rebate to customers, does that run the risk then of further entrenching the monopoly that exists in the north?

2098 MR. SOKOLOV: I think if the subsidy is given directly to -- so I think we have to distinguish here between one-time subsidies to build something and ongoing subsidies to help with affordability. I think those are two very different things.

2099 The ongoing subsidies I think, yeah, they should not be given to a specific operator. It should be the customer's choice where they want to spend that subsidy. Very recently we have seen some wireless plans with up to 100 gigabyte -- I think Ice Wireless has it for a longer time, 100 or 200 gigabytes, I forget. Maybe somebody thinks they're fine with that, or maybe they don't have a permanent residence, they're sort of on the edge of being homeless, they're moving between their different places. They might be better served by a wireless plan so -- with a lot of bandwith -- sorry, with a lot of data allowance.

2100 So I think they should have the opportunity to spend their subsidy there. If they live somewhere out on the land where there is no Northwestel service, I don't think they should be precluded from the subsidy. They should be able to spend it with Starlink. And I'm not a huge fan of Starlink, but if that's their option, they should have the opportunity to do that. So if it all goes to Northwestel, then yes, we're entrenching their monopoly.

2101 When it comes to the one-time subsidies, it's a similar challenge. I think there is an opportunity to have third parties build some infrastructure out here. I know this is slightly outside the topic here, but I think we need a lot more wireless coverage along the highways for safety and security reasons. It doesn't pay to build this wireless coverage, otherwise it would already be there. But if we just give the money to Northwestel to build it, that is again fostering their monopoly. It would be nice if there could be a third party that could build that and then lease it back to Bell, and Telus, and Rogers, and Ice Wireless and so forth.

2102 And actually, this is what Northwestel is showing what they want. They don't want the fibre assets. They've sold them. They haven't even finished building them; they've already sold them. So that tells me they don't want to own and operate that. Give it to somebody who really wants to do that.

2103 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: This morning and in your presentation, you've identified the need both for subsidies and the need for competition, so -- and this is a question we've asked other intervenors. Do you see those two regulatory tools being implemented together? Is one more important than the other? How would they work, kind of cooperatively, to improve the situation in the far north?

2104 MR. SOKOLOV: Sorry, could you repeat the two options?

2105 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Both competition and subsidies.

2106 MR. SOKOLOV: I think that goes back to my structure of short term and long term. I think in the long term, I don't want subsidies. In the long term, we need the competition. In the short term is how can the kids who are in school today, how can they afford to get their education and their cultural entertainment online.

2107 Competition is great, but it's not going to be here in September, you know, when the kids go back to school. So one is important for the short term; the other one is important for the long term.

2108 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay, thank you.

2109 I have a question with respect to refund for outages. I know outages is a common occurrence, it's something that you probably have to deal with on a regular basis. Do you have a view on whether or not there should be either a refund or some sort of financial penalty, if and when service is not provided on a regular basis?

2110 MR. SOKOLOV: I think we can look to Germany for an example for that. They have really interesting regulation around that. So it's not only outages, but also if the delivery is less than what is promised. So this house I showed you in Haines Junction, they're still on DSL and paying for certain bandwidth on DSL, but they never get it because the infrastructure is old and I don't know what other reasons there are, they don't get the bandwidth they're paying for.

2111 So if that was a German household, there is actually -- their regulatory authority that runs a server and there's some software you can download that actually checks your connection regularly. And then if your bandwidth is not met, the operator has to give you a proportional refund. The same for outages. Because outage is basically zero bandwidth. You've paid for some, you get zero, so you get a refund. So there is a structure around that. I think that's something that could work all across the country.

2112 Yes, we do get more outages. I also understand -- here in the Yukon. I cannot speak to the earlier presentation from Northern B.C. or what the situation is in the Northwest Territories. But I know here in the Yukon at the moment we only have one fibre line that connects us, one Canadian fibre line, and if there's some landslide or some construction who didn't call before digging, then everybody's out here. It's not just the internet service, it's also our mobile phones stop working, and problems with paying at the store because the internet is out.

2113 So yes, I think there should be refunds. I hope that it will get better. I wish we could have had the Canada North Fibre Loop faster, I wish Northwestel could use the fibre line they have to Alaska -- it was already mentioned earlier today -- to avoid or reduce outages. And I wish Northwestel when they have planned outages, that there would be an option for customers to sign up for a mailing list to be informed that ahead of time because that often could be very helpful.

2114 I don't schedule my video call business meeting when I know there's a planned outage. Maybe the store owner closes his store for those two hours ahead of time because nobody can pay anyway with their credit card if there's a planned outage. I know Northwestel is providing that information to the Yukon Government when they have planned outages. Why not provide it to their customers who want to know?

2115 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you.

2116 We've talked about subsidies and the fact that, in your view, there could be a flat subsidy that's not targeted necessarily at any one individual. Do you think that there's a role for subsidies to be used in the advancement of economic reconciliation? Is that a mechanism by which we could achieve or work towards reconciliation?

2117 MR. SOKOLOV: I don't think I'm qualified to speak on that.

2118 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay. Thank you so much for your time. Those are all of my questions.

2119 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. We'll go over to Vice Chair Scott.

2120 VICE CHAIR SCOTT: Thank you. And thank you again for appearing.

2121 I've got a number of questions, but I think most of them are fairly short answers, so feel free to be brief.

2122 Do you lend any credibility to arguments that usage caps are a necessary tool for managing and planning traffic on a network?

2123 MR. SOKOLOV: Could you repeat that, please? I'm a bit hard of hearing.

2124 VICE CHAIR SCOTT: On the issue of usage caps, do you lend any credibility to the argument that they're a necessary tool for managing networks or managing traffic, planning networks, et cetera?

2125 MR. SOKOLOV: So basically if everybody had unlimited, it would overload the network.

2126 Sounds good at face. But given the tariff structure that Northwestel is presenting, I don't think this is a credible argument at all because if I have a 100, 300, 500-megabit line, I can put a lot of strain on that network if I have an uncapped plan. If I have a 15 or 20-megabit plan, I can only put a fraction of the load on the network. But what they're doing is the 15 and 20 and even the 5-megabit plan, you cannot get an uncapped option. You can only get the uncapped option on this really fat price. So in light of what they're actually presenting as options to their customers, that argument holds no water.

2127 VICE CHAIR SCOTT: Thank you.

2128 In your written submission and again today, you proposed what I'll call an à la carte tariff. Again, would you see that as a temporary measure that's serving almost as a proxy for what competition can provide to consumers in terms of greater choice, or is that something you would see as a longer-term requirement?

2129 MR. SOKOLOV: Well, that would be the day that we get proper competition with all sorts of options, and I think once we have that, all the forbearance ends, and you can close shop as it pertains to Northwestel retail regulation. At that point it would be up to Northwestel if they want to continue with what you call à la carte, the unbundled tariffs, or not. Then you wouldn't be regulating them any more.

2130 VICE CHAIR SCOTT: And my last area of questioning is Starlink. So you cautioned us that it is not a panacea. And I think you were suggesting that in terms of the competitive pressure that it's applying to date, the response from Northwestel has been selective.

2131 But do you see, as LEO and Starlink in particular continue to expand, is that competitive pressure going to drive reactions in the market that benefit consumers?

2132 MR. SOKOLOV: Well, it seems to be benefiting some consumers already, the really affluent households who can afford the fat pipes. It is benefiting some people who cannot get Northwestel or at least only DSL, who now have another option in some cases. It's not everybody.

2133 You need a lot of view of the sky, you need to be able to take the snow off, so you can't just put it up high on the roof because you can't get up on the roof in the winter reasonably. I've seen pictures of animals actually using the Northwestel dishes as a resting place because they're nice and warm compared to the environment and then they stop working so you have to be able to chase them off.

2134 So for some people far out, it's great. It doesn't work for everybody. And as we have seen, Northwestel has reduced prices but at the wrong end of the spectrum. Whether it remains competitive pressure will remain to be seen, what Starlink is doing. It's hard to predict.

2135 If Telesat is ever getting their things together to have satellites up there or OneWeb -- at the moment, OneWeb is exclusive agreement with Northwestel, so I don't see any competitive pressure coming from there.

2136 VICE CHAIR SCOTT: Thank you. Those are my questions.

2137 THE CHAIRPERSON: Maybe you'll stick with us for another five, 10 minutes. I'm going to turn things over to Commissioner Anderson.

2138 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you.

2139 Thank you for providing submissions and thank you for coming here today. Your view has been very helpful in terms of us building our record, and so I wanted to point out your idea that subsidies could be an effective solution for the interim but that more competition is needed.

2140 And on that note, we heard from an intervenor representing the First Nation of Na-Cho Nyak Dun yesterday, I believe her name was Adrienne Hill, said that reconciliation is more than just a subsidy-driven idea. She says, I do believe that, and we bring these ideas forward once every 30 years, I did talk about a treaty agreement that was signed 30 years ago, a portion of which allowed for 25 percent equity ownership, and goes on to talk about ownership opportunities.

2141 Do you think, then, that the CRTC should be looking at developing ownership opportunities specifically for Indigenous service providers or service providers owned by Indigenous governments?

2142 MR. SOKOLOV: I have been long of the opinion that First Nations governments should totally look into being their own operators. I think that is a great idea.

2143 As it pertains to the Yukon, all the fibre assets are already owned by First Nations. The only First Nation who doesn't own it is the one in Teslin. All the other 13 First Nations own the fibre assets in the Yukon. The problem is they've leased it back to Northwestel for 20 years so now they can't -- judging from the press release. As I said, I'm not privy to the actual contract terminology.

2144 But judging from Northwestel's press release, the First Nations have prevented themselves from running their own operators in their own areas with the fibre that's there in the ground or will be in the ground.

2145 I think they would be helped. As I have suggested, it should not -- no operator with special market power should be allowed to sign this exclusive agreement for large-scale infrastructure. So I think that would totally help the First Nations to actually use their infrastructure they just bought in competition with Northwestel, and I think they know what their residents need and where. And yeah, I would be very happy to see that.

2146 If that requires action from the CRTC beyond what I just said, outlaw these exclusivity agreements, I don't know. I also think if we get to in the long term these fibre ducts, whenever we touch a road we put in a fibre duct and over time we built that along the highway, I think that would totally make it a lot easier for most First Nations, maybe except Old Crow because they don't have a road that goes there. But everybody else could then blow in their fibre at a fraction of the cost and start their own local ISP. It would be great.

2147 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you.

2148 And so we've been talking quite a bit about opening up Northwestel's network by mandating wholesale high-speed access internet services terrestrially. If the case is that a First Nations entity owns infrastructure or part of the infrastructure in a region, would the conversation about mandating wholesale high-speed access internet change if the First Nation entity owns the infrastructure?

2149 MR. SOKOLOV: They do own the infrastructure today, and no, I don't think it changes it because they -- it only changes when there's no more monopoly. If that's the only fibre line that runs there, then it's a monopoly.

2150 And I know regulatory depends on the market definition, how do you define the market. And then once you define the market, you can see who has special market power. Okay.

2151 So that's a legally finicky question sometimes. But generally, as long as somebody has a monopoly -- I'm not an enemy of Northwestel as such. The problem is they have the special market power and I see them abusing it. And whoever does that should be regulated.

2152 Also, I think as long as there's public money in it, it's especially necessary. If we give $40 million, more than $40 million -- there were some increases later on where the amount is not public. I've seen your orders that say, yes, we approve an increase in the funding, but we don't know how much you've increased it. So I know it's over $40 million for the Yukon only.

2153 So if there's public money in it, there should definitely be open access.

2154 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you.

2155 I had one more question and that was again relating to competition. And I asked about if the First Nations own infrastructure, should the wholesale access framework apply to them as well, which I understand your view is yes, particularly if there is public funds that are providing a revenue source or supporting the project or the infrastructure.

2156 I'm going to ask about First Nation telecom service providers or internet service providers that may want to develop in the market as a competitor. Should competitive Indigenous service providers be treated the same as other competitive service providers, or should there be different considerations by virtue of ownership being with Indigenous entities?

2157 MR. SOKOLOV: I haven't given that particular question much thought. On firsthand, I don't see a reason why they should be treated differently, but I'm open to arguments that might convince me otherwise. I'm not the expert on that particular...

2158 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. We've got some First Nations coming in this afternoon, so I hear what you're saying and also note your response about economic reconciliation and not being qualified.

2159 So thank you for appearing in front of us and sharing your views. Much appreciated.

2160 THE CHAIRPERSON: Maybe I can take the last couple of minutes with you and then we'll let you off the hook.

2161 Perhaps just to continue with the line of questioning from Commissioner Anderson on competition, we know the benefits of competition. Obviously, that's a key part of this proceeding. We know that competition leads to choice and better pricing and innovation.

2162 We heard today that even a single competitor can be impactful. We also have statements on the record saying a competitor does not equal access, quality, affordability. I'm just wondering if you can comment on that.

2163 MR. SOKOLOV: Well, indeed. I think of the example I presented from the Moose Creek Lodge where they put Starlink in and it works an hour in the morning and two hours in the evening and they don't receive support from Starlink to fix that. I think they're just confused about all -- I try to help them. That's how I know about it.

2164 We pinpointed their location on Google Maps, but somehow Starlink thinks that the address they sent them is in Mayo. So I think it's something on the back end of Starlink that prevents that from actually working, but I there's no support, they're not going to fix it, what can you do?

2165 So yes, there is another offer, but it's not useful to them, right. So -- yeah. I mean, just there being another company doesn't mean there is meaningful competition. But it opens the opportunity for -- as long as there isn't the other one, then there's definitely no competition.

2166 THE CHAIRPERSON: Great. Thank you for that.

2167 I will ask you a question that we've been asking everybody. Having heard some of the interventions and read some of the submissions, is there something that you think we should be following up on, a line of questioning we should be pursuing with Northwestel or others?

2168 MR. SOKOLOV: Unfortunately, I've been busy with work, so I have not been able to follow the other submissions other than the one that was just before me. I know you invited us to do follow. Unfortunately, because of my work, I was not able to do that.

2169 Yeah, I think following up is -- you have given Northwestel a lot of money. How is that actually being spent and why is there no transparency in that?

2170 I mean, I don't need to know how much -- how many dollars an hour Northwestel paid to a particular worker or what that screw costs and how many cents they paid for that. But a general idea of how Northwestel is spending the money and what they're telling you they're doing with it is actually on the ground.

2171 I mean, the First Nations and the other residents of the north, they would know, you know. So yeah, I think it wouldn't hurt to have more transparency in how the tax money is being spent.

2172 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you for that.

2173 So maybe just a couple of concluding remarks and I will turn it over to you if you'd like to add anything at the end, and maybe I can finish where Commissioner Desmond started, which is to say thank you very much.

2174 And to your point just now about having work to do and difficult to read this very heavy record, just a huge thank you to you for taking the time to participate and share your views. We've certainly taken note of, you know, your submissions about access not equaling affordability, the many examples, Moose Creek Lodge, the Starlink, the one hour in the morning, two hours in the evening, Haines Junction, the $700 overage fees and others, so thank you for that.

2175 Thank you for sharing the proposed solutions as well for the short, medium, and long term. We really appreciate it. And I will give you the last word.

2176 MR. SOKOLOV: I would like to thank you very much for coming all the way here. I really appreciate that. It shows your commitment to the issue.

2177 There's one thing I'd like to leave you with, which is the challenge we have when the internet goes down. This is a public safety issue, I think.

2178 A lot of households here that don't have landlines -- like across Canada, we use mobile phones, right. And I think there was one -- I forget which proceeding it was. I think it was the 2023-67, I'm not sure, there was one where you had market research done that said 96 percent of the households in the north have landlines, and I don't believe that. I think that that is an error in how the data was collected.

2179 But in any case, also, I have to say especially First Nations, but also other Yukoners, we're very mobile. We're out in the land a lot. We're going camping if you're a white person. You don't call it being on the land. We go camping. Some go hunting, some go harvesting, whatever you call it, we're out there. So if then the fibre goes down, we can't even call 911. The mobile phone is just dead as a doornail.

2180 So I think it would be great if there would be some local switching brought back for our mobile networks, that if the connection to B.C. goes down we can still call 911, maybe even make local calls.

2181 And then we have -- our mobile coverage isn't great, so there's often you're on the fringe of a service. And then often it's very difficult to make a phone call. Sometimes we can still send a text message. And now there is this new iPhone and there's, I think, one from Samsung or was it Huawei, I forget, where you can try to send a text message through satellite.

2182 So I think it would be great if it would be possible to send text messages to 911, I'm here on this highway and there's been a car accident or, you know, something like that.

2183 I know there have been attempts for texting to 911 for people who are hard of hearing and deaf and similar challenges, but it's complex. You have to sign up before that, it's a different number, et cetera, et cetera.

2184 So it would be great if we could use the Yukon as a test bed for that. We're a relatively small population. Would there be a lot of abuse with kids texting 911 all night or is there -- you know, I think we should try that out here so that we have another option when the voice line is bad.

2185 I mean, I can imagine -- I'm thankfully not in that group, but I can imagine there are women or children who are in an abusive situation where they can't pick up and talk to a 911 operator, but maybe they can send a text message from the bathroom, you know, where there's some domestic violence. Thank you.

2186 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

2187 MS. MOORE: Thank you very much for taking part in the proceeding. We will break for lunch and we will resume at 1 o'clock. Thank you, everybody.

--- Suspension à 11 h 31

--- Reprise à 13 h 02

2188 MS. MOORE: Welcome back. We will proceed with the next presentation. Please introduce yourself and you have 15 minutes for your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

2189 MS. BEATTIE: Good afternoon. My name is Denise Beattie, I come from the Champagne Aishihik First Nation. I would like to first acknowledge Kwanlin Dün and Ta'an, on whose traditional territory we are on today.

2190 I come from a small community. My family home is a little community called Champagne, which is about 45 minutes north of here. I work in Whitehorse for Champagne Aishihik First Nation. I am a proud member of Champagne Aishihik First Nation. I'm also a member of the Wolf Clan.

2191 I will tell you just a little bit about our First Nation. Champagne Aishihik or the Shadhäla Äshèyi yè Kwädän is a self-governing First Nation with lands in the Yukon Territory and Northwest British Columbia, Canada.

2192 On May 29th this year, Champagne and Aishihik will celebrate our 30th anniversary of the signing of our final and self-government agreement.

2193 Currently, we have eight departments and over 100 employees that we provide service and programs to, to all our citizens here in the territory. The Champagne and Aishihik People and government are named after two settlements, Shadhäla Champagne located on the Dezadeash River; and Äshèyi, Aishihik, at the headwaters of the Alsek River drainage. Champagne and Aishihik people also live throughout the region in other villages including Kloo Lake, Klukshu, Canyon, Shäwshe, and Hutchi. Haines Junction, Dakwäkäda is our homeland, however, the majority of our citizens reside in Whitehorse, others -- sorry -- other citizens reside in the U.S., England, and other areas of the world.

2194 Champagne Aishihik also has five satellite communities that we are responsible to provide programs and services to. Takhini River Subdivision, Champagne, Canyon Creek, Klukshu, and Aishihik. Champagne Aishihik traditional territory spans 41,000 square kilometres in total; 29,000 in the Yukon and 12,000 in British Columbia. The eastern edge of Champagne Aishihik traditional territory lives in the Yukon River watershed, while the larger westerly portion lies in the Alsek river watershed, which flows into the Gulf of Alaska. Much of Kluane's national park and reserve and all of at the Tatshenshini-Alsek park are part of Champagne Aishihik's traditional territory.

2195 Southern Tutchone is the main language of our First Nation. The Champagne Aishihik Education Immersion Program is currently in its second cohort of students. Eight students finished the first cohort program with a certificate from Simon Fraser University. They also learn about wellness and living a Dän Shäwthän, which means a good person life. Two Elders, fluent in Southern Tutchone are hired to assist in the teaching of the languages to the citizens.

2196 That concludes my presentation. I will turn it over now to our technicians who will answer any of your questions that you may have. Thank you.

2197 MS. McCLAREN: Good afternoon. My name is Alexa McClaren and I'm in-house legal counsel for Champagne Aishihik First Nation. So I help the government of Champagne and Aishihik First Nation to do their work, provide ongoing legal advice, and I have been working there for -- in that role for about almost 10 years now. But I'm not a Champagne Aishihik citizen, and the Chief of Champagne and Aishihik was hoping to be here today, but unfortunately there have been some deaths in the community that have prevented her from coming in person. So I will present the submissions today on her behalf.

2198 I will also turn to my right so that my colleague can introduce himself.

2199 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, good afternoon, everyone. I am Ian Robinson. My title is Negotiations Manager. I work with the Champagne Aishihik First Nation. My good friends here to the left, I've been with them for 20 years. Thirty-five (35) years ago, I think I first met Denise, when I first moved to Whitehorse. Here we are sitting in this great room and speaking with you folks, and welcome to the traditional territories and to the Yukon.

2200 Yeah, the only other thing I'll say is that my title doesn't really explain what I do. I'm really involved in working with, in many ways, the implementation of the Champagne Aishihik final agreement and self-government agreements. So my involvement with this file is that, underlying a lot of this is we believe there are treaty issues and things that need to be dealt with, and we respect the fact that the CRTC has come here to meet and talk with us about these things and look forward to the discussion.

2201 Thank you.

2202 MS. McCLAREN: Okay. So I'm just going to make the submissions that you already have in your possession really.

2203 The CRTC has a special relationship with Champagne and Aishihik First Nations and with all Yukon First Nations, because Champagne and Aishihik is a rights-holder, it's not a stakeholder. And the relationship between the CRTC and Champagne and Aishihik, and other Yukon First Nations, is defined by some of the following things, which include section 35 of the Constitution Act, and Champagne and Aishihik's final self-government agreements. Champagne and Aishihik's inherent right to self-government. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and Canada's related Act to implement UNDRIP.

2204 Canada has a Modern Treaty Implementation Policy, which is also relevant, and CAFN has continuing rights over its own lands, which I would note are a substantial amount of territory, equaling -- what did you say, Ian? The same size as Nova Scotia or thereabouts. So it's a big territory.

2205 The CRTC has asked for recommendations from First Nations on what actions it should take to make sure that Indigenous rights, treaties, agreements and negotiations in the far north are appropriately addressed. In its evaluation of possible regulatory outcomes in this proceeding.

2206 In answer, Champagne and Aishihik believes that the CRTC has to ensure that companies operating within Champagne and Aishihik First Nations territories, like Northwestel, are regulated and a way that's consistent with Champagne and Aishihik First Nations' rights. And specifically, the CRTC has asked what actions it should take to apply the principles of economic reconciliation to its evaluation of possible regulatory outcomes in this proceeding.

2207 In response, Champagne and Aishihik asks that the CRTC ensure that its evaluation of this matter is informed by Chapter 22 of Champagne and Aishihik's First Nations final agreement, the Treaty in other words, which is the economic development measures chapter. And Champagne and Aishihik wants to note that really at this point, implementing Champagne and Aishihik's Treaty as a whole and Chapter 22 maybe in particular, requires access to telecommunications and the internet that's fast, reliable. And without those things the goals of reconciliation, one of which is implementing the treaties, really aren't possible.

2208 So Chapter 22 of the Treaty, of Champagne and Aishihik First Nations' final agreement, 22.1.1.1 sets out to provide Yukon Indian people with opportunities to participate in the Yukon economy. 22.1.1.2 says to develop economic self reliance for Yukon Indian people. And 22.1.1.3 speaks about ensuring that Yukon Indian people obtain economic benefits that flow directly from the settlement agreements.

2209 And these are just -- really, it's highlighting the need of the CRTC to become familiar with the rights and the treaties of the First Nations in the Yukon, including Champagne and Aishihik First Nation, and to think about how it works with the First Nations, based on those rights.

2210 In addition and consistent with previous written submissions -- with written interventions that have been filed by Champagne and Aishihik, Champagne and Aishihik asks that the CRTC do some of the following things to improve its relationship with Champagne and Aishihik. For instance, Champagne and Aishihik asks that the CRTC oversee consultations across and within departments and agencies, to ensure that a true whole-of-government approach to consultation is happening, consultation and accommodation, sorry, in respect of the regulation of telecommunications in Yukon First Nation communities. And that is consistent with Canada's Collaborative Modern Treaty Implementation Policy.

2211 CAFN also asks that the CRTC make sure that companies like Northwestel have appropriate and demonstrable principles of engagement and consultation for their work with Yukon First Nations by engaging with Yukon First Nations in advance of establishing consultation processes, so that First Nations can be involved in establishing the principles and objectives for consultation.

2212 For instance -- and this is just an example -- for instance, during one round of talks with Northwestel, the Champagne and Aishihik was required to demonstrate to Northwestel, the two communities that were Champagne and Aishihik communities, totalling about 60 households had been missed in a fibre installation project. So Northwestel was apparently unaware of the community's existence. Because it wasn't included -- as we understand it anyways. This is my understanding and again, I kind of rely on Ian because he's a technician here and may be able to add to this. But Northwestel was apparently unaware because in the CRTC's proposal requirements, that wasn't included in the maps.

2213 So the point is that collaborative design of the original call for proposals could have avoided this costly mistake which resulted in some communities being excluded from the project. Northwestel did, as you know, work with Champagne and Aishihik to try to fix that issue, and I think it was fixed. But those sorts of issues continue to arise.

2214 Timing is important. Talking to self-governing Yukon First Nations early in any process to avoid miscommunication and ensure that when third parties like Northwestel come to consult with Champagne and Aishihik, they're doing so based on a framework that's jointly established between the CRTC and Yukon First Nations.

2215 The CRTC needs to make sure -- well, CAFN would like to see the CRTC ensuring that their internal procedures for decision-making don't contain hidden biases that are inconsistent with reconciliation and/or the duty to consult with First Nations.

2216 In relation to consultations being undertaken on behalf of the CRTC by third parties like Northwestel, CAFN would like to see that the CRTC oversee things like agendas at meetings, who's in attendance, what the guiding questions or proposals are that are the subject of the consultation sessions, what topics are the subjects of those -- were the subject of community comments if community comments were received, whether there were any points of debate or disagreement, and if so, how those were addressed or resolved. This goes to showing how concerns articulated by First Nations at these types of consultations are accommodated. How approaches change to address First Nations' specific concerns that they expressed at a consultation session.

2217 CAFN would like the CRTC to be transparent when it does delegate the duty to consult to a third party like Northwestel. CAFN would like the process to be collaborative as between the CRTC and CAFN, so that CAFN is involved right upfront in determining how decisions are going to be made and what things are delegated to third parties. Also, CAFN would like to make sure that when there are issues amongst, for example, Northwestel and CAFN, proper dispute resolution occurs.

2218 The CRTC -- CAFN would like to have the CRTC provide more resources and funding to CAFN and other Yukon First Nations to allow CAFN to engage meaningfully in consultations, and with the appropriate support and expertise and a good understanding of the issues upfront.

2219 The CRTC has asked specifically what actions it should take to ensure that the principles of equity and substantive equality are appropriately addressed in its evaluation of possible regulatory outcomes in the proceeding. CAFN addressed this issue in its intervention in relation to NOC 2023-67 at paragraph 14, and there's a whole bunch of things listed there. But to summarize, CAFN asks that the CRTC regulate to overcome systemic barriers through proper data-gathering and review.

2220 For instance, the CRTC could get evidence from telecommunications companies to demonstrate how much money that company has received in subsidies from the CRTC, and what proportion of the subsidies are spent on their consultation with First Nations communities in the North, and on infrastructure intended to address the needs of those First Nations as it's identified through consultations for things like speed, prices, et cetera.

2221 What is Northwestel actually delivering versus what is it advertising?

2222 The CRTC -- CAFN would also like to see the CRTC consider affordable connectivity. What is actually affordable for First Nations people, like CAFN citizens, taking into consideration concrete data and statistics so that the CRTC considers things like the following; disposable income, cost of living, what proportion of income is reasonable for a CAFN citizen to pay for an essential service like telecommunications, taking into consideration the objective of reconciliation and treaty implementation.

2223 MS. MOORE: Sorry to interrupt. Just one more minute.

2224 MS. McCLAREN: Okay. We'll wrap it up.

2225 MS. MOORE: Thank you.

2226 MS. McCLARE: All the recommendations in these oral submissions basically require that CRTC work collaboratively with Yukon First Nations to get consultation right, and CAFN thinks this is important for the goal of reconciliation to be reached. And self-governing Yukon First Nations need to have reliable, fast, affordable telecommunications to implement the treaties and be successful as governments and communities.

2227 I'll stop there.

2228 THE CHAIRPERSON: Great. Thank you so much. Thank you for participating in the proceeding generally, and for your submissions, but it's also nice that we could be here together today, so thank you very much.

2229 I will turn things over to my colleague, Commissioner Anderson, to start off the questions from the CRTC.

2230 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Hi there. Gunalchîsh. Thank you for your submissions. We appreciate you being here today and we're grateful to have your submissions.

2231 There's four areas that we've generally been asking many of the intervenors about. We've been asking about subsidies to consumers or service providers, we've been asking about overage fees, we've been asking about competition, and we've been asking questions on reconciliation.

2232 And in light of the nature of your submissions that you've made about being a self-governing nation, I wanted to ask where you would like to focus the energy, or where I should begin the conversation. I note that you spoke a lot about reconciliation and consultation, but I don't want to make the assumption that that's your priority. So where would you like to begin the conversation and how would you like to use the time, if you have just a moment?

2233 MS. McCLAREN: I mean, I think having listened to the other submissions, my take is that the issue of subsidies and overages has been -- like, I don't know that Champagne and Aishihik submissions have a lot to add to those two. I would say that I thought there was a lot of common ground there, whereas I think probably the reconciliation piece and consultation is more something that Champagne and Aishihik submissions would provide added comments to that haven't already been heard.

2234 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Yeah. Thank you very much.

2235 So I note in your written submissions, I believe it's at paragraph 6, the representation is made that the representative who is not able to be with us today was intending to be here to protect Champagne and Aishihik First Nations' Aboriginal rights or treaty rights, and I was wondering if you could speak more to that. What rights, what Indigenous rights, stand to be affected by this proceeding today?

2236 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, thanks for the question. The proceeding itself I think, you know, we're -- well, let me back up for a minute. We have, you know, some overriding concerns about the way in which telecommunications are regulated in the country, and the reason is that -- and this is our perception -- but we believe that there can be inconsistencies in the way in which regulatory matters are pursued and the real meaning of the treaties. And I think the way that we see this is that when processes are designed -- and this, you know, I think this is something we see broadly with the federal government generally.

2237 I don't want to be too direct to the CRTC, but I'm just saying that there has been, in our judgment, a rather slow -- let's just say slow progress, on bringing procedures in line with the requirements of the treaties. And, you know, perhaps those are, you know, things that we can resolve in time, but the requirements of the modern treaties are, you know -- well, they're laid out in black and white, but we are trying and working really hard towards getting a full and sort of purpose-driven implementation.

2238 And in fact, just this morning I was on another call in another venue entirely and, really, what it comes down to is that we feel often our modern treaty requirements are lumped in with the other treaties, existing treaties, in the country. And this is something which is troubling to our community and to our leadership at CAFN because we feel that we worked for 30 years to get these modern treaties in place and there are certain standards set in those treaties around things like economic development, just for example, but many other things; land planning, land use planning, making sure that in that whole 41,000 square kilometres that Alexa referred to that the right to consultation is done in a way that is -- you know, meets the standards that have been set by the Courts but also meets the standards of what the treaties were designed to do.

2239 And so I think we're -- we just feel there's a gap and, you know, we're happy to work with the CRTC on those gaps, but that's where we are. Thank you.

2240 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you.

2241 And so on that point, we heard yesterday from Adrienne Hill on behalf of Na-Cho Nyak Dun that self-governing nations often work in collaboration with other forms of government, and being allowed to sit at the table I think is how she phrased it when it comes to any kind of project development.

2242 Do you find that engagement with service providers or engagement with Crown entities is weaker when it comes to telecommunication than other industries, or do you think that it's standard along the lines of other industries like mining, for instance?

2243 MR. ROBINSON: I would say just -- I'll let my colleague speak, but I would like to say that I think we -- we have, you know, perhaps the perception and the real, you know, concern that in an area like telecommunications the need to get it right and to really meet the needs that our citizens have and to meet the goals of reconciliation plays a very high and critical standard on that point that you mentioned on engagement because if this was a little trivial thing, it wouldn't be so important, but this is not trivial, right. Like how people communicate is so critical.

2244 So I think it would be unfair to say that it's worse with the CRTC or any of the telecommunications. I don't think it is. I think what it is is that we have to get it right, and that's -- I think we're still working on that.

2245 And you know, one thing about engagement, this term "engagement", you know, I sometimes worry a little bit about it because it's more than engagement, really. I think you used another word there, "collaborative". I prefer that because, really, we should be just working together to work through these things. And that's more -- you know, "engagement" makes it sound like, well, you're just coming to talk to us about it. But we want to really be involved in working through this so that we can really assist the citizens and assist the communities.

2246 And I'll turn it over to Alexa.

2247 MS. McCLAREN: Thanks, Ian. And thank you for the question.

2248 I think what I know is that things like mining have just been going on for a long time. You know, First Nations assert a right over something that we can all kind of get our heads around pretty easily. It's like something tangible. And so this kind of the rules of how they've been developing for a long time about, you know, where the thing is, who wants to access it, how they want to access it, what are they going to get out of it, how are they going to share that. Like those types of rules have been kind of coming -- becoming clearer through Court action and otherwise for quite a long time.

2249 But I think with telecommunications, it's slower to develop. It's less tangible, right. Like I mean, things -- the things that are happening in the development of the access to internet and telecommunications, for example -- and this is not my area of expertise, so forgive me, but, you know, there hasn't been a lot of discussion.

2250 What about the space over the lands, you know, and who's going to regulate how that all works when things are providing internet access above -- if CRTC starts to regulate that more than it already is, who owns that, right, you know, really? And that's one area where I think there's going to need to be work.

2251 I see a lot of discussion happening around it, but it's kind of -- it seems to me to be kind of new and developing still a lot.

2252 So I think that's why, you know, it's more at the beginning stages, the relationship between the CRTC and First Nations. It's a little bit less tangible than some of the other resources where First Nations have been working for a long time on those issues.

2253 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you.

2254 So, as you know, CRTC is a regulatory body that oversees telecommunications and broadcasting across all of Canada, and I hear what you're saying about the need to engage or cooperate or work with First Nations in accordance with your agreements or the final agreements and the self-government agreements were the two that you cited.

2255 Given that there are over 650 different Indigenous entities across Canada, how do you propose the CRTC engage with Indigenous entities, Indigenous governments in a way that's meaningful but also efficient because we have so many different processes that are going on so we don't -- like we have to make sure that the regulatory system is still functioning in an efficient manner, also with limited resources.

2256 MR. ROBINSON: Well, there's one central point, which is that the First Nation I work with, we maintain one firm line, which is that you always speak with us directly.

2257 There has been -- and I mean, I shouldn't quite say "always". There has been instances where we've worked through larger groups, but we would like to be and always -- and should be --this is really a treaty right -- is to be able to represent -- this is really the self-determination stuff. It's reflected in the UN principles as well, right, is that we need to be able to have direct and -- you know, represent the interests of the First Nation.

2258 The difficulty that we've had in some instances has been, you know, situations where things are grouped, and that's -- you know, has led to a few problems.

2259 I mean, I can think of instances where the First Nation has, in a sense, delegated its -- you know, to a group. You're talking about the number of First Nations that there are or other Indigenous groups, actually, and I think that's true. It's something, though, that is characteristic of our country.

2260 And you know, here in the Yukon there's 11 that have modern treaties, and I think it's -- honestly, that it's important for the Government of Canada and anybody it delegates this activity of consultation to, to make sure, to put it bluntly, that the phones ring at our end first and then, if we decide, if our leadership gives us direction to work in some other manner with some other group, some other larger grouping, then fine.

2261 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you. I've got a lot of questions so I'm going to move through them, but you've just hit on one.

2262 And you spoke about the importance of self-determination, and yesterday Ms. Hill on behalf of Na-Cho Nyak Dun mentioned that this goes beyond simply management of wildlife or fisheries.

2263 Can you speak about that? Can you speak about self-determination and the importance of self-determination to the Nation that you're representing today?

2264 MS. McCLAREN: I want to be careful because, like you noted, I am representing -- I'm like a technician for --

2265 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Sorry. We can also -- we're also accepting written submissions after the fact, so if there's something that you wish to address via undertaking, that we can do that.

2266 MS. McCLAREN: With that one, I think that's a good idea.

2267 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: So can I get an undertaking, then, that the intervenor will provide written submissions in relation to the importance of self-determination?

2268 (Engagement)

2269 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. Thank you.

2270 Yesterday we also -- and I'm comparing it a lot to NND because it's nice that we get to hear from self-governing Nations in the Yukon and my colleagues are mostly from -- they're entirely from other areas, and so it's a good learning opportunity for everybody here.

2271 But I understand that you operate on distinct levels and so what applies to one First Nation isn't going to necessarily be your perspective, and I fully acknowledge that.

2272 But there was a discussion yesterday about how, say, offering subsidies wasn't quite enough for that self-governing nation, really, and there was talk about being able to participate in telecommunications in a way that is predictable. I was wondering -- so I see that it's important to have access to telecommunication in order to implement treaty rights. That's very clearly laid out in your submissions. But in terms of the telecommunications system being a conduit for economic certainty, do you have any views on that?

2273 MR. ROBINSON: Well, I think what I would say is that we believe that there's evidence that the gap in access to telecommunications of all sorts is -- there is an existing gap between the First Nation -- First Nations or First Nation population in the territory and the larger Yukon public. And we think that that's not only an observable gap, but with a bit of work you could show that this is holding people back. It's no different than inadequate housing or other issues that are -- you know, where there are gaps. So I think there's that point.

2274 And then the other thing I would say is just that the nature of the Champagne Aishihik community is that it's a rural community for the most part of Whitehorse -- sorry, of Yukon, although some live in Whitehorse, but the rural part of that community is, you know, it's just like every other rural area of Canada, I suppose. It's critical that this communications service is of the highest standard we can possibly deliver, otherwise, there will be an economic gap continuing

2275 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Could I clarify my question? Sorry.

2276 Okay. So I understand the importance of having equitable services, but really I was -- we've had a couple intervenors that were speaking about lowering barriers so that competitors can enter the system. And I'm in particular interested in whether or not there are, in your view, things that the Commission should be doing to lower barriers for entry for Indigenous telecom service providers?

2277 MS. McCLAREN: Yeah -- yes. In addition to providing subsidies, which I heard the comments too of Na-Cho Nyak Dun yesterday about that and agreed with what they said there. But I -- and I do think that -- I think really what needs to happen is that the CRTC needs to work with First Nations to identify ways to implement Chapter 22, the economic development chapter of their treaties, to try and help to support.

2278 So in addition to, say, subsidies for individual citizens, or for the government itself, or whatever you -- or for income, however you determine what subsidies are best, there are ways to actually prop up and use it as an opportunity to build up expertise in this area for First Nations. And how you go about doing that, that's not -- I can't helpfully contribute to that, but I do think that a little bit of work being done with First Nations on how that might look and how it fits within their treaty rights would lend itself to finding some answers to those questions. Sorry.

2279 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. All right. Thank you.

2280 One of the proposals that has been put forward by one of the intervenors was that it might be helpful for us to create a set of guidelines or best practices for what service providers can do to engage meaningfully with Indigenous communities prior to deploying services over Indigenous lands.

2281 Do you have any comments to make on that initiative, that proposed initiative?

2282 MS. McCLAREN: My main comment with that would be of course, that you'd need to work with self-governing First Nations in the Yukon to develop those. And I guess another part of that is that as long as, you know, there's equal work put into implementation as well as development, and I can't -- again, I can't speak to the specifics around what First Nations' guidance would be in respect of those, but that's all I would say about that. Do you have --

2283 MR. ROBINSON: No.

2284 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Those are my questions for now but while other Commissioners are looking or asking questions, if I could look through notes and reserve, maybe one more question.

2285 THE CHAIRPERSON: Absolutely. Sounds good. So why don't we go to Commissioner Desmond, and then we'll go over to Commissioner Naidoo.

2286 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you. And thank you for being here. I really had just one question following up on your presentation this afternoon, and it's with respect to paragraph 13. I just wanted a bit of clarity about your suggested development of determining what is affordable for First Nations and to consider particular factors.

2287 Is your thinking that that standard would be specific to your community? Would it be specific to First Nations communities? A lot of intervenors have suggested we have a standard that would apply to the far north. So I just wanted to know what your thinking was with respect to that point.

2288 MS. McCLAREN: I mean, my personal thought on that is that it would be better to have a standard that applies to the far north and that by doing that you would capture a lot of First Nations People who would more highly than others represent that group. But, again, I'm giving my view on that and not -- I haven't been directed by Champagne and Aishihik to provide that comment, so I'm a bit reluctant to say any more about it.

2289 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you so much.

2290 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you so much for your presentation. Thank you for being here today and all your answers.

2291 I had a couple of questions, mostly about engagement. Northwestel says that it's always been its intent to meet or exceed its expectations in its approach to Indigenous consultations and engagement. It actually thinks -- the company has said that they feel that they've made significant strides forward.

2292 I would just like to hear from you about where you think Northwestel is falling short.

2293 MR. ROBINSON: I'm sorry, if you could just repeat the last part of what you said? I just missed it.

2294 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Yes. Regarding engagement with Indigenous communities, and entities, and governments, Northwestel says that it's made significant strides forward in engaging with Indigenous communities that it serves, and I'm wondering where you think it's fallen short.

2295 MR. ROBINSON: Well, I think this is a difficult question to answer because we've had some, you know, direct involvement with Northwestel on these things, and I think that, you know, to be honest, I see them making an effort to do what they need to do. So I would be the first to say that.

2296 I think what they're coming up against is -- and the issue -- the most recent issue that we had was really more a systemic issue which they struggled with because -- what I mean by that is systemic, actually more, from what I understand, to the CRTC and not to Northwestel. So and I can think of a couple of other things along those lines.

2297 So I think -- I think it's really important for us to recognize that they -- I think we -- I think the only solution to this is that we have to check through the whole process. Like, Northwestel can do what it can. It's making efforts. I think they have been maybe not as responsive on some of the issues the First Nation government raised, in terms of things like administrative-type issues to do with our -- you know, the operation of our telecommunications at the First Nation government. That has been a little bit of an issue. I think they have tried.

2298 We have had an issue -- we see as an issue where we've had the development of a subdivision, this is in our home community at Haines Junction. It's a big thing for us, 45 lots. And we felt that, you know, we've made an argument that fibre should be installed at this location for very good reasons, we believe, and we've had difficulty with that. Northwestel has tried to respond, we want to be fair, but the answer is still no. So that's -- I think, you know, I think we have some things which, you know, we're working with Northwestel on and that. But there's a ways to go and, you know, I think we'll get there.

2299 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Right. In your presentation earlier you had mentioned that you felt that there might be a role for the CRTC to oversee consultations with telecom and First Nations to ensure that Northwestel specifically, et cetera, have appropriate principles of engagement. So that basically was the reason for my asking the question.

2300 And I'm just wondering, other intervenors have said, like Na-Cho Nyak Dun had said that they felt up to date that a lot of the onus has been on Indigenous communities themselves to put out there what they think needs to be -- you know, how to deal with engagement, what proper engagement is and so on and so forth. So this is your opportunity, I guess, to enlighten us about what you think that we can do in order to aid the process. Should there be, for example, education, or best practices, or something like that? So I leave it to you to answer that as you will.

2301 MS. McCLAREN: Sorry. We're just consulting. We're consulting internally.

2302 I mean, I do think that, for example, there is a little bit of what Ian was referring to as systemic difficulty because -- and, again, I'm a little bit treading on the ground carefully here, because I'm not the one that's been involved in these discussions with Northwestel. But what I understand is that Northwestel sometimes says, "Well, the reason that we can't do X, Y, and Z is because CRTC has made criteria that exclude these communities from the equation".

2303 Basically, like they're not -- we have to make a proposal to them, these areas aren't included in their -- in the reference that -- like they don't have an opportunity to include those communities, like for the example of this fibre. I think that might have been part of what they said is the problem.

2304 So I guess what I think is that if there is an ability for Northwestel to come -- or third parties of any kind to come to a First Nation and say, "Well, it's not because of us, it's because this is what the criteria is saying", then it seems to me that there needs to be more direct contact, then, between the CRTC and the CAFN, for example, or whatever Yukon First Nation is having the issue to make sure those kind of systemic issues are being ironed out beforehand because there's nowhere for Champagne and Aishihik to go, really, aside from trying to get that problem worked out with Northwestel directly or here, which is largely why Champagne and Aishihik participated in the first place.

2305 MS. BEATTIE: I just want to back up a little bit to your question around Northwestel and maybe how they could improve on some services.

2306 I know for Haines Junction area, Champagne, those communities north of here that they're only serviced like once a week. So if somebody's line goes down, whether it be a phone or some internet service, you have to put in a call and depend on -- Northwestel, they come on Thursdays, I think, and normally there's a huge backup. There's like several people on the list, and so chances are you're not going to get that service done then.

2307 The other thing is Northwestel is very cautious about travel. So you could maybe be on the list, but if weather gets bad, they don't come into the community. Therefore, the customer then is without service again for possibly another week or longer.

2308 I think now to get a telephone hooked up in one of these communities, it could take you up to a month. I think that is one of the barriers that we also face, is that we don't have access to Northwestel as people in the city do.

2309 And the other thing is that we don't know their schedule. Like from a Champagne and Aishihik business perspective, we were getting them to do some work on one of our admin buildings, and they would show up on a day we were not aware of and expect us to have some technician available to help them guide. And we weren't even aware and so we were unprepared, and therefore, you go kind of to the bottom of the pile again and have to wait that time. Thank you.

2310 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much.

2311 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you. Two more questions, and then that's it.

2312 The First Mile Connectivity Consortium is a group -- it's an academic and it's a group of -- sorry -- academics and Indigenous service providers, and they've provided submissions on having TSPs educate community members to monitor different telecom facilities on a regular basis but also to be able to provide more of an emergency service. Is this something that -- an idea that you would endorse or support?

2313 MS. McCLAREN: I mean, to me it sounds like a good idea, but again, I haven't consulted with my client about that and I don't really know how that would role out practically. But philosophically, it sounds -- I've read about that as well in their material. It's moving in the right direction. I mean, I think it's a good example of the type of thing that can be done.

2314 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thanks.

2315 Then I will stick to something that is within your submission, and it was that you suggest that the CRTC should require First Nation representation in all levels of management at service providers like Northwestel. Can you speak a bit more about that, please?

2316 MR. ROBINSON: Well, I think this is something that the First Nations worked at over the years. We have the same -- we've indicated the same thing with Yukon Government and other major organizations in the Yukon. So in a sense, it's the same story but with our telecom provider.

2317 I think our experience has been that having First Nations people in leadership and management positions in various organizations has been very beneficial, and it really comes down to just understanding in a way that is really important. I don't really know how else to -- unless you're looking for something more particular, we could try to be more --

2318 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: No, not at all. I just wanted to give you the opportunity to speak about that.

2319 Those are all my questions. Thanks.

2320 THE CHAIRPERSON: Great. So you're almost off the hook. Maybe very quickly I could just ask one further question and then we'll turn it back to you if you would like to add anything further.

2321 So we've heard about some of the challenges. We certainly have taken note of questions that we can ask of other parties, including Northwestel. We heard about some communities getting service once a week and phone hookups taking a month.

2322 Is there anything else in terms of lines of questions or areas of focus that you think we need to explore with other parties, including Northwestel?

2323 MR. ROBINSON: I do want to make a point of the federal government's new treaty implementation policy because it's something that the Champagne Aishihik and other self-governing nations have worked on for over 20 years and just this year was finally adopted by Cabinet as federal policy. And having worked on it myself, I feel it's going to make a difference, and I would just urge the CRTC to look at it, to investigate it, to discuss it with others, and to really move forward with it aggressively.

2324 And really, the most important point of the whole policy is that it's an attempt to really bring in all different departments and parts of the federal government into the process of treaty implementation. That is the underlying theory behind it because we find that treaty implementation tends to be -- the centre of it is the department that's concerned with it, and so we're really, really want to see the whole of government is involved in treaty implementation.

2325 So that's the one thing I would say. Thank you.

2326 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

2327 Did you want to add anything else before we wrap up? No.

2328 Well, then, I will just again take the opportunity to thank you for your submissions. We really appreciate it, and thank you for being here with us today.

2329 MS. MOORE: Thank you.

2330 We'll take a 15-minute break, so we will resume at 2:10. Thank you.

--- Suspension à 13 h 57

--- Reprise à 14 h 12

2331 MS. MOORE: Welcome back. We will proceed with the final presentation for today. Please present yourself and you have 15 minutes for your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

2332 MR. CARLICK: Good afternoon, Commission, Commissioners. Thank you for letting us present today. My name is Andy Carlick. I represent Taku River Tlingit First Nation over in northern B.C. And today I have Cherish Clarke and Moses Track, our Capital Manager. Cherish is a citizen of Taku River, she will help present today.

2333 So I would like to start by saying my name is Andy Carlick. I work with Taku River Tlingit as the Operation and Maintenance Coordinator for the First Nation. I am the Fire Chief for our volunteer fire department. I am also the director of our operations -- how do I say it -- emergency management operation in Atlin. So with that I would just like to say, I'd like to turn it over to Cherish to introduce herself.

2334 MS. CLARKE: (Speaking Indigenous language)

2335 My Tlingit name is Shtikê.û (phon.) and my English name is Cherish. I got my Bachelor of Science in Computer Information Systems in 2007 and, I have been working for the last 13 years as a network administrator supporting eight remote offices throughout the Yukon.

2336 As Andy mentioned, I am a Taku River Tlingit First Nation Citizen, and I could not work in technology without ensuring that my community had adequate access to broadband and telecommunications services. We're very grateful to be here today. Thank you. Gunalchéesh.

2337 MR. TRACK: Yes, my name is Moses Track, and I'm the Principal Administrative Officer of Operations, Maintenance, Housing, and Public Works for the Taku River Tlingit First Nation. I've been working there for the past two years and a half so far now. And I can't thank enough being here and you guys listening to our concerns and hearing our concerns for connectivity and a lot of other aspects at the same time for the Taku River Tlingit First Nation.

2338 So thank you for having us and hearing our concern. I'm going to turn this back to Andy Carlick who is going to start to present. Thank you.

2339 MR. CARLICK: So we're grateful to present today in the traditional territories of the Ta'an Kwäch'än and the Kwanlin Dün First Nation. I would like to explain where we're from. Our traditional territory of the Taku River Tlingit covers over 40,000 square kilometres and spans across Northern Canada, British Columbia, Yukon Territory and Alaska. Our main community of Atlin is 200 kilometres south of Whitehorse by road.

2340 The Taku River Tlingit people migrated inland many generations ago from Juneau, Alaska, via the Taku River. Our connection to the Taku watershed and Taku River has sustained our way of life over many millennia. We are inseparable from the land, water, fish, and animals within our territory.

2341 Many Taku River Tlingit still live within our homelands and are located in and around the unincorporated town of Atlin in northwestern tip of British Columbia. Atlin is known as a mini-Switzerland of the north. Our community is located on the shores of Atlin Lake, one of B.C.'s largest lakes, nestled among the peaks of the icefields of the Coast Mountain Range. The only road access to Atlin is through Highway 7, through the Yukon Territory.

2342 Like a majority of small and remote communities, our economic base is small but needs current-day telecommunications services to keep growing. Broadband and cellular connectivity and affordability is an ongoing challenge for many residents, which has created the social and economic barriers.

2343 The Covid-19 pandemic has increased the resilience of citizens on internet services platforms and critical infrastructure. The internet is used for all forms of communication, including education, health, social services, professional, economic, and other business engagements. Many governmental and other services are now delivered remotely. This reality has resulted in further barriers for TRTFN and Atlin residents because of the lack and high cost of broadband and internet services.

2344 Provisions of telecommunications service to Atlin and TRTFN is an anomaly. The incumbent service provider and owner of the local facilities is Telus. The maintenance and operation of these facilities are contracted to Northwestel. Northwestel owns a microwave transport connection for the basic telephone service and some commercial data services into our community.

2345 There is no broadband internet service in Atlin or digital subscriber line services. The highest available data rate to residents is typically 500-kilobits per second. There is no cellular service in our community, and there are no 911 or 988 emergency services. We are not part of the Northwestel service territory. Telus provides our local phone service only.

2346 While we appreciate the Commission has amended the proceedings to include consideration of access to telecommunications services in Atlin, we are concerned that falls short of what is expected of the government's reconciliation obligations.

2347 Prior to this process, there was no consultation with the TRTFN on telecommunications services in Atlin or the scope of this proceeding. So we were not initially part of the proceedings. TRT was required to seek an amendment to participate in this proceeding, but still the scope of proceedings does not fully adequately address the circumstances TRTFN faces. Any actions necessary to improve telecommunications service in Atlin, more specifically, there is no examination of the causes or solutions for the current substandard telecommunications services in this proceeding with the Commission, the CRTC.

2348 As a result, Taku River Tlingit First Nation finds itself in a difficult position because our needs are significantly different and more comprehensive than what was contemplated in the original Notice of Consultation. Where there is a call for evaluation of Northwestel service performance within Northwestel's serving territory. This gap creates real issues and consequences for us. The risk to human life, for example, is real. We cannot call for emergency services when we are faced with life-and-death situations. This is not acceptable, and it is also only one of many challenges we face because we do not have adequate telephone, internet, and cellular service.

2349 So we ask the Commission to treat our situation and our concerns seriously. Thank you, Commissioners. At this time, I would like to turn to my co-presenter, Cherish Clarke, to finish presenting. Thank you.

2350 MS. CLARKE: Thank you so much, Andy. I could hear the emotion in your voice as you were describing the life-or-death situations that we have in our community and the importance of community safety and the lack of telecommunication services that this incumbency issue has on our community.

2351 I want to thank the Commissioners for your time and consideration of these issues facing TRTFN today and solutions that can be achieved through this process.

2352 I would like to add to Elder Carlick's comments and speak in more depth about the unique and difficult administrative challenges that TRTFN and Atlin faces.

2353 In its filing with the Commission, Telus offered to transfer the incumbent responsibility for Atlin to Northwestel without prior consultation of TRTFN. It is disappointing that although Telus has acknowledged in their submission that Atlin is currently underserved, their solution is to push the problem onto the Commission by ordering Northwestel to take over service and compensate Telus for their investment. This falls far short of reconciliation in the eyes of the Taku River Tlingit First Nation who have endured being underserved by Telus for decades.

2354 The Taku River Tlingit does support the transfer of responsibility to provide to Atlin to Northwestel. It is only fair that Telus be part of the solution to ensure that the take-over of service is expediated. The solution should include access to many services not limited to development of affordable broadband and fibre to the home, FTTH services, modern emergency services and cellular services.

2355 A transfer from Telus to Northwestel must be expediated and not held up in bureaucracy. The resolution of the incumbency issue involves sophisticated commercial transactions. TRTFN has limited administrative resources to be involved in these complex transactions. However, we require that these matters be addressed with urgency, with a goal of identifying Northwestel as the incumbent.

2356 TRTFN asks that Northwestel is identified as the incumbent by summer 2023 so TRTFN is positioned to apply for the next funding tranches for fibre to the home. Recognizing the limited capacity of First Nations and the need to support First Nations in developing capacity, is a key aspect of the reconciliation process. We ask that the Commission oversee this process between Northwestel and Telus to ensure a reasonable and achievable outcome and a timely resolution.

2357 Further, we ask the CRTC to provide TRTFN with regular progress reports so we are informed of this process and can prepare and act accordingly.

2358 Access to telecommunications services in the Atlin area is urgently needed. TRTFN is actively taking steps to address this major telecommunications infrastructure gap. As such, we would like to update the Commission on several positive developments.

2359 Firstly, we would like to thank Indigenous Services Canada, the Government of B.C., Northwestel and Bell Mobility for their support of community cellular services and high-capacity fibre transport services for Atlin.

2360 We are in the process of negotiations with Bell Mobility for the development of a cell phone site to serve the community of Atlin. Through this development, Atlin would gain cellular services from a new Taku River Tlingit First Nation-owned tower. With an agreement from Taku River Tlingit First Nation, Northwestel has applied on behalf of TRTFN for funding towards a high-capacity fibre transport system connecting the Yukon to Atlin. This new fibre transport would also facilitate future connectivity services such as fibre to the home for Atlin residents and cellular services along the highway for the general public.

2361 This work and these developments are positive, and the parties have engaged in good faith and to work to accomplish the first steps of connectivity for the town of Atlin, B.C. However, we must emphasize that we cannot solve all of the existing connectivity problems in the current circumstances and we do require the CRTC's involvement.

2362 We are burdened by this incumbency issue but are not able to address it. TRTFN asks the Commission to intervene with Telus and Northwestel to ensure this incumbency issue is addressed in a timely manner. Funding applications for fibre to the home cannot commence until the incumbency issue between Telus and Northwestel is resolved. As such, this incumbency issue presents a major barrier for TRTFN that must be resolved as quickly as possible.

2363 TRTFN is committed to and actively advancing these initiatives which will serve the Nation and the broader community. To achieve reconciliation, TRTFN requires the Commission's timely decisions.

2364 The issue of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples affects all aspects of this work and TRTFN's telecommunications initiatives. Reconciliation must influence all decisions of the Commission.

2365 We raise these issues and emphasize that the effects of the digital divide on our community, culture and access to information cannot be overstated. These effects are an integral part of the broader discussion around telecommunications and community safety, connectivity and accessibility.

2366 The commitment to reconciliation must also address economic reconciliation, which, as we noted in our submission, aims to create meaningful partnerships and mutually beneficial opportunities based on a holistic, values-driven approach to attaining community prosperity. The Commission's decision-making process must uphold this commitment.

2367 Atlin should not have to continue waiting for telecommunications services because of jurisdictional or corporate issues between two of Canada's largest and most profitable telecommunications companies. It is imperative that the Commission acts to support all parties as they work quickly and effectively to rectify this situation. The ultimate goal for the community of Atlin is to have fair and equitable access to telecommunications services comparable to what the Commission has established as expected standards for all of Canada.

2368 We therefore ask that the Commission work with the relevant parties, currently Northwestel and Telus, to ensure that we have expediated access to quality telephone, broadband internet and cellular services, act urgently to make sure services are available to us within the very near future, and to ensure these services are affordable and have comparable quality and reliability, meet the obligations of reconciliation by enabling TRTFN to develop and implement solutions to these problems that are tailored to our citizens and the larger community of Atlin, ensure TRTFN's success towards reconciliation through the incorporation of TRTFN's initiatives and proposed measures and that all decisions affecting our community and our territory include free, prior, and informed consent, ensure that TRTFN and Atlin have access to 911 and 988 emergency services on the same basis as other communities in Canada.

2369 We appreciate the opportunity for TRTFN to express our concerns to the Commission and for the Commission to make a timely decision on this important matter. So Commissioners, thank you for your time and consideration of these matters today, and we appreciate the opportunity to speak before you and we welcome any and all of your questions. Thank you.

2370 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. Thank you for your submissions throughout the proceeding and also for being here with us today.

2371 Thank you as well for sharing the unique challenges of the Taku River Tlingit First Nation and the challenges in Atlin.

2372 What you have described in your submissions and what you've described to us this afternoon, no broadband internet, no DSL, no cell services, no 911, no 988, I would say that we find that very troubling.

2373 A lot of what we've heard about over the past few days has been around affordability. You're not even there. You're talking about connectivity, you know, so I know that your priority is on connectivity, and then you can move to affordability.

2374 THE CHAIRPERSON: I will start with a few questions. The beauty of going last for the day is that we can stay here all evening, which we won't, but let me just ask a few questions, and it's really sort of drilling down so we can hear in your own words some of what you've put in your submissions.

2375 So the first question is with respect to, you talked about some of the delays in having new services put in, repairs, outages. Can you talk a little bit more about your experiences?

2376 MR. CARLICK: Yes. We still have party lines in Atlin somehow. Old equipment or whatever it ends up, you pick up the phone and you hear somebody's conversation going on. But that kind of issue is -- fire and safety, I can't speak enough about it. Global warming. Fire is imminent. And you know, if we see a fire and we're a little ways away from a phone, you know, it just adds to the fear that we have about fire, fire threat, wildfire threat.

2377 Same with homes. I mean, we've lost three homes last year in Atlin, and a business. Our general post office and general store burnt down, but of course with no cell service -- well, we got the neighbouring fire community to come out and help us. But you know, cell service would be pretty handy in situations like that to ask for more help from wherever.

2378 So yeah, it's a real issue for us. You know, suicide. Somebody needing to talk to someone, you know, they can't contact anybody, right. They don't have anybody to phone. You know, 911, somebody to answer to or help talk you down or do whatever. 911, you know, somebody is frozen on the highway, hit the ditch and we can't get them -- can't get the help to them, probably perish, you know, in cold weather. It's hard to get help when you're stuck in a snowbank and can't get help.

2379 Anyway, those kind of issues are real issues for Atlin. And I'dd just like to leave it at that, I guess.

2380 MS. CLARKE: I'd just like to add on to what Elder Carlick said.

2381 He told me a story about how there was an Elder who was missing and then it took 20 minutes to find them and then it took another 20 minutes to get them to the health centre. By then you're 40 minutes into an emergency. If someone has a heart attack, you know, every minute counts.

2382 Elder Carlick also told me about what happens, you know, with emergency services after hours, about how it gets dispatched here to Whitehorse and then back to Kelowna. Like there's very intricate systems happening that are falling short of what we need for safety in our community. Thank you.

2383 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for sharing that with us.

2384 You've talked in your submissions about Starlink being available. You've said that it has potential, but you've also talked about outages, the cost, and that there's no mobile solution.

2385 We heard this morning about how -- there was an example at Moose Creek Lodge where you'd have one hour of it functioning in the morning and then maybe two hours in the evening and that was it. Just wondering about your experiences or anything that you can share with us on that.

2386 MS. CLARKE: Starlink is a fairly new technology to the north. As mentioned earlier, I've worked 13 years, my entire career -- I used to be a network administrator and so I was dreaming of Low Earth Orbit before Elon Musk. No one gave me the money to develop it.

2387 But it still is a work in progress. You know, I don't think they've launched all their satellites. It wasn't until quite recently that we even had accessibility to Starlink. But the ultimate goal is always fibre. Like you just can't beat reliability of fibre.

2388 And because we weren't involved -- we're not serviced by Northwestel -- like I know Northwestel had agreements with OneWeb for several communities across the north, and in so many ways we've just been neglected. A lot of people just don't recognize exactly where we are on the map, and this incumbency issue with ILEC is like the biggest issue that we've had so far.

2389 You know, I think that Telus' closest fibre line is like 1,200 kilometres away, like in Dawson Creek. And so I feel very fortunate that we have an ISP, you know, that we have Telus and Northwestel coming to the table as viable partners, as we're trying to build connectivity for our community. Because we've been working on this connectivity study for probably seven months, and we had very limited engagement with Telus. Telus hadn't really been meeting with our team until about 48 hours ago, you know, we started to get more answers, like with people from Telus being here in town.

2390 So I just wanted to take a minute to thank Bell and Northwestel for meeting diligently with our team and trying to help solve these connectivity issues from Atlin.

2391 And could you repeat your question? I feel like I didn't answer you.

2392 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, you did. It was around Starlink and, you know, the availability of Starlink now.

2393 There was -- did you want to add anything on that one? It's good? Okay. There was a reference in your submissions to Northwestel's customer service and sort of, customer service management, versus kind of a sincere commitment to customer service. Could you elaborate on that?

2394 MS. CLARKE: Yeah. I could give you a very concrete example.

2395 So I quit my day job in early 2020 and I started my own business, Digital Engine Technology. It's Digital Engine Technology and Planet Works that were really working together to bring connectivity to Atlin.

2396 And so we had a situation that happened, like specifically, another member of our community, Chris McKay and I, were trying to bridge the digital divide, specifically just for the First Nation. So on the band office, they were on Xplorenet and the fibre in Atlin from the microwave link is just running by the band office and people who were on like 156-kilobits per second, like they couldn't even run Zoom conferences. We had people that worked at the Nation running up to the free wireless access point at Service B.C. to download the map packages that they needed to do their jobs. And so TRTFN couldn't even run web conferences.

2397 And so Chris and I went out and we were trying to find a solution for Atlin, and I don't know if I'm allowed to talk numbers, but Telus came back and they told us, yeah, we'll give you the service, but it's going to be $20,000 a month and you have to sign up for a 5-year contract. That was so beyond the financial costs of what we could realistically pay for within our Nation. And so I was able to go and talk to Northwestel, and Northwestel provided 100 up/down, quite recently like within the last year and a half for the band office so they have better connectivity.

2398 So that's one example of where I had gone to the ISPs and I requested a higher level of service, and it was Northwestel that really came in true partnership to help service our First Nation. And from there, thanks to Moses, we branched out and started looking at Atlin as a larger community and how do we actually get connectivity for Atlin.

2399 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you for sharing that.

2400 You refer in your submissions to a proposal to establish an initiative to provide training and technical assistance. Would you be able to speak to that?

2401 MS. CLARKE: Several members on my team have expressed that it might be a viable job for people to look at being like fibre technicians. So we're always looking for ways to build capacity and have economic reconciliation.

2402 Many First Nations across Canada are very small, but right now in IT there's so many job vacancies. You know, children that go into kindergarten today are going to be pursuing jobs in the future that haven't even been created yet. So IT is a very viable industry for many First Nations youth across Canada to start examining a career in technology. And so I would really like to see ways that we can partner in Atlin, when the development comes through, that we are able to provide jobs and opportunities to people to start engaging in telecommunications and IT.

2403 MR. TRACK: Yes, sorry. I'm sorry, because I know that they're presenting, and they could answer for anything. But I just wanted to add also like on the aspects of also not only telecommunications, but when you have a reliable telecommunication in the region of Atlin and for the community, it opens up a lot of chances for a lot of members, for whether they're citizens or non-citizens, you know, to be able to promote more, to study more, for education, health, anything.

2404 It can really cover a lot of aspects where you're going to have a lot of people coming back to these communities and like saying, you know, everything is reliable here, everything is nice. Like, I can come back. We have an education system. We have like, mentorship programs. We have, you know, a lot of things that we can offe. But we need something reliable for all aspects for connectivity, whether it comes from cell service, to the fibre, to the fibre to the homes.

2405 So all this kind of package, if it's helpful and as soon as possible that we can get this to the community of Atlin, and the residents, and the First Nation, it will really help on a faster process, just not to have anything missing from the whole kind of scope, if you want to put it this way. So it's really, really important for all the connectivity and reliability on that, just because it opens up a lot of different things, economically, on any level. That's how I can say it. Thank you.

2406 THE CHAIRPERSON: Great. Thank you for that. Perhaps I could just add -- or ask a question of clarification.

2407 So you were referring in your statement just now this afternoon, there's a reference and it's at paragraph 21, but it continues on as well. But it says that TRTFN asks that Northwestel is identified as the incumbent by the summer so TRTFN is positioned to apply for the next funding tranches for fibre to the home.

2408 And so, I'm just wondering what the requirement is there? If you could just clarify -- if you could just clarify that, that would be very helpful. Thank you.

2409 MS. CLARKE: Yeah. So there are particular funding applications that we're looking at through the B.C. government, and a lot of these funding applications require the fibre to the home component. So long as Telus is the ILEC, they've been chronically underserving the community of Atlin. We have failed to have proper services under their care and maintenance. And it's my understanding, as we explained in our submission, that Telus pays Northwestel to service Atlin. And so Northwestel has agreed to apply on funding for the fibre -- this fibre transport, and along with that we are hoping to tie in fibre to the home, and a lot of funding applications require that fibre to the home component. I hope that's clear.

2410 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you for that.

2411 Maybe just a few more questions -- you're going to think I wasn't kidding about keeping you here all evening.

2412 So you did provide some updates on some of the positive developments. You spoke about the negotiations with Bell Mobility, that was for the development of the cell tower; you spoke about Northwestel's application for transport fibre system and some other points.

2413 Where does this get us in terms of helping to resolve the connectivity issues?

2414 MS. CLARKE: Can you repeat the question?

2415 THE CHAIRPERSON: For sure.

2416 You spoke about some of the progress, there was some positive developments. Where do those positive developments take us? I mean, where do those developments get us?

2417 MS. CLARKE: Yes. So I am so grateful, as mentioned, to Indigenous Services Canada. They helped us a lot with the funding for the cell phone tower, which was really the impetus for all the ISPs to start looking more realistically at Atlin.

2418 So the incumbency between Telus and Northwestel, until that's resolved, we cannot -- we -- it's impossible for us to provide fibre to the home. So there's many issues around complexities. We've split our project into five separate parts. So one of them is the transport fibre, one of them is the cellular connectivity, one of them is fibre to the home, another one is emergency services, and as well as highway corridor access.

2419 So, unfortunately, over the last seven months, as I mentioned, Telus' engagement with us has been much more limited than the engagement that we've seen from Bell and from Northwestel. And so we have two partners who are willing to help us with connectivity in Atlin, and we need the incumbent of Telus to transfer the ILEC and the responsibility to Northwestel. Again, I believe it might be an issue of cost.

2420 You know, like, if Telus pulls that fibre all the way to Atlin, like 1,200 kilometres, it's probably $200 million. Whereas if we find a solution from Jake's Corner and we split off our transport fibre from there, then we're going to see -- it's 200 kilometres, right? So it's really like a cost benefit. And I just -- I feel really unfortunate coming to the Commission and have to say that Telus hasn't really served us, but they haven't. Like, for the last 30 years, if you travel to Atlin, you can see that Atlin at this point is probably more of a liability than an asset, right? And I feel like Bell and Northwestel are coming in this spirit of true reconciliation to help us assist and make sure that Atlin actually gets connectivity and we don't miss out on this round of funding. As you all know the federal government is investing heavily into broadband initiatives at this point, and I would hate for my community to get left out for another 30 years.

2421 I remember around 2000, like, still being on dialup at my mom's house, so this is really a dream come true. Like, once we have true connectivity for Atlin, I think that we're really ground-breaking and cutting edge in what we're requesting from governments and ISPs and from the Commission, and I just want to thank you very much for your commitment to ensuring that Atlin doesn't get left behind. You know, the 50/10 speeds for 90 percent of Canadians, I don't want to be the 10 percent left out.

2422 Thank you.

2423 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that.

2424 Maybe I can just ask a couple of questions around reconciliation because I think that was a nice segue and I'll then turn things over to Vice Chair Scott.

2425 So one of the goals of this proceeding is to help advance reconciliation, including economic reconciliation. Can you talk to us a little bit about engagement with telecom providers?

2426 Is there something that we can do as the telecom regulator to help improve the transparency and the flexibility and the responsiveness? And one of the things that we've heard about is possibly having best practice guidelines or something along those lines. Could you talk a little bit about that?

2427 MS. CLARKE: During the last presentation, I also heard that there was a recommendation to include more Indigenous people working for the ISPs. So I think Indigenous representation matters. And the fact that in Atlin we're still a sovereign nation, you know, we are looking for government-to-government agreements, we're looking for the ISPs and for the Commission to come as true partners in the spirit of reconciliation, and the economic investment into the community of Atlin and TRTFN cannot be understated.

2428 Our staff are always our most expensive resource, and people need to be empowered to do their jobs and to work and live effectively within Atlin. Connectivity is no longer something that's nice to have. Connectivity is a human right.

2429 And I've heard many Indigenous people within this sphere talk about particularly -- I always carry this message with me from Dara Blackwater, who is an Indigenous lawyer from the United States, and she stated that their treaties are as long as the grass grows and the rivers flow, and spectrum is like rivers in the sky. And in the United States, they actually have first access on the broadband that runs over their tribal lands and the 2.5 megahertz spectrum.

2430 Ultimately, I would love to see that type of initiative happen within Canada, particularly around economic reconciliation. So much is built on the internet today, as we identified in our submission, and connectivity is a human right. Thank you.

2431 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think it's probably a good time to pass things over to our Vice Chair of Telecommunications. Thank you.

2432 VICE CHAIR SCOTT: Thank you. And thank you again for your generosity with your time and your passionate description of the situation that you're in.

2433 I think you've been very clear today in describing your situation, and I'm wondering if you could -- and I have every reason to believe that you would have been just as clear in describing your situation to Telus and to Northwestel.

2434 Can you shed some more insight into what those conversations are like? When you sit down with a company representative and you explain the dire situation that you're facing, what type of response would you get?

2435 MS. CLARKE: I just wanted to mention that by being ignored, right, by not being heard at the table and delays -- like if there are delays for us, the delays are denials to connectivity, and I think that it's important that we have an open dialogue and discussion with the ISPs and that they come as true partners in the spirit of reconciliation and have an open dialogue and discussion with us.

2436 So I think communication is incredibly important, and I'm very grateful over the last 48 hours to meet with Telus and to meet with Northwestel, and we still require the oversight of the CRTC as we move forward in our negotiations.

2437 If you'd --

2438 VICE CHAIR SCOTT: Sorry; we keep doing the microphone dance where I push my button before you finish speaking.

2439 On that theme and noting -- like I do hear a bit of optimism in the change in relationship over the last 48 hours. Do you have a sense of where parties currently stand with regards to their appetite for reaching rapid conclusion on this issue of transferring incumbency?

2440 MS. CLARKE: Up until this point, I just wanted to mention that we've had a lot of verbal agreements. But until I see something on paper, I feel cautiously optimistic throughout this whole process. So I am just waiting for the pen to hit -- the ink to hit the paper.

2441 You know, there's a lot of commitments and everyone recognizes -- even in the Telus submission like you see three or four times that they mention that Atlin is an underserved community, and so I'm just really grateful that, like I said, we have the opportunity to speak with everyone so far.

2442 But right now it seems like everyone wants to come to the table, but we don't have anything. We just have verbal agreements; we don't have anything inked out.

2443 VICE CHAIR SCOTT: Thank you. That's helpful and specific.

2444 And I think I'll steal one of the Chair's questions. She's been noting to panelists that we will be putting questions both to Telus and to Northwestel later in this proceeding.

2445 Either now or if you wanted to gather your thoughts in advance of your concluding remarks, but if you had any direction for us in asking questions, things that you would like to see explored further, we would be very receptive to that input.

2446 (Engagement)

2447 MS. CLARKE: Can we submit our written submission for the answer for that?

2448 VICE CHAIR SCOTT: We would certainly welcome and accept written submissions. If there's anything you'd like to include in your remarks given the timing and the fact that we are all gathered in the same place for the next few days, anything you're able to share in the time we have remaining would also be helpful.

2449 Maybe my last question, and I'll change track a little bit. We've heard a lot about various programs available to support infrastructure funding and you referenced B.C. and some of the peculiarities or particularities of their program. Could you comment on what some have referred to as a bit of a patchwork quilt of funding and how difficult that has been in terms of securing the funds you need, the timing, the process, et cetera?

2450 MS. CLARKE: Yes. TRTFN is an extremely small First Nation, and I just wanted to thank my colleague, Suzanna Reardon, for the work that she does within the business development. And so if you would like a written submission more about the business case and some of the funding pools that we are trying to secure, I could definitely provide that to you.

2451 (Engagement)

2452 VICE CHAIR SCOTT: Thank you.

2453 Madam Chairperson, those are my questions.

2454 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Excellent.

2455 So maybe just before turning things back to you in terms of any sort of concluding remarks or, again, if there's anything that you wanted to add with respect to Vice Chair Scott's question about, you know, are there lines of questioning that you would like to see of Telus, Northwestel, other parties to the proceeding, please do feel free to share those with us.

2456 I will say again how appreciative we are of you being here and sharing your experience and your concerns with us and would just reiterate how troubled we are with what you've shared.

2457 I'll turn things back over to you. Thank you.

2458 MR. TRACK: First of all, I want to thank you for listening to our concerns and everything. And I can say maybe at this point I understand that we do not have anything like, let's say, solid in writing or anything like that, but I can feel that all the parties, all the providers, everybody is coming to the table to actually negotiate and try to make this happen.

2459 So we would like to actually recognize everybody who is trying to do all the efforts in terms of connectivity from Northwestel, Bell and Telus. You know, we believe that they can come all together to the table and try to find a solution because it is the intention and I think everybody's intention is the same thing, just for them to be able to find just the process. And we would like the CRTC to help us in actually moving this forward in a faster manner, if possible as long as all the parties are agreed that this is where we want to go because, as we said, verbally, definitely we heard that they're all committed, they want to make something, it's definitely important.

2460 It's really critical for our emergency health and safety for the community of Atlin, for all the members, for the citizens, and a lot of different aspects, too.

2461 I believe just like sometimes when you say -- you know, we give little examples, we're not going to go deep into a lot of examples, but there is a lot of cost inclusion in everything we do because of connectivity. When you don't have cell service, when you don't have high-speed internet, when you don't have, you know, fibre to the homes it gets it complicated in any way we can.

2462 If you're coming on the highway and there is, you know, something happens, you can be stuck there for like a day, half a day, you know.

2463 We heard a lot of cases that people lost lives through going, you know, like the Atlin Road and it's unfortunate because we understand that, you know, all the providers, whether it's like, you know, Northwestel, Bell, Telus, whoever is in charge of the areas or they're all included, they really are committed.

2464 We understand that they all feel the same way as we feel, but it's just only now we need implementation and we need like action to move on.

2465 It's been many, many years of discussions and challenges, a lot of problems occurred probably in the past, but now I think we reached to a point where we started to see, like you say, light end of the tunnel coming, but we need that last mile, if you want to say it in this way, to get the process all done by the providers, Telus, Northwestel and Bell, definitely, to do that.

2466 And we're glad that we -- we've been working so hard, I can say, for the past seven months, but it's not only seven months. We've been since I started, I can say people were talking about that and we started to look into all the opportunities that we can have, that how can we get connectivity to Atlin, how can we improve, how can we do this in the next few years, you know.

2467 But it was like for me is no few years, it's few months. It's really an emergency, it's really important.

2468 So I'm glad to share all this with you guys as much as possible. We can, you know, go on for a longer time also, but it's just only really critical and important to put all these pieces together. It's a puzzle that we couldn't in the beginning identify how because it was a concern with all the parties saying like, okay, we're in charge of this portion, we're in charge of this portion so how we could bring them all to the table, that was a little bit of a challenge.

2469 But also Indigenous Services Canada, we've been working with them for the past year and a half or two for them to also be able to provide us some support, and this is where at least now we could get at least one tower probably funded by them.

2470 This will be one of the first probably initiatives that, you know, got that support to Atlin, but it's not only here. I think this is a first step.

2471 There's a lot of more steps going also after getting the fibre and then fibre to the home and maybe like, you know, more towers along the highway. And we understand that this is also a challenge because it needs like -- we have to think about a lot of different things, power and so, you know, and going forward.

2472 But we believe that, you know, there is something that we can do. Things have to happen. It's just only we would like your help and support definitely on this matter to just move forward in a better, faster process with all the providers. And we believe again that they all can come to the table and they're all very open and they all agree on, yes, there is a need, there is a problem in Atlin, we need to solve it, how do we do that.

2473 Thank you again for listening, for sharing, and I appreciate all your time. Thank you.

2474 MR. CARLICK: Commissioners, I would like to say thank you again and we just wanted to point out the fact that safety is a big issue for me. 75 percent of the Atlin community are over the age of 55, so Elders are becoming -- you know, needing more support around safety. I just wanted to throw one example out there.

2475 We had a lady laying on the floor for 24 hours, you know. She couldn't get to her phone to phone a health clinic, you know. We had one of our employees go there and check on her and she was laying on the floor for almost a full day.

2476 You know, it's really tragic to have that happen. So having a button and an alarm like the rest of the world, you know, "I've fallen down, I can't get up", that kind of thing, it's important I think that we catch up with the rest of the world to help look after our citizens in Atlin and on First Nations.

2477 I just wanted to bring that to your attention. Safety is a big issue for us. Thank you.

2478 MS. CLARKE: Thank you so much, Elder Carlick, for your heartfelt sentiments around community safety.

2479 I'm so grateful to the CRTC for allowing us to present today and talk about Atlin because it is a community that has been forgotten about.

2480 Part of my concern about presenting in front of the CRTC was the possibility of our momentum being caught up in bureaucracy. As we submitted in our statement, time is of the essence. You know, we're asking for the solution like probably in the next 90 days.

2481 And so I just am thankful for your support, but I also hope that our case won't be lost in bureaucracy and then we lose an opportunity to service our community. So I'm grateful for your support, but I was also concerned coming, like just because, again, we have a lot of momentum and there's a lot of moving pieces and the incumbency issue might just be on the cusp of being resolved, but we still require the oversight and the support of the CRTC Commission to ensure that our community does have true connectivity because, as I mentioned, today it's a human right. It's something that all Canadians have a service that they shouldn't be denied.

2482 I also heard a lot about affordability, and I just wanted to flag with the Commission that I was very surprised that Northwestel even offers DSL-1 as a package. So I just wanted to mention that to all of you.

2483 Like I didn't even know that DSL-1 was an option. So I just wanted to say, you know, is there any way that -- I know we're looking at 50/10 speeds for Canadians, but I'm like DSL-1, is there any way you can give away that copper data or just give away the data? Can we just give people DSL-1?

2484 I thought it was -- I wanted to mention that because I was really surprised. Like we're looking for 50/10 speeds and Northwestel is selling DSL-1 to some customers.

2485 Thank you for allowing me the opportunity. I've worked in technology my entire career and I am so grateful to my clients and for the projects that I work on, particularly Atlin. As mentioned, Andy and I are citizens, and I care about my community so deeply and the residents that live there. Gunalchéesh.

2486 MR. TRACK: Thank you again for giving us the opportunity to speak in front of you.

2487 I wanted to just also add as well, like we talk about funding streams and sometimes funding streams are aligning one after the other, not only about just the connectivity itself, but there is a lot of engagement from the whole community of Atlin and from the whole, I mean, the Taku River Tlingit First Nation I can say in all departments, all aspects on a lot of different projects.

2488 We are working towards -- I cannot even put a number any more on projects. But connectivity is really related to everything we want to do.

2489 You know, we have to -- we're working on building, like an example, a new access road. We want to look into, you know, for cultural activities, centres, gymnasium.

2490 I can mention again about a lot of different projects, but they're all kind of related to one thing at the end of the day, you know, about like health and safety, education, social, economic development, a lot of things. Connectivity can come forward at the same time with all the streams that we've been working on for the past years.

2491 It's really important also through our negotiations, everything, you know, that that can come along at the same time.

2492 And I do think that also even if we see some gaps for this that, you know, with our funding opportunities that we can actually apply for, and if we do not get maybe the chance or maybe we pass a deadline, we would like to see if the CRTC can also be stepping in and trying to support us with a portion of all the submissions that we do going through the phases that we are working on.

2493 I do see that a lot of phases that Cherish just mentioned before about how we face about five phases for the connectivity and with all the support. So we want to try to make sure that it aligns all one after the other and not missing any gap on that. And if there is a gap, we would like and we will ask for your support to actually help us and, you know, kind of like cover that or maybe, you know, like try to find us solutions for that.

2494 So thank you again for listening to us. We really appreciate that. We really appreciate your time.

2495 It was wonderful to be in front of all of you. We much appreciate everything. I want to thank every individual in this room that is listening to us and hearing our concerns and hopefully that things can get along all together and we just make all things happen through everything that you guys listen to us today. Thank you again.

2496 THE CHAIRPERSON: Excellent. Thank you so much for your helpful and heartfelt comments and we hear the sense of urgency. Thank you again.

2497 MS. MOORE: Thank you very much. This concludes the hearing for today.

2498 I would like to remind everyone that the deadline for undertakings is May 9th. The hearing will resume tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. Have a great evening, everyone. Thank you.

--- L'audience est ajournée à 15 h 09

Sténographes

Kristin Johansson

Monique Mahoney

Bill Curley

Lynda Johansson

Tania Mahoney

Brian Denton