Canadian Government Executive - Volume 25 - Issue 03

August/September 2019// Canadian Government Executive / 27 Governing Digitally The federal government’s recent announcement of more than fifty million dollars for an ‘innova- tion network’ across three well-established urban innovation centres in Ontario speaks volumes to the mindset at present. ments to achieve comprehensive rural broadband coverage for the country as a whole by 2030 are remarkably trepid and insufficient. How can smaller and remote communities seriously be expected to wait more than a decade before becoming full participants in a digital society? Young people, of course, will not have waited to find out. The Government of Ontario has faced similar scrutiny over its plans to introduce mandatory e-learning components across its educational system – a laudable aim but one that is simply un- attainable in many communities due to in- sufficient or interrupted broadband. If rural Canada is to have any hope, India and Australia offer insights into the sorts of proactive actions required. A leader in mo- bile Internet, India is investing significantly into 5G planning from both urban and rural vantage points: while acknowledging that unevenness in speeds is inevitable, political and industry leaders are nonetheless mak- ing a concerted effort to view 5G as a basis to lessen rural poverty and the resulting pressures on over-burdened cities. Australia is similarly a step ahead hav- ing long viewed Internet access as a util- ity for all, rather than a market commodity as is the case here. The National Broad- band Network (NBN) has made significant strides in connecting rural dwellings. In doing so, the crown corporation also pro- vides the basis of a more robust partner- ship between government and industry than the patchwork models of subsidiza- tion that exist across much of Canada in order to entice private carriers to do just a bit more (but never quite enough) to serve non-urban areas. With a wider infrastructure in place, the Australian Government has studied regional development and decentraliza- tion of government operations in a seri- ous manner, mandating all departments to explore options for relocating outside of Canberra. In New South Wales, the Standing Committee on State Develop- ment released a 2018 report on creating a ‘Global Sydney’ that nonetheless calls for strengthened urban – rural ties and the relocation of public sector operations as a catalyst for private investment in satellite communities. Canadian researchers such as Ashleigh Weeden of Guelph University (and rural Ontario) are similarly aligned, striving to foster the emergence of ‘rural innova- tion hubs’. Writing online for Torontoist, Weeden points out that by ‘focusing the technology and innovation conversation solely on urban issues, and talking about ru- ral communities as if they are a thing of the past or places that need to be rescued by the bright lights from the big cities, we miss the chance to talk about the innovation al- ready happening in rural communities.’ Weeden contrasts two perspectives on national innovation. The present trajectory, a vicious cycle, sees rural communities as after-thoughts due to a lack of opportunity that, in turn, perpetuates the sort of urban strain so visibly on display in places like San Francisco, Vancouver and Toronto. While the vibrancy of such cities cannot be de- nied, increasingly such opportunity exacts a heavy toll on quality of life: for instance, and not surprisingly, researchers have identi- fied a clear and inverse correlation between commuting times and happiness. And with the added strain on the envi- ronment, the toll is not merely quality of life but also quantifiable longevity as smog alerts become seemingly routine in cit- ies around the world, One 2016 study in France found nearly fifty thousand, argu- ably preventable, deaths annually attrib- utable to air pollution, with the bulk of this heavy burden concentrated in Paris. In the developing world, the situation is even more dire: India, for instance, carried the dubious distinction in 2018 of having eleven of the twelve most polluted cities in terms of air quality, as measured by the World Health Organization. Weeden, consequently, argues for a more virtuous cycle predicated on a rural renaissance that itself necessitates reliable digital underpinnings: ‘Imagine, instead, a conversation where we look at rural com- munities not simply as quaint weekend retreats for the wealthy and bored, but instead look at them as vital components of a robust national economy and invest in high-speed connectivity and innovation.’ Rural advocates are nonetheless swim- ming upstream. The federal government’s recent announcement of more than fifty million dollars for an ‘innovation network’ across three well-established urban inno- vation centres in Ontario speaks volumes to the mindset at present. Federalism only adds to the burden that rural communi- ties face as separate federal and provincial economic development apparatuses often work at cross-purposes rather than toward integrative outcomes. Indeed, perhaps partly explaining the absurdly long-time horizon, the latest fed- eral plan for rural broadband is clouded by the absence of a robust delivery mecha- nism of the sort that exists in Australia with NBN. The Auditor General (AG) has been sharply critical of past federal gov- ernment broadband initiatives often poor- ly executed and lacking in transparency: as just one example, the AG found that the federal government had auctioned spec- trum licenses for geographic zones too large for bids to be submitted by smaller service providers. Despite such obstacles, many smaller communities are forging collaborative so- lutions such as non-profit service providers (in some cases aided by provincial and fed- eral funding). The Columbia Basin Trust in BC and the Southwestern Integrated Tech- nology Fibre Network in Ontario are two of many such examples enjoining rural communities. As a alternative to endlessly subsidizing Canada’s largest wireless pro- viders that are driven by market forces in- variably tied to urbanization, federal and provincial governments should seek to empower such bottom-up and community- based endeavours through a national body with the resources and expertise to make such partnerships its core mission. Let’s hope that the upcoming federal election will help spur further competition and creativity in bridging urban and rural opportunity in today’s digital era. Rural Canada and Canadian cities alike deserve much better than 2030. J effrey R oy is professor in the School of Public Administration at Dalhousie University (roy@dal.ca) .