[The federal government] invested in connecting [southern] Canada to each other, now they need to do the same for the [N]orth.[41]

Chris West, Baffin Regional Chamber of Commerce

The establishment of physical infrastructure can serve as a key building block in enabling economic development in the North. For example, the construction of a road, railway or harbour facility in proximity to natural resources can lower the cost of doing business, such that mining or energy projects become economically feasible. In a similar way, such initiatives as developing various forms of renewable energy and enhancing telecommunications infrastructure can reduce the cost of living for northern communities by creating linkages with other communities, while facilitating linkages with southern markets (See Appendix B for a description of some key projects in relation to northern infrastructure, along with a list of key federal funding initiatives in support for northern infrastructure).

There is a consensus among northern communities that the current lack of sufficient infrastructure in the territories significantly impedes economic competitiveness and quality of life for northerners. Witnesses agreed that northern communities need infrastructure that connects them to southern markets as well as with each other. To quote Lawrence Connell of Agnico-Eagle Mines Limited:

We see it as an investment in strategic deep-water ports in the [N]orth to reduce the cost of transportation, strategically placed access roads that will allow for the distribution of goods and services across the territory, and investment in power generation in areas where reducing the cost of power will trigger industrial development.[42]

5.1       Transportation and Community Infrastructure

Building a highway is essential to lowering the cost of living and providing that connectivity between communities.[43]

Terry Kruger, Northwest Territories Association of Communities

5.1.1   Long-Term, Equitable Funding Arrangements

The majority of witnesses applauded the federal government for its long-term commitments in support of northern infrastructure through the Building Canada Fund and the Gas Tax Fund. These funding agreements provide ongoing support to northern communities using a base-plus allocation formula, which is aimed at addressing need within individual communities.

These same witnesses indicated that more federal funding initiatives should be structured in a similar fashion as that provided through the Gas Tax Fund and the Building Canada Fund. Terry Kruger, of the Northwest Territories Association of Communities, stated:

What doesn't work is per capita funding. It sounds fair, and maybe it is in southern Canada, but the [N]orth's small population and high costs combine to make it unworkable.[44]

In relation to traditional tripartite infrastructure funding arrangements, federal, territorial and local governments each normally contribute one-third of the cost of new infrastructure development. As northern communities tend to have access to relatively little funding, however, many witnesses stated that these types of cost-sharing agreements tend to limit participation by northern communities, as they cannot normally raise enough revenue to contribute their full share.

To enhance efficiency and effectiveness in relation to the use of federal funding by northern communities, and to better reflect the needs of northerners, witnesses proposed that management and control of these projects be given to territorial or local governments, as they are best placed to understand how to use this funding. To satisfy any concerns related to accountability and transparency in the use of federal funding by northern communities, a model similar to that applied through the Gas Tax Fund and the Building Canada Fund could be used, in which:

• Territorial governments administer the distribution of the federal funds to communities following a distribution formula developed through consultation with key community government stakeholders.
• An oversight committee is established, with representation from the territorial and federal governments, with community associations holding observer status to monitor the program and develop new directions and initiatives.
• Funds for eligible projects are allocated according to a formula based on agreements established with northern communities.

As well, in relation to the increased costs faced by developers in the North, several witnesses mentioned that federal government contracts for infrastructure projects should be enhanced to make them more economically viable. That is, they proposed that federal support should reflect the increased costs faced by businesses due to the short shipping and construction season, especially for more remote communities that are not connected by road networks. For example, Fred Koe, of the Northwest Territories Métis-Dene Development Fund Ltd., noted the following:

Seasonality, with our short construction season, is another issue for many businesses that are in construction, and especially for ones that rely on government contracts and have to do their work in two to three months. Again, the profitability of trying to do that or do rush jobs is very difficult.[45]

The Committee believes that, as northern infrastructure remains underdeveloped, and since northern communities lack the means to generate sufficient financing, the federal government should provide the majority of infrastructure funding in tripartite agreements to facilitate development in the North. To ensure the needs of northern communities are being met, federal funding should be provided through long-term arrangements that reflect the needs of isolated northern communities, and that these arrangements be managed and controlled locally. Therefore, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 2:

Where applicable, that funding by the Government of Canada for infrastructure projects be provided through multi-year agreements.

5.1.2   Public-Private Partnerships

The Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships defines a public-private partnership (P3) as:

A cooperative venture where there is an allocation of the risks inherent in the provision of a public service between the public and private sectors. A successful [P3] builds on the expertise of each partner to meet clearly defined public needs and provide a net benefit (or value for money) to the general public though appropriate allocation of resources, risks and rewards.[46]

P3s can range from contracts for the maintenance or operation of existing infrastructure to contracts for developing, building, financing and operating new ventures.

It is a generally accepted notion today that the public-private procurement model may deliver considerable efficiencies. According to Tim Zehr of Nunasi Corporation:

One answer specific to government's need to respond to these demands [for increased infrastructure due to a growing population] would be to foster and encourage public-private partnerships, or P3s. P3s integrate a project's design, build, finance, and maintenance components... P3s are not privatization but a true partnership, outlined in a business agreement.[47]

In such cases, it is expected that the public would receive a net benefit from assigning the design, construction and operating responsibilities for public infrastructure to a private consortium. Net benefit arises when “the private sector brings money, managerial tools and powerful incentives to deliver successful projects sooner and at lower cost than when delivered by the public sector alone.”[48]

Other advantages may include:

• minimizing government financial risk associated with construction and operating public infrastructure;
• freeing up government resources to devote to its core functions;
• improved maintenance of public assets over the long term; and
• providing secure, long-term investment opportunities to the private sector.

Delivering an infrastructure project through a P3 also poses many risks that can be very costly for the taxpaying and investing public. Private-sector partners and their investors may be in financial jeopardy if construction or operating costs exceed projections and/or regulatory changes have a negative impact on their operating environment. As well, private financing is typically more expensive than public borrowing, which could reduce the cost savings expected from a P3 project. Some experts think, however, that this expense is completely offset by other P3 outcomes through such things as the cost-savings acquired through private-sector management and reduced monitoring requirements for government.[49]

Despite the potential advantages of developing infrastructure through P3 arrangements, however, relatively few have occurred in Canada, especially on projects related to infrastructure in the northern territories. To-date, according to the Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships, of the total 138 P3 projects on record in Canada, only one has been successfully completed in the northern territories—the Government of Nunavut Buildings (Iqaluit):[50]

• Overview: The Government of Nunavut entered into a P3 with the Nunavut Construction Corporation, an Inuit owned company, to design, finance, build, own and operate the government buildings under a 20-year lease arrangement. The project consists of 10 government office buildings (including the Legislative Assembly in Iqaluit) and 250 units of employee housing in 11 different communities throughout Nunavut. The final office buildings and housing units were completed in the spring of 2000 on budget, one year ahead of the four-year schedule. Nunavut Construction Corporation is responsible for all operation and maintenance of the buildings and will retain ownership of assets upon expiration of the lease.

In recognition of the importance of developing P3s in Canada, and since Canada lags behind other countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia on these efforts,[51] the Government of Canada established a $1.2 billion Public-Private Partnerships Fund through Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) Canada. PPP Canada is a crown corporation, which became operational in 2009, with a mandate to develop the Canadian market for public-private partnerships for the supply of public infrastructure in the public interest.[52] As initial project approvals were expected in early 2010, it is currently not apparent to what extent this new funding is being provided in support of P3 projects in the northern territories. Therefore, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 3:

That the Government of Canada continue to work with its partners and stakeholders to facilitate the development of P3 proposals that are deemed viable for infrastructure development in the northern territories.

5.2       Power Generation and Renewable Energy

We've attempted to look at alternative energies to reduce the dependency on fossil fuels, as well as to eliminate the risks associated with fossil fuels in terms of operating costs. Alternative energy options in the north are limited... by the availability of the technologies and equipment in the north, as well as the expertise to work on those alternative energies.[53]

Peter Mackey, Qulliq Energy Corporation

According to a standard definition, renewable energy refers to the generation of heat and electricity from natural resources that are not depleted over time.[54] Renewable energy resources include power generated through wind, solar, water, geothermal, tidal and wave energy, as well as trees or other forms of biomass that can regenerate after some of the resources are used.

According to a broad range of witness testimony, the use of renewable energy sources to generate electricity offers many benefits beyond climate change mitigation and air pollution reduction—in relation to conventional energy generation through the use of diesel, it offers the potential for remote and isolated communities to reduce their energy consumption costs while providing opportunities for substantial job creation and rural development. Bill Eggertson, of the Canadian Association for Renewable Energies stated that:

The overwhelming evidence from numerous studies that job creation in renewables is higher per dollar of public investment than any other energy option, ...among many other advantages.[55]

Witnesses told the Committee that, despite the potential for the development of renewable energy through its abundant natural resources, Canada lags behind many other countries in taking advantage of renewable energy as a source of power generation; a claim supported through a recent report by Ernst and Young, which ranks Canada 9^th among 27 major industrialized countries in relative attractiveness.[56]

According to statistics available from the Centre for Energy, northern territories depend more on energy generated through fossil fuels than other regions in Canada
(see Table 5.1).

Table 5.1: Energy Use—Fossil Fuels and Renewable Sources, 2009 (% of total)

Source: Calculations using data from the Centre for Energy; and the International Energy Agency, Energy Policies of IEA Countries—Canada, 2009 Review, Executive Summary and Key Recommendations, April 2010; based on installed capacity.

As well, residential electricity rates for northerners tend to be much higher in many northern communities. As shown in Table 5.2,

Table 5.2: Residential Rates for Electricity, June-July 2010

Source: National Energy Board, Current Market Conditions, June-July 2010 (note: represents subsidized rates, standard or high threshold).

Many witnesses spoke of how the development of renewable energy sources is required to ensure sustainable economic development in the northern territories for the years to come. As in other parts of Canada, development of a coordinated system would provide the best opportunity to develop low-cost and flexible power systems. In relation to this view, witness testimony can be grouped into two main themes:

5.2.1   Connecting Power Grids

The Committee was told that connecting energy-generating systems by accessing or creating northern power grids would enable a wider availability of supply at lower long-run costs, which would foster the development of communities and projects in more isolated areas of the North. As mentioned in section 1.2, the current effort by the Yukon Energy Corporation to connect the north and south power grids would enable a more efficient distribution of power to service Yukon communities that currently use diesel generators. Another means of connecting northerners with affordable and reliable power would be to create linkages with existing power grids in the southern provinces. Although there is a general view that initial efforts can be costly and time-consuming, witnesses agreed that these short-term risks are outweighed greatly by the long-term benefits for northern economies, such as:

• Less dependency on government support mechanisms;
• Diversification of territorial economies;
• Creation of partnerships with Aboriginal companies and the private sector that provide community and regional economic benefits and opportunities for wealth creation.

The following provides a few examples, as expressed by witnesses before the Committee, of strategies that could be applied to better enable affordable long-term power generation:

• Dr.Harvey Brooks (Department of Economic Development, Government of Yukon) noted that, with Government of Canada funding for a transmission extension in British Columbia up to Bob Quinn Lake, which is near to Yukon, this “gets us within a planning horizon for connection to Yukon.;”[57] and
• Brian Zawadski (Nunavut Development Corporation) mentioned that “a power line from Manitoba, where electricity is less than 10¢ per kilowatt, to the Kivalliq, where electricity is greater than 40¢ a kilowatt, has been studied and now awaits development.”[58]

Although these strategies would be beneficial in the long term, given the general views by witnesses of the prohibitive costs of such efforts, in the shorter term northerners are attempting to coordinate their efforts through other means. Several witnesses spoke of the need to foster collaboration among all orders of government, as well as with Aboriginal and northern businesses and communities when planning energy projects. For example:

• David Morrison (Yukon Energy Corporation) referred to a case in which the utility company worked with a mining operation to reduce its operating costs. Mr. Morrison explained that the Yukon Energy Corporation “connected a new mine to our grid about a year and a half ago… after it was operating on diesel… The mining company made a contribution to the transmission line project that we constructed... and they paid for their spur line.”[59] Mr. Morrison proposed that these coordinated efforts provide multiple benefits for the North, as it makes mining more economical and, at the same time, reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
• Donald Balsillie (Dezé Energy Corporation; NWT) explained how a proposal to develop a hydro facility in NWT—the Taltson hydro project—would provide sufficient energy to meet the needs of NWT’s diamond mining sector while offering direct benefits to northerners. In his presentation to the committee, he explained that the project would stabilize and reduce the energy component of NWT’s high cost of living, lengthen the life of the mine, create new jobs, training and business opportunities, and allow direct economic benefits to northerners through majority ownership of the project by First Nations of the region.[60]
• Peter Mackey (Qulliq Energy Corporation; Nunavut) stated that “we're investigating potentially having private enterprise come in and partner with us in the development of… a hydro project for Iqaluit, the costs of which, in terms of getting it up and running, would be substantial, but it has the potential to displace over 35% of our fossil fuel consumption in the North.”[61]

The Committee concurs with witnesses that the federal government should foster collaboration among stakeholders in planning and developing energy transmission grids in the North. Therefore, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 4:

That the Government of Canada provide support to northern communities and businesses, working in collaboration with territorial and Aboriginal governments to identify and facilitate the expansion of transmission grids in the North where they are most needed.

5.2.2   Independent Power Generation

A key strategy mentioned by northerners in relation to developing renewable energy sources in the North was to foster a policy on Independent Power Producing (IPP). In a submission to the Committee, the Government of Yukon described how the creation of an IPP policy enables local communities and private businesses to produce their own energy supplies, with the added benefit of being able to sell any excess supply to utility companies and then claim a net adjustment on their household meter charges.[62] Support and partnerships are being sought by the Government of Yukon from all interested parties, such as federal and municipal governments, Aboriginal organizations, northern businesses, non-profit organizations, as well as individual homeowners.

In relation to the IPP strategy, witnesses spoke of developing various forms of renewable energy that could service northern communities and development projects in a sustainable manner; referred to as “hybridization.” As explained by Bill Eggertson (Canadian Association for Renewable Energies), a more diversified mix of power production technologies would strengthen energy security, keep electricity rates low, and make the power generation system more reliable:

Have as much of a mix as possible, so that you're getting both heat and electricity from a wide range. If the sun isn't shining, the wind should be blowing; if not, then you have to kick in your biomass generator.” He explains “Working together as a hybridized model is the best way to do it. It does increase your cost, but it increases reliability and performance and lowers the overall cost.”[63]

In addition to some of the more common forms of renewable energy, such as hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, etc., some northern communities are beginning to adopt a method of using wood pellets. As argued by Andrew Robinson, of Arctic Energy Alliance, the use of wood pellets as an emerging technology in NWT should be encouraged throughout the North:

They’re cheaper than heating oil. They're much less environmentally damaging if you have a spill. They're considered carbon neutral. They're basically made out of waste sawdust, so they don't have a climate impact.[64]

Solar and wind power are also forms of renewable energy that are deemed by many as remarkably well suited to climates that are exposed to the extremes of nature.
As Bill Eggertson notes:

The efficiency of... photovoltaic solar cells that generate electricity ...increases in cold temperatures. In the [N]orth,... because of the latitude, you actually get more sunlight going into the solar panels because it bounces off the snow... Weather bases in both the Antarctic and the Arctic use wind turbines. It's a very effective technology, and wind continues to generate electricity at night, which solar power unfortunately does not.[65]

Despite the advantages of using renewable energy in the North, the Committee heard from many witnesses on the challenges related to developing these technologies in northern communities. Some of the more common forms of barriers to the development of renewable energy in the North are the following:

• Lack of skills to develop and maintain equipment;
• Little government incentives to invest in renewable energy, which would enable start-up businesses and provide on-going support for existing projects;
• Reliability of equipment in extreme weather conditions; and
• Reluctance to engage in renewable energy by local businesses and communities, due to previous efforts that were mainly unsuccessful.

According to Bill Eggertson (Canadian Association of Renewable Energies), existing federal government efforts to engage northerners in the development of renewable energy are commendable, and should be continued. As well, Mr. Eggertson stated that the government’s efforts to promote these forms of energy should be maintained:

Last year, the Indian and Northern Affairs Canada report “Sharing the Story” provided case studies of wind and solar thermal power at Rankin Inlet, solar [power] at the recreation centre of Fort Smith and at Nunavut Arctic College in Iqaluit, solar air heating at the Weledeh school in Yellowknife, and numerous examples of district heating, waste heat recovery, and small hydro.[66]

The Committee believes that efforts to develop various forms of renewable energy should be enhanced to service the need in northern communities for more affordable and sustainable power generation. Therefore, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 5:

That the Government of Canada develop a northern strategy for the increased production and use of renewable energy sources. Furthermore, the Government of Canada should continue to support pilot projects and demonstration activities, to better inform northern communities and businesses on the environmental merits and potential cost-savings of renewable energy.

5.3       Climate Change Impact on Infrastructure

Too much of the work on arctic climate change and adaptation is not focused at the community level, so it's very difficult for territorial governments and for First Nations to properly appreciate what is going on.[67]

Dr. Robert Page, National Round Table on the
Environment and the Economy

In order to support sustainable development in the North, the previous section has argued that alternative ways of producing energy need to be explored to minimize the costs of development. Similarly, the use of renewable energies can help to minimize the impact of development on the northern environment.

In many ways, economic development and climate change are interrelated. On one hand, development projects, such as mining operations, are generally known to increase environmental pollution (e.g. through the production of greenhouse gas emissions, etc.) that can lead to climate change. On the other hand, climate change can have an impact on buildings and roads that service development projects, such as a mining site.

This duality has captured the attention of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE). Through a recent study on this issue,[68] the NRTEE examined northern infrastructure vulnerability and adaptation to climate change.

In testimony provided to the Committee, Dr. Robert Page, Chair of the NRTEE, stated that:

We are seeing in the Canadian Arctic today some of the most rapid climate change of anywhere in the globe, and we will be pioneering the adaptation processes and projects whether we like it or not. This deals with airports, sewage, roads, tailings, pipelines, drilling, mines, and building foundations above all—things that are critical to northerners for their existence.[69]

Dr. Page was not alone in his perception that northern infrastructure is being affected by climate change in the North. According to David Austin, Director of the Association of Yukon Communities:

The environmental norms of severe cold in the [N]orth are being magnified by climate change. As the permafrost weakens, aging community water and sewer systems break, and the foundations of buildings may shift.[70]

One of the mitigation strategies recently developed to cope with the new realities of construction in the North was described by Gordon Miles, Coordinator of the National Economic Development Committee for Inuit Nunangat (NEDCIN). Mr. Miles explained how, at new construction sites, companies are starting to install coolers to maintain the permafrost to prevent shifting of the foundation.[71] In relation to this technology, Bill Eggertson, of the Canadian Association for Renewable Energies, explained that ground coils “[extract] the heat partly to warm the building, but basically to make sure that the permafrost never warms.”[72]

Although this type of mitigation strategy is seen by northerners as holding the promise that adaptation to climate change in the North is possible, applying such technologies is not feasible for the great majority of existing infrastructure due to the prohibitive costs involved. As Dr. Page noted in his testimony before the Committee, the costs of adaptation in the North “are beyond the ability of northern territorial and [First Nations] governments to deal with on their own.”[73]

Given the general view by witnesses before the Committee in relation to the effects climate change is having on northern infrastructure, and the relatively prohibitive costs associated with developing and applying technologies to enable adaptation, the Committee believes that supportive action by the federal government is warranted. The Committee therefore recommends:

Recommendation 6:

That the Government of Canada coordinate its efforts with its partners and stakeholders to better adapt northern infrastructure to climate change risks, ensuring that sufficient monitoring and reporting systems are in place to assess ongoing infrastructure performance.

5.4       Telecommunications Infrastructure

What we like to say is that bandwidth in the Arctic is like water in the desert, and it needs to be managed in somewhat the same way as a precious resource.[74]

Patrick Doyle, Nunavut Broadband Development Corporation

In general, access to telecommunications infrastructure, such as high-speed internet, is increasingly being used as a tool for facilitating economic development and marketing in the North. For example, the availability of high-speed internet enables higher education through distance learning, access to electronic banking and e-commerce, increases the capacity of northern businesses to connect to southern and international markets, allows remote diagnosis and treatment of health conditions, and provides key connections with other government and personal services. According to Aboriginal Portal Canada:

Connecting Canadian communities to the Internet with reliable high-speed Internet access will have a profound effect on virtually all aspects of resident lives. However; the communities that serve to benefit the most from the Internet are also the most difficult and costly to connect.[75]

In 2001, the federal government established the National Broadband Task Force to address un-served communities in Canada. The first program developed for this purpose was Industry Canada’s Broadband for Rural and Northern Development Pilot Program (BRAND).[76] Launched in September 2002, the federal government committed a total of $105 million over three years to BRAND, which was later extended up until March 2007. According to an evaluation of the BRAND program prepared for Industry Canada,[77] as of July 2006 actual federal spending through the BRAND program, totalling some $80 million across Canada, helped to increase access to broadband in 6 Yukon communities ($0.2 million), 29 NWT communities ($5.4 million), and 24 Nunavut communities ($3.9 million).

A second program, the National Satellite Initiative (NSI), was launched in 2003 by Infrastructure Canada, Industry Canada and the Canadian Space Agency (CSA). Administered by Industry Canada's Broadband Office, the NSI program was created to specifically address the high cost of broadband access for communities in the mid to far north and in isolated and remote areas of Canada where satellite is the only reasonable means of providing broadband access. The total funding committed under the NSI program was $155 million, of which the Northwest Territory project was provided with $7 million in funding and Nunavut was provided $7.83 million in 2005.[78] In 2008, the NSI program provided further funding of $21.6 million to Nunavut and $14.8 million to NWT for similar initiatives.[79] Overall, funding through the NSI has helped increase access to broadband in 31 communities in NWT and all 25 communities in Nunavut.

Currently, the federal government’s Broadband Canada: Connecting Rural Canadians initiative aims to increase the number of Canadian households with access to affordable broadband services and provide essential infrastructure to Canadians in remote and rural areas.[80] According to Industry Canada, applications for funding were accepted from 1 September 2009 to 23 October 2009, worth an estimated $76.7 million, under an agreement that each project be completed no later than December 31, 2011.[81] The program provides a one-time, non-repayable contribution to support the expansion of current infrastructure in the defined areas where there is currently no business case for the private sector moving forward on its own. The program operates on a cost-sharing basis, with a maximum federal contribution of 50%, with the exception of projects proposing to serve First Nations communities, where the maximum may be allowed to exceed 50 percent.[82] Funding for this program is set to expire on March 31, 2012. According to Industry Canada, this program is expected to further support the development of broadband in 6 remote communities in NWT and essentially all of Nunavut.[83]

According to the latest data available from the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), broadband was available to just over 50% of households in rural communities in the North in 2009,[84] On average in Canada, over 80% of rural households had access to broadband in that same year, suggesting that increased funding is needed for rural communities in the North, especially in NWT and Nunavut, to allow more complete broadband availability (see Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1: Broadband Availability in 2009 – Urban vs. Rural (% of households)

Source: CRTC, Communications Monitoring Report, July 2010, Figure 5.3.6.

Various witnesses from northern communities mentioned to the Committee that, given the new federal funding for broadband through Connecting Rural Canadians, the availability of broadband in the North is expected to further improve from current levels. As the effects of this new funding remain to be observed, the Committee is hopeful that significant gains in broadband availability in remote northern communities will indeed be realized in the near future.

In general, witnesses testified that, although federal funding through Broadband Canada’s Connecting Rural Canadians program is planned to expire in 2012, there will continue to be a persistent need for connectivity infrastructure in remote northern communities. Many witnesses indicated that without government assistance there would be no business case for providing broadband services in the smaller, rural communities of the North, such that only the most populated areas would be connected if left to market forces alone. As mentioned by Patrick Doyle, of Nunavut Broadband Development Corporation:

Unlike other infrastructure projects—if you build a bridge, you have a bridge—unfortunately, the network comes to an end. Our primary challenge is addressing what happens post-2012, when the funding comes to an end... rates would have to go up to full, unsubsidized commercial rates, which would basically be triple or more. So at that point, many people just couldn't afford it.[85]

To mitigate the planned expiry of federal funding in 2012 through Broadband Canada, Mr. Doyle offered several options for the consideration of the Committee, such as: to create permanent A-base funding for federal government support for broadband; or to connect Nunavut to land-based broadband through fibre-optic cables, similar to the Greenland Connect model; as Mr. Doyle noted:

They’ve run fibre from Europe to Iceland to Greenland to Newfoundland. It's on an order of magnitude of a thousand times more capacity than what we have. It's a very long-term solution. The capital investment I think was $200 million upfront, but we may spend that ourselves over the course of a decade and not be any further ahead.[86]

Given the crucial role access to broadband plays in the northern economy, and given the difficulties with maintaining broadband in northern remote communities, the Committee is persuaded by testimony provided by witnesses on this issue, and agrees that funding for such initiatives should be maintained. Therefore, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 7:

That the Government of Canada continue to support Industry Canada in the development of broadband in the northern territories beyond the planned expiry of funding through Broadband Canada after 31 March 2012.