Access Licensing Framework: Decision on the Indigenous Priority Window Policy

1. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) is committed to improving Indigenous access to spectrum and supporting Indigenous-led connectivity solutions. During recent consultations such as the Consultation on a Non-Competitive Local Licensing Framework, Including Spectrum in the 3900-3980 MHz Band and Portions of the 26, 28 and 38 GHz Bands and the Consultation on the Spectrum Outlook 2022 to 2026, some Indigenous partners have expressed the view that Indigenous Peoples should be given priority access to spectrum over their lands. In response, on behalf of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, in January 2024 ISED published Improving Indigenous Access to Spectrum: Draft Indigenous Priority Window Spectrum Policy Framework (draft IPW framework).

2. The Indigenous Priority Window (IPW) is a time-limited opportunity that will provide Indigenous applicants priority access to available spectrum licences allocated through the spectrum licensing process. Following the publication of the draft IPW framework, ISED launched an eight-month engagement period, hosting both in-person and virtual sessions with interested Indigenous partners and accepting written and oral feedback on the IPW eligibility criteria, duration, and items for future consideration. A total of 29 submissions from 25 respondents were received.

3. This decision presents the finalized IPW framework. This framework will be applied to the access spectrum licensing process outlined in the Access Licensing Framework, which will first apply to the unused portions of the 800 MHz Cellular (Cellular) and 1900 MHz Personal Communications Services (PCS) spectrum bands. A preliminary list of available licences can be found in Annex C of the Access Licensing Framework. A final list of available licences will be published closer to the opening of the IPW. Once the window opens, licences will be awarded on a first-come, first-served basis.

4. ISED will use an applicant-based model to determine IPW eligibility. The applicant-based model supports spectrum access for First Nations, Inuit, and Métis businesses, communities, and individuals while reducing administrative burdens and licensing delays. ISED will rely on the Government of Canada’s Indigenous Business Directory, as well as several Indigenous-led directories, to confirm eligibility for businesses and not-for-profit organizations. Communities that hold rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of The Constitution Act 1982 will also be considered eligible. Additionally, First Nation, Métis, and Inuit individuals will also be considered eligible. Eligible applicants may apply for any available licence in any area of Canada.

5. All applicants must undergo an eligibility screening before applying for a spectrum licence. ISED will begin conducting the eligibility screening with the publication of this document until two months before the IPW closes. Interested Indigenous applicants are encouraged to submit their proof of eligibility to the Indigenous Spectrum Policy Team as soon as possible to ensure there are no delays to the application process once the window opens.

6. The IPW will be open for twelve consecutive months. ISED believes that this twelve months period ensures sufficient time for eligible applicants to access available licences while also prioritizing the timely deployment of spectrum. Following the close of the IPW, Indigenous applicants can continue to apply for available licenses through the general access window. ISED will publish a Spectrum Advisory Bulletin (SAB) outlining key dates related to the opening and closing of the IPW.

7. As outlined in the draft IPW framework, the Cellular and PCS licences issued through the IPW will adhere to the same conditions of licence specified in Annex B of the Access Licensing Framework. These conditions are designed to support a wide range of potential applicants and ensure that spectrum is used in a timely manner.

8. ISED will continue to seek feedback from communities and partners covered by IPW licenses to assess their impact on connectivity for Indigenous communities and peoples. To improve information sharing, ISED will also continue to provide regular updates on spectrum initiatives with interested Indigenous partners. Interested partners can contact ISED’s Indigenous Spectrum Policy Team (ISPT) for more information.

9. In June 2021, the Government of Canada enacted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (the Act) to promote the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN Declaration). Following the announcement of the Act, in June 2023, the Government of Canada published The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act: Action Plan (Action Plan). The goal of this Action Plan is to implement the Act based on lasting reconciliation, healing, and cooperative relations. It was developed in consultation with Indigenous Peoples and will be periodically reviewed and amended in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous Peoples.

10. The 2021 Speech from the Throne by the Governor General of Canada further emphasized the Government of Canada’s commitment to reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. Additionally, Budget 2024 proposed over $9 billion in new funding for Indigenous Peoples over five years including $2.95 billion for the 2024-2025 fiscal year. Some of these investments are geared to support the advancement of health and well-being of Indigenous children, youth, families, and communities in the spirit of Indigenous self-determination and economic reconciliation. ISED is committed to advancing this reconciliation.

2.1 Indigenous connectivity landscape

11. The latest data from the CRTC’s Communications Market Report indicates that 50/10 Mbps unlimited broadband coverage is available to 61% of households in First Nations reserve areas, compared with 80.5% in rural areas and 95.84% across all of Canada. Most of the unserved or underserved Indigenous communities are located in rural and remote areas that are challenging to connect using traditional wired solutions. In these regions, spectrum is often needed to enable the wireless solutions that will drive 100% connectivity by 2030, a target set out in High-Speed Access for All: Canada’s Connectivity Strategy.

12. In rural and remote Indigenous communities, better access to spectrum can accelerate broadband connectivity, establish reliable cell phone service, improve access to emergency services, and create more economic opportunities for Indigenous businesses.

13. Recently, ISED has been engaging with national Indigenous organizations, Indigenous connectivity advocates, service providers, and peer regulators to specifically explore ways to enhance Indigenous access to spectrum. The feedback received has emphasized the importance of spectrum in connecting underserved Indigenous communities and these partners have called for inclusive approaches, such as a priority access window, to support economic reconciliation and Indigenous-led connectivity solutions.

2.2 Taking action – the draft Indigenous priority window spectrum policy framework

14. In keeping with the government’s priority to advance Indigenous self-determination and economic reconciliation, ISED published Improving Indigenous Access to Spectrum: Draft Indigenous Priority Window Spectrum Policy Framework in January 2024. This framework aims to provide Indigenous applicants with first access to unused licensed spectrum made available through the Access Licensing Framework.

15. The primary objective of applying the IPW is to reduce barriers to spectrum access and support Indigenous applicants in accessing available unused spectrum on a priority basis. This aligns with ISED’s commitment to delivering innovative spectrum management policies that address existing gaps in connectivity. Through the IPW, ISED also aims to support Indigenous-led wireless connectivity solutions and advance economic reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples.

16. The development of the draft IPW framework prioritized engagement with Indigenous partners, both virtually and in-person. To support the initiative, ISED developed the Spectrum and the Indigenous Priority Window website and opted for a comment window of eight months at the request of Indigenous Partners.

17. In total ISED received 29 submissions from 25 respondents, including the Assembly of First Nations (AFN); Broadband Communications North (BCN); Charles Bighead (individual from Beardy’s & Okemasis Cree Nation); Cree Nation Government; Eeyou Communications Network (ECN); James Bay Cree Communications Society (JBCCS); First Mile Connectivity Consortium (FMCC); Huwilp Communications Inc.; Ice Wireless; Indigenous Connectivity Institute (ICI); Indigitel; Iristel Inc.; Karrier One; Lyttonnet Wireless; Matawa First Nation’s Management & Rapid Lynx Telecommunications; Métis National Council (MNC); National Indigenous Connectivity Inc.; North End Connect; Norway House Cree Nation; Open Media; Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers); SaskTel; Sichuun; Silent Letter Consulting; SSi Canada (SSi); TCOR Solutions; and Wilson Engineering.

18. The IPW Spectrum Policy Framework outlines the criteria for granting Indigenous applicants priority access to spectrum through the Access Licensing process. When applied, licences will be issued on a first-come, first-served (FCFS) basis to eligible Indigenous applicants. Through the engagement process, ISED sought feedback on key criteria such as policy objectives, applicant eligibility, and window duration.

3.1 Policy objectives

19. In the draft IPW framework, ISED proposed that the primary objective of the IPW is to reduce barriers to spectrum access and support Indigenous applicants in accessing spectrum on a priority basis. To achieve the stated policy goals, ISED sought feedback from interested Indigenous partners, through improved engagement methods, supported knowledge sharing, and fostered relationship building. ISED also sought feedback from interested Indigenous partners on whether there was agreement with this policy objective and if not, how it could be modified.

What we heard

20. Feedback received was mostly positive and partners supported ISED’s policy objectives for the IPW. ISED heard general support for the Access Licensing Framework and the application of the IPW. Cree Nation Government, ECN, and JBCCS support the enforcement of the ‘use it or lose it’ policy using the new Access Licencing Framework. Furthermore, they supported the proposed application of the IPW to the available access licences noting that the IPW policy would exclude large telecom companies from bidding on spectrum, resulting in spectrum licences being accessed and used by Indigenous companies. Respondents generally said their goal is to have Indigenous operators access available spectrum licences over non-Indigenous operators.

21. The FMCC emphasized that Indigenous ownership of spectrum is an important aspect of the policy objective. An individual from Beardy’s and Okemasis Cree Nation, the Cree Nation Government, ECN, Huwilp Communications, Iristel, JBCCS, Karrier One, Lytonnet, Norway House Cree Nation, and TCOR Solutions supported ISED’s policy objective and highlighted the need to close connectivity gaps in underserved First Nation communities across Canada.

22. Other respondents such as North End Connect, Sichuun, and Wilson Engineering SVP supported the policy objective but requested more consistent and ongoing involvement and cooperation between Indigenous communities and ISED.

Discussion

23. ISED maintains the view that increased access to spectrum can support Indigenous Peoples in developing Indigenous-led connectivity solutions that best serve the needs of Indigenous communities. Spectrum access can play a key role in connecting underserved Indigenous communities.

24. Given the general support for the proposed primary policy objective of the IPW, ISED will adopt the objective as proposed. Going forward, ISED will continue to seek feedback on the IPW from interested Indigenous partners through regular engagement methods and knowledge sharing.

Decision

3.2 Eligibility

25. ISED sought feedback on three options to determine who should be considered eligible under the IPW framework:

• Option 1 (Applicant-based model): an applicant would be considered eligible if they are an Indigenous business, community, or individual. This would involve adopting existing definitions and criteria the Government of Canada applies when awarding procurement contracts to Indigenous applicants such as the Indigenous Business Directory (IBD).
• Option 2 (Community-support-based): an applicant would be considered eligible if they could show support from Indigenous communities within the licence area.
• Option 3 (Project-based):an applicant would be considered eligible if they could demonstrate their initiative is Indigenous-benefiting, Indigenous-informed, has partnerships with Indigenous peoples, and/or is Indigenous-led as defined by the I4DM Definitional Matrix.

26. ISED also invited respondents to propose additional options that may be better suited than the three options proposed by ISED.

What we heard generally on eligibility

27. Respondents such as the AFN, BCN, Norway House Cree Nation, and Wilson Engineering indicated that eligibility should not be an overly restrictive or burdensome process. The AFN specifically stated that the adoption of rigorous eligibility criteria does not provide the flexibility needed to support First Nations. They suggested that First Nations should be able to choose the eligibility option that they identify as meeting their needs. Wilson Engineering stated the necessity of ensuring that eligibility is an achievable requirement. In their view, onerous eligibility criteria are not required, due to the difficulties associated with making a business case for deploying communications in low density areas.

28. Ice Wireless and TCOR Solutions proposed that applicants already using PCS spectrum in a designated area, should be given priority over new applicants. SaskTel asked that ISED make it possible for important initiatives to be advanced through the most flexible process possible.

29. SSi requested ISED take a pragmatic approach, avoiding artificial limits on Indigenous applicants to access spectrum on a priority basis. They recommended that ISED and Indigenous community representatives collaborate to develop eligibility requirements that do not exclude individual Indigenous entrepreneurs. SSi believed this to be a pragmatic step since such individuals can be best placed to navigate the financial and other barriers that have resulted from Canada’s historical treatment of Indigenous peoples.

30. Rogers noted that national or major regional operators should not be permitted to access spectrum through the IPW or the Access Licensing Framework.

What we heard about the applicant-based option

31. BCN, Ice Wireless, Iristel, Karrier One, Norway House Cree Nation and TCOR Solutions all supported an applicant-based approach. BCN proposed relying on existing definitions and criteria as an efficient approach to establish applicant eligibility and being relatively simple from an administrative perspective, as a one-time test avoids repetition or additional delays. Norway House Cree Nation stated their support for the applicant-based model. They believed this approach ensures that the IPW is exclusive to Indigenous-owned businesses, thus providing an opportunity for Indigenous businesses and communities to own and operate a business on reserve lands.

32. Cree Nation Government, ECN, JBCCS, Lytonnet, SaskTel, and Sichuun opposed the applicant-based model, finding it too restrictive. Cree Nation Government, ECN, and JBCCS believed that the restrictiveness could hinder collaborations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous entities. Additionally, Cree Nation Government, ECN, JBCCS, and Sichuun also had concerns with using the IBD as it could prevent access by Indigenous organizations not registered in the government registry from accessing the IPW. While ICI supported the applicant-based option individually or in combination with community-based support, they had reservations with using the IBD as they do not believe that an organization’s potential lack of visibility by the Canadian government should disqualify them from the IPW. MNC stated that a Métis business applicant should be cross-referenced with the regional Métis business directory hosted by each provincial Métis government rather than the IBD.

What we heard about the community-support-based option

33. The AFN, an individual from Beardy’s Okemasis Cree Nation, Cree Nation Government, ECN, ICI, JBCCS, Lytonnet, North End Connect, Sichuun, SSi, and FMCC members such as KNet, Clear Sky Connections, Western James Bay Telecom Network, and ECN agreed with requiring community support. They stated this would ensure community involvement and decision-making based on the priorities of each community. It would also support collaboration with potential applicants allowing initiatives that benefit their members and economy, thus supporting a community’s right to self-determination.

34. Clear Sky Connections supported this approach but suggested that the individual community should own and license the spectrum to third-party entities, which would be required to meet deployment requirements. In this scenario, the community would own the licence and could choose to offer a subordinate licence to another entity for an amount of their choosing.

35. The AFN stated that demonstrating support from a First Nation is critical to ensure that First Nation rights are upheld. Cree Nation Government, ECN, and JBCCS agreed. They stated that spectrum is a natural resource and therefore nation-to-nation discussions should be triggered regarding its management with the community support-based option most aligning with established consultation practices and protocols.

36. There were some challenges noted by groups that supported this option, such as North End Connect who noted their concerns that this could exclude urban Indigenous communities. The AFN also recognized that First Nations may have limited capacity to review applications, due to their historically limited access to spectrum, leading to gaps in their spectrum knowledge, skilled worker capacity, and limited resources. They also stated the possibility of the creation of “shell” companies that use partnerships to access Indigenous procurement opportunities, the possibility of non-Indigenous organizations accessing this spectrum with priority, and the impact this could have on future Indigenous ownership of spectrum.

37. Ice Wireless, Iristel, Karrier One, and TCOR Solutions did not support this option as they believed that it could lead to a patchwork approach discouraging economies of scale which are critical to achieve when serving small populations. Norway House Cree Nation also opposed the community support-based option as they believed it does not adequately address the ongoing sovereignty and economic sustainability of Indigenous communities. They conveyed concerns that this model could lead to spectrum being allocated to non-Indigenous users as a means of both preventing Indigenous ownership of spectrum and the rise of new market entrants that may compete with existing providers.

38. SaskTel stated that requiring community support or using a project-based approach appeared to provide the most flexibility and would seem to support the kinds of projects where it had witnessed success in the past.

What we heard about the project-based option

39. SaskTel, Matawa First Nations Management and Rapid Lynx Telecommunications were supportive of a hybrid option between the community support-based option and the project-based option, to ensure community support as well as consideration of the project being Indigenous-benefitting, Indigenous-informed or Indigenous-led.

40. Rogers believed that it should be up to Indigenous respondents whether small, regional operators connected to Indigenous communities should have priority access to the spectrum made available through the IPW based on their project being Indigenous-benefitting and Indigenous-informed.

41. Ice Wireless, Iristel, Karrier One, Norway House Cree Nation, Sichuun, and TCOR Solutions did not support the project-based option. Norway House submitted that “Indigenous-benefiting”, and “Indigenous-informed” categories should not be considered sufficient to be deemed eligible and reiterated that Indigenous ownership should be required to obtain spectrum through the IPW. Sichuun noted that this option could potentially complicate a process that ISED is aiming to simplify. Ice Wireless, Iristel, Karrier One, and TCOR Solutions also agreed that this would be difficult to implement and difficult to understand as it is highly subjective, and without clear criteria, service providers would be discouraged from participating.

Discussion

42. In finalizing eligibility criteria for the IPW, ISED wanted to ensure that the criteria support Indigenous-led connectivity solutions and that it is distinctions-based, meaning it gives equal opportunity to First Nation, Inuit, and Métis applicants.

43. ISED shares the view that the eligibility process should not be onerous for applicants. The process should be administratively simple to avoid any unnecessary delays in acquiring spectrum, as this could lead to delays in service delivery to communities. While ISED recognizes that including communities in the process is important, the community-support based option has the potential to increase the complexity of applications due to the size of the licences available and the number of Indigenous communities which fall within each licensing area. Over 53% of the licences that may become available through the first application of the IPW would require support from at least two communities. In close to 23% of cases, support from upwards of five communities would be required, with one potential licence area requiring support from as many as 24 communities.

44. While ISED sees the value in the project-based approach, ISED agrees with respondents who stated that this approach would be complicated to implement and may add an aspect of subjectivity to the matter of eligibility.

45. Based on the considerations and feedback presented by respondents, ISED is of the view that the applicant-based approach would be the least onerous way to determine the eligibility criteria for the IPW while ensuring that available spectrum licences are acquired and managed by Indigenous Peoples. Under the applicant-based approach, communities will still be able to apply directly along with Indigenous individuals and businesses to acquire the spectrum licences of their choosing on a FCFS basis. Once a licence is acquired, communities will also be able to decide how to manage that licence to provide connectivity services.

46. While some respondents argued that the applicant-based approach may restrict partnerships, ISED notes that cooperation between communities and other entities is allowed under this approach and it supports applications from Indigenous businesses, communities, and individuals but also Indigenous led not-for-profit organizations and joint ventures with majority Indigenous ownership. For example, Indigenous applicants could be granted a spectrum licence and work with non-Indigenous parties to build or maintain the network, as long as the Indigenous licence holder maintains control over the spectrum licence.

47. It is important to note that any applicant intending to build towers within an Indigenous community using an acquired spectrum licence would still need to consult the community directly and would be obligated to meet the requirements of CPC-2-0-03, Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems. These requirements include consultation with local Land-use Authorities (LUA) before installing certain antennas or building most new antenna-supporting structures. ISED therefore encourages applicants and licensees to reach out to Indigenous communities and the Indigenous local governments who may be the LUAs in licence areas that they want to serve.

48. Additionally, to align with existing regulations, all applicants interested in applying for a spectrum licence must also align with the eligibility criteria set under Section 9 of the Radiocommunication Regulations which govern the use and management of spectrum under the Radiocommunication Act. Therefore, applications from Indigenous communities should be from the relevant Indigenous local government (e.g. First Nations band council, Métis or Inuit Government body, etc.) or another eligible entity.

49. Given these considerations, ISED believes that the applicant-based approach is the simplest option, offering equal opportunity for First Nation, Inuit, and Métis applicants. It enables partnerships, prioritizes timely access to spectrum, and gives Indigenous people priority access to the available spectrum, in line with ISED’s policy objectives.

50. ISED understands concerns related to relying solely on the Government of Canada’s IBD to confirm eligibility. To address these concerns, ISED will rely on the IBD as well as several Indigenous-held directories to confirm eligibility. ISED will use Indigenous business directories managed by the Canadian Council for Indigenous Business, business directories and lists prepared and maintained under modern treaties and comprehensive land claims agreements for procurement purposes, as well as business directories run by representative Metis organizations which receive funding from the Government of Canada. It is important to note that businesses must be at least 51% Indigenous owned and controlled, regardless of which directory they are in, to be considered eligible for the IPW. ISED may request additional information if needed. ISED may also consider other Indigenous business directories on a case-by-case basis.

Decision

3.2.1 Eligibility screening

51. ISED will conduct an eligibility screening to ensure interested applicants are eligible prior to applying for a spectrum licence through the Spectrum Management System (SMS). As it stands, when someone applies for a spectrum licence in SMS, the spectrum licence is reserved while ISED assesses the application. A one-step process, without screening for eligibility, could risk non-eligible applicants applying for spectrum licences and reserving them, resulting in delays for eligible applicants.

52. Eligibility screening will open with the publication of this document and continue once the IPW opens and until two months before the window closes. All applicants must have their eligibility confirmed before applying for a spectrum licence. To be screened for eligibility, all applicants must submit a completed eligibility screening form, available on request by email to ISED, and other documentation as required. It is important to note that the eligibility screening does not reserve spectrum licences. Applications for spectrum licences must be subsequently submitted through SMS once the window opens.

53. More information on the process of applying for a licence under the IPW can be found in Annex A.

Decision

3.3 Window duration

54. In the draft IPW framework, ISED proposed that the priority window be open for twelve consecutive months.

What we heard

55. Cree Nation Government, ECN, JBCCS, Norway House Cree Nation, Ice Wireless, ICI, Iristel, Karrier One, Sichuun, and TCOR Solutions all supported a 12-month window for submitting licence applications. ICI stated that it believed one year to be sufficient, however ISED should work with communities to conduct a comprehensive awareness-raising campaign about the value of spectrum and why organizations and communities should apply for a licence.

56. The AFN, BCN, an individual from Beardy’s and Okemasis, Matawa First Nations Management, Rapid Lynx Telecommunications, and Wilson Engineering stated that a longer time frame is necessary to capture the difference in community readiness, suggesting timelines from two to five years. BCN suggested a 24-month window in recognition of the delays and difficulties in managing applications and planning activities in the North as well as to recognize the issue of non-ceded spectrum rights. The individual from Beardy’s and Okemasis stated that a period such as five years is necessary to account for Indigenous leadership not being aware of the IPW and its significance. The AFN agreed with the above considerations as all First Nations are unique in their experiences and priorities.

57. North End Connect’s submission suggested using responsive or flexible scheduling, so the timeline is responsive to the changing needs of the communities. Cree Nation Government, ECN, and JBCCS recognized the difference in capacity of various Indigenous communities; however, they urged ISED to take a balanced approach as idle spectrum is not good for communities or the telecommunications market.

58. Lyttonnet suggested that, instead of a 12-month window, ISED should open the available spectrum to all applicants at once, with priority given to First Nations organizations on an ongoing basis.

Discussion

59. ISED recognizes the importance of allowing interested Indigenous partners sufficient time to access available licences while also prioritizing the timely deployment of spectrum to provide connectivity services to communities. Following the close of the IPW, there will be a general access window during which Indigenous applicants may continue to apply for available licences. Once a licence is issued, the licensee will then have until the end of the licence term to put the spectrum to use. ISED will also continue to support Indigenous access to spectrum through future spectrum licensing initiatives. Given this, ISED believes that a 12-month window provides a balance between timely access and capacity to submit applications.

Decision

3.4 Conditions of licence

60. As mentioned in the draft IPW framework, since the IPW is intended as an add-on to the access spectrum licensing framework, licences issued through the IPW will adopt the same conditions of licence as those outlined in Annex A of the Access Licensing Framework. These conditions aim to ensure a wide range of potential applicants as well as ensuring spectrum is used in a timely manner.

61. These conditions include but are not limited to:

Eligibility: Aside from the eligibility to participate in the IPW outlined in the general IPW framework, all access spectrum licensees must not already hold a licence for the same area and block of spectrum or be affiliated with a licence holder for the same licence area and block of spectrum. The applicant must also meet the criteria in subsection 9(1) of the Radiocommunication Regulations.

Licence term: Licences will have a term of three years. At the end of this term, the licensee will have a high expectation of renewal unless a breach of licence condition has occurred, a fundamental reallocation of spectrum to a new service is needed, or an overriding policy need arises.

Licence transferability, divisibility, and subordinate licensing: Acquired access spectrum licences cannot be divided, transferred or subordinated.

Licence fees: There is an annual fee associated with the licence that is based on the fee regime already established.

Deployment requirements: Licences obtained through the access licensing process will be subject to the deployment requirements established for access spectrum licences for the applicable band.

The full list of conditions can be found in Annex A of the Access Licensing Framework.

3.5 Measuring the success of the IPW Framework

62. ISED sought feedback to understand how it could measure the success of the IPW framework and ensure that key performance indicators developed would be Indigenous informed.

What we heard

63. In general, there was consensus among respondents that specific quantitative metrics need to be tracked to measure the success of the framework. Comments from Ice Wireless, Iristel, Karrier One, and TCOR Solutions suggested that ISED track the number of spectrum licences awarded, the quantity of spectrum allocated, the number of licences and quantity of spectrum put to use, the number of customers served, and the geographic areas covered. The ICI agreed with evaluating the number of communities reached. Similarly, Cree Nation Government, ECN, JBCCS and Sichuun suggested success could be measured by not only the number of applicants, but the emergence of successfully deployed projects. This was agreed on by the AFN, the individual from Beardy’s and Okemasis Cree Nation, and Lytonnet suggesting using number of households and population within these areas as a potential metric.

64. Norway House Cree Nation agreed with tracking the number of applicants, communities, and populations within the newly licensed area to track initial uptake, as well as following the success rate of projects over time through the tracking of Indigenous communities and/or Indigenous Canadians that gain access to connectivity or improved services at a 1-, 3- and 5-year window. North End Connect on the other hand highlighted the importance of gathering policy feedback from the public.

65. The AFN, Cree Nation Government, ECN, and the JBCCS stated that success in providing service to the target areas needs to occur in a manner that does not undermine existing wireless providers that are focused on improving Indigenous connectivity.

Discussion

66. ISED agrees that using quantitative methods for measuring the success of the program is important to see if policy objectives are met. Similarly, this tracking can help identify potential barriers that occurred in the IPW process and inform future IPW proposals. ISED believes that by tracking the deployment of potential IPW licensed areas, it will be able to see the potential benefits that this form of access to spectrum has realized for Indigenous people.

Decision

67. As previously mentioned, ISED will first apply the IPW Spectrum Policy Framework to the 800 MHz Cellular (824-849 MHz/869-894 MHz) and 1900 MHz PCS blocks A to F band (1850-1910 MHz/1930-1990 MHz) spectrum licences made available through the Access Licensing Framework.

68. Common uses of the Cellular and PCS bands include mobile voice calls, text messaging, mobile data access, and supporting emergency communications. These bands play a crucial role in mobile networks, balancing coverage, and capacity. The lower-frequency Cellular band excels in providing extended range and better building penetration, while the PCS band enhances capacity in densely populated areas. Modern cellular technologies, such as 4G LTE and 5G, may also utilize these bands to deliver speeds exceeding 50/10 Mbps in some cases. Additionally, these bands can work alongside other frequencies, such as 600 MHz, 700 MHz, and 2.5 GHz, to provide broadband services that meet or surpass 50/10 Mbps speeds. However, the use of allocated spectrum depends on the spectrum holder's decisions within regulatory guidelines, which may affect the type of services offered to consumers.

69. As mentioned in section 3.4, since the IPW will be applied to the Access Licensing Framework, the access spectrum licences for Cellular and PCS issued through the IPW will adopt these same conditions of licence. These conditions aim to ensure a wide range of potential applicants as well as ensuring spectrum is used in a timely manner. These specific requirements can be found in Annex B of the Access Licensing Framework.

70. A preliminary list of available licences can be found in Annex C of the Access Licensing Framework. Along with the preliminary list, ISED has published a map to show where these licences overlap with Indigenous communities across Canada. A final list of licences will be published prior to the opening of the IPW . Once the window opens, applicants will need to consult the Spectrum Management System (SMS) for updated licence availability.

71. ISED will publish specific dates related to the opening and closing of the IPW through a Spectrum Advisory Bulletin. Applicants who are interested in beginning the process of determining eligibility for the IPW may do so immediately. Please find the instructions in Annex A of this document.

72. In the draft IPW framework, ISED sought feedback on how Indigenous partners would like to see the IPW Spectrum Policy Framework used in the future.

What we heard

73. Cree Nation Government, ECN, JBCCS, Lytonnet, Norway House Cree Nation and Sichuun called for the IPW to be applied to a broader range of spectrum, primarily those with lower frequencies (600 and 700 MHz) to allow for greater distances to be covered. The AFN and North End Connect agreed with extending the IPW to other spectrum bands but with a focus on spectrum for future and current technologies such as for 5G services. The AFN also suggested the application of the IPW to bands currently licensed on a Tier 4 and Tier 5 basis.

74. Norway House Cree Nation called for the IPW to be a standing policy that ISED applies to future spectrum licencing processes as spectrum becomes available, including residual auctions, to allow for First Nations to access more spectrum assets. The MNC also stated that they should be granted priority access within the auction process. Cree Nation Government, ECN, and JBCCS agree with making it a long-standing policy as in their view the Cellular and PCS bands will not be sufficient for the growing digital needs of Indigenous communities. Rogers envisions the IPW being used to facilitate greater access to unused spectrum in rural and remote areas to support the deployment of advanced wireless services.

75. The ICI added that it wants to see a change in the IPW to match that of New Zealand and their Memorandum of Understanding with the Māori Spectrum Working Group. In New Zealand, 20% of all available commercial spectrum is set aside to be managed by the Māori Spectrum Working Group.

Discussion

76. ISED recognizes that this first application of the IPW to unused portions of the Cellular and PCS bands will not satisfy the spectrum needs of all First Nations, Métis, and Inuit partners. In many cases, combinations of low, mid, and high band spectrum will be needed to provide customized solutions to each unique region. ISED views this initial application of the IPW as a first step towards improved access to spectrum for Indigenous applicants.

77. As stated in the Access Licensing Framework, the access licensing framework and thus the IPW may be applied to other bands at a future date, subject to future engagement processes.

78. In the draft IPW framework engagement period, ISED looked to gain insight into how it can further improve Indigenous spectrum access, . As a result, ISED has no decisions for these items looking forward but instead is listening and learning from the input received.

6.1 Engagement

79. Through the draft IPW framework, ISED expressed an interest to learn how the department can improve its engagement process to support economic reconciliation.

What we heard

80. The AFN emphasized that each First Nation has the right to self-determination, and therefore, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to ensuring meaningful engagement with all First Nations. An individual from the Beardy’s and Okemasis Cree Nation, along with the Cree Nation Government, ECN, FMCC, JBCCS, Matawa First Nations Management & Rapid Lynx Telecommunications, Norway House Cree Nation, and Sichuun shared that there are still First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities across Canada are still unaware of the IPW. They suggested that ISED should actively reach out to these communities. These groups, along with the AFN, recommended using methods such as direct mailing, radio, hosting webinars/virtual information sessions, phone calls, working with the AFN and other NIOs, increasing presence in conferences and industry events, and visiting communities to help government officials understand the complexities and challenges of building networks in rural and remote areas. ICI also emphasized the importance of ensuring the use of plain language in all communications on the IPW to ensure success of the program.

81. Sichuun suggested the creation of a group focused on connectivity issues and closing the digital divide. This group could facilitate the sharing of best practices for successfully deploying connectivity projects, which would support Indigenous communities that are just beginning their efforts. Cree Nation Government, ECN, and JBCCS noted that playbooks should be developed by ISED to help Indigenous communities in their network deployment.

82. The AFN and ICI expressed that it is important to note that Indigenous Peoples are not stakeholders in the process but are sovereign and inherent rights-holders and therefore under the UN Declaration, “free, prior, and informed consent” is needed for any resource use within Indigenous communities. The AFN emphasized that ISED should lead consultations fairly, equitably, and transparently with the total cost of the consultation being the responsibility of Canada, including providing technical and financial resources so that First Nations are able to participate. The MNC also expressed the need for early and meaningful engagement that ensures a collaborative approach to the development of spectrum policy. The MNC proposed that ISED allocate resources to organize a Métis Spectrum Policy Gathering where ISED could meet with the Métis Governments to co-develop a way forward on the IPW as this would represent ISED’s commitment to the implementation of the UN Declaration.

Discussion

83. ISED is committed to increasing awareness of the IPW and the benefits that holding a spectrum licence can bring. To achieve this, ISED plans to continue engaging with Indigenous groups, building relationships, and sharing information on the IPW and the spectrum program more broadly. Interested groups may schedule a session by emailing the Indigenous Spectrum Policy Team (ISPT) inbox . ISED also recognizes the importance of using plain language as a tool to make our communications more accessible and will continue to strive for the use of plain language in documents.

84. ISED recognizes the benefits of knowledge sharing and raising awareness of spectrum with Indigenous partners and industry leaders. As a part of this effort, the ISPT has begun hosting virtual information-sharing sessions with interested Indigenous partners, representative organizations, and other stakeholders interested in topics related to Indigenous spectrum access. These sessions aim to establish a forum that facilitates ongoing dialogue and knowledge sharing. Interested attendees are asked to email the ISPT inbox to participate.

85. ISED acknowledges the need to make processes more accessible to interested Indigenous partners, especially given that the licensing process may be unfamiliar to many. To improve accessibility, ISED will provide pathfinding support to all interested applicants to the IPW. More information on these supports can be found on our Spectrum and the IPW webpage or by emailing the ISPT inbox.

86. ISED recognizes the benefits of ongoing, meaningful engagement with Indigenous partners to the success of its partnerships with Indigenous businesses, communities, and individuals. In applying the IPW for the first time, ISED took steps to make its processes more accessible to Indigenous partners. Moving forward, ISED intends to build on the lessons learned and explore new ways to enhance engagement and improve its processes.

6.2 Development of conditions of licence to support Indigenous-led connectivity solutions

87. In the draft IPW framework, ISED stated that the conditions of licence for the first application of the IPW would follow the conditions of licence for the Cellular and PCS licences made available through the Access Licensing Framework. However, ISED asked respondents to share how conditions of licence for future licensing processes could be developed to support Indigenous-led connectivity solutions.

What we heard generally

88. Cree Nation Government, ECN, JBCCS and SaskTel emphasised the importance of interference prevention and keeping consistency in the application of conditions of licence. BCN stated its support for the conditions of licence associated with the access spectrum licences; however, it expects that there may be situations where ISED would need to exercise flexibility and judgment in the application of licence conditions. The AFN and the individual from Beardy’s and Okemasis Cree Nation agreed that at times ISED may need to adopt flexible requirements to ensure that First Nations can access the spectrum within their territories.

What we heard about licence terms

89. Cree Nation Government, ECN, Huwilp Communications, Ice Wireless, JBCCS, Lytonnet, National Indigenous Connectivity Inc., and TCOR Solutions all suggested that licence duration for IPW licences should be extended beyond the proposed three years. Huwilp Communications emphasized that terms that align with the Universal Broadband Fund’s funding criteria are needed to effectively support the expansion of broadband. The Cree Nation Government, ECN, Ice Wireless, JBCCS, and TCOR Solutions believe that a longer term would give operators greater stability and help long-term infrastructure development.

What we heard about deployment conditions

90. In reference to deployment requirements for IPW ASL licences, Cree Nation Government, ECN, and JBCCS proposed a 5-year flexible deployment period that includes progress checks on deployment by year three. ICI agreed that longer deployment timeframes are necessary as licences allocated through the IPW must consider the time required to train Indigenous people to perform the work.

91. The AFN, Cree Nation Government, ECN, JBCCS, and Norway House Cree Nation stated the importance of creating deployment conditions which are not focused on population coverage but instead based on geography and suggested including Indigenous communities as well as key transportation routes to ensure increased wireless coverage for First Nations, as percentage of population coverage deployment conditions have historically left First Nations communities without any coverage.

92. FMCC noted that ISED should be flexible on deployment timeframes to allow for potential delays and disruptions due to variable conditions such as short seasonal construction windows and equipment/material shortages. The AFN and Sichuun agreed with flexible deployment requirements to account for the time it can take for an Indigenous community to develop, finance, and deploy a connectivity solution.

What we heard about licence fees

93. The AFN, Cree Nation Government, ECN, FMCC, Ice Wireless, ICI, JBCCS, Lytonnet, Matawa First Nations Management & Rapid Lynx Telecommunications, MNC, and TCOR Solutions all recommended minimal or no fees for Indigenous groups in order to make the process of acquiring spectrum as barrier-free as possible. The AFN, Cree Nation Government, ECN, JBCCS, and Lytonnet all agreed that a reduced fee or no fee would encourage investment in rural and remote regions which already deal with higher costs for projects. The AFN stated that removing the fee could reduce consumer pricing and result in more First Nation members being connected.

94. The AFN and MNC also said that Métis and First Nation people should be exempt from fees as spectrum is a natural resource within Indigenous areas and therefore Indigenous communities have the right to use the spectrum at no cost.

What we heard about reporting requirements

95. Lyttonnet, Matawa First Nations Management and Rapid Lynx Telecommunications stated that ISED should consider reducing paperwork such as annual filings or reporting. The AFN stated that reporting requirements should be co-developed with First Nations to accommodate for their unique experiences and priorities, as the use of existing reporting requirements creates barriers in providing timely reporting and can place an administrative burden on First Nations. Co-development would also allow for the capturing of connectivity data within First Nations to identify priority areas for connectivity projects. They also stated that ISED must continue to consult with First Nations in the co-development of reporting requirements to ensure data collection processes follow the First Nations principles of Ownership, Control, Access and Possession to support First Nations jurisdiction over data collection within their First Nation.

What we heard about other conditions of licence

96. Ice Wireless and TCOR Solutions had concerns with conditions of licence pertaining to research and development (R&D). They believed that this should be a burden that is shifted to telecommunications providers that meet a certain revenue threshold.

Discussion

97. As noted in the draft IPW framework, the conditions of licence associated to the PCS and Cellular access licences issued through the first IPW will remain unchanged and follow the conditions of licence as outlined in the Annex B of the Access Licencing Framework. ISED believes that maintaining the conditions of licence will ensure the timely deployment of the currently unused portions of Cellular and PCS spectrum.

98. ISED acknowledges that several respondents requested no fee or discounted fees for spectrum licences. Through ISED's recent Decision on a Fee Framework for Spectrum Licences Used to Provide Commercial Mobile Services Below 10 GHz, ISED reduced annual spectrum licence fee rates for most small and medium licensees. ISED recognizes that various conditions of licence may act as barriers to accessing spectrum for Indigenous people and will continue to evaluate the conditions of licence for potential revisions in future iterations in a manner that supports Indigenous People.

99. In response to comments about the R&D expenditure as a condition of licence, ISED notes that currently, a licensee is exempt from R&D expenditure requirements if it, together with all affiliated licensees that are subject to the R&D condition of licence, has less than $1 billion in annual gross operating revenues from the provision of wireless services in Canada, averaged over the term of the licence. Therefore, this condition would not be applicable to most small to medium licensees.

100. Going forward, ISED will consider the feedback received when developing future applications of the IPW. ISED intends to re-engage Indigenous partners on pertinent revisions to the conditions of licence for future applications.

6.3 Additional feedback on spectrum licensing, funding, and spectrum sovereignty

101. Through the IPW, ISED sought feedback on additional measures the department could take to further support Indigenous connectivity. ISED also received feedback on the need to acknowledge Indigenous spectrum rights and ensure Indigenous Peoples are included in the process as shared decision-makers under the UN Declaration. This feedback willhelp inform future spectrum policies and practices. ISED would like to acknowledge all comments received and thank all participants for taking the time to share their input on these important matters.

What we heard about licence sizes

102. Lyttonnet and Norway House Cree Nation stated that regulatory requirements for wireless carriers should be flexible to enable communities to use spectrum more effectively. Specifically, they noted that flexibility should allow interested applicants to access spectrum over areas that are smaller than Tier 5 areas if the applicant can prove no interference with current spectrum usage.

What we heard about subordinate licensing

103. ECN suggested that ISED develop better mechanisms for subordinate licensing and suggested that telecom companies should be forced to grant subordinate licences on unused spectrum to Indigenous Peoples. Sichuun agreed, emphasizing the need for a simple, fast-tracked process to transfer spectrum from incumbents to Indigenous communities. They also highlighted the importance of accompanying this process with access to capital funding, particularly where incumbents have not deployed networks to adequately serve communities.

What we heard about funding

104. Cree Nation Government, ECN, ICI, and JBCCS recommended that collaborate with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) to ensure that adequate funding is available to deploy and sustain Indigenous-owned networks. The AFN supported this approach, agreeing that ISED should partner with departments such as ISC to support First Nations with capacity-building initiatives and funding. This would ensure First Nations to have the knowledge, skills, and resource capacity to evaluate IPW spectrum proposals.

105. Ice Wireless and TCOR Solutions stated that ISED should create an Indigenous body to regulate, fund and support the growth of Indigenous telecommunications service providers. This body would be under ISED and separate from the CRTC.

106. Norway House Cree Nation called for ISED to make more funding available for backhaul fibre.

What we heard about spectrum sovereignty

107. The AFN, BCN, Cree Nation Government, ECN, FMCC, Huwilp Communications, ICI, JBCCS, Matawa First Nations Management & Rapid Lynx Telecommunications, MNC, National Indigenous Connectivity Inc., North End Connect, and Silent Letter Consulting all stated the importance of Indigenous spectrum sovereignty, and that the government should recognize Indigenous spectrum rights.

108. The AFN, BCN, Cree Nation Government, ECN, FMCC, ICI, JBCCS, and Sichuun stated that the IPW is a step towards greater access and control over spectrum by Indigenous people in Canada. However, they emphasized the need for broader discussion on spectrum by Indigenous Peoples in Canada. They noted that more needs to be done to recognize Indigenous Peoples as rights holders under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. They also stated that spectrum is a natural resource and the objectives of the IPW must align with First Nations rights over resource management within their territory.

109. The AFN, BCN, FMCC, ICI, Matawa First Nations Management & Rapid Lynx Telecommunications, MNC, and North End Connect stated that as rights holders, Indigenous People should have the ability to be both decision-makers and economic participants. They stated that government policy on spectrum should not be limited to solely industry interests and investors. These respondents agreed that the government must bring its legislation and policy into alignment with the UN Declaration. The AFN specifically referred to their Resolution 08/2023 which calls for a review of the spectrum licensing processes to uphold First Nations rights, titles, and treaty rights, and to align the related spectrum policies with the UN Declaration, the principles of free, prior and informed consent, and the Crown’s duty to consult.

110. MNC conveyed their belief that spectrum is a natural resource that should not be under sole ownership of the Canadian government. Instead, it should be allocated amongst Nations to support an equitable approach toward economic reconciliation. They suggested that the Métis Nation should receive proceeds for the sale of the spectrum over their traditional territories, which was agreed with by the FMCC. Huwilp Communications and National Indigenous Connectivity Inc called upon ISED to defer the sale and renewal of spectrum licences within traditional Indigenous territories, to acknowledge Indigenous rights to govern and manage the spectrum over their lands and to immediately release all unused spectrum licences over Indigenous lands for the benefit and use of Indigenous Peoples. They added that if an Indigenous community chooses not to manage the spectrum, any proceeds for that area turned over to the Indigenous community.

111. BCN and the FMCC did acknowledge that these issues may extend beyond the scope of this consultation and involve other government departments and agencies.

112. ISED will publish specific dates related to the opening and closing of the IPW through a Spectrum Advisory Bulletin. A final list of available licences will be published closer to the IPW opening. Once the window opens, applicants should check the SMS for the latest license availability.

113. Applicants interested in beginning the process of determining eligibility for the IPW, may do so immediately. Instructions are provided Annex A of this document.

All ISED publications related to spectrum management and telecommunications are available on the Spectrum Management and Telecommunications website.

114. For further information concerning the process outlined in this document or related matters, contact:

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
Spectrum Licensing Policy Branch
235 Queen St
Ottawa ON K1A  0H5

Email:  ISPT Inbox

Step 1: Eligibility Screening

Following the publication of the IPW Decision paper, ISED will open an eligibility screening process for interested applicants to submit their proof of eligibility as outlined in the decision point in section 3.2.1. Eligibility screening is required before entering ISED’s Spectrum Management System (SMS) and applying for a licence under the IPW.

The eligibility screening will be open from the publication of this document until two months before the closing of the IPW itself. Applicants can email the ISPT inbox to request an eligibility screening form. Submit the completed form and any required eligibility documents to the ISPT inbox. Upon receipt, the ISPT will review the form and may request additional information. Once eligibility is confirmed, the ISPT will notify the applicant via email.

Please do not submit licence requests along with your eligibility screening, as no licences are reserved based on submission timing for eligibility screening. Licence applications will not be accepted until the window is open and the applicant has been marked as eligible.

Step 2: Licensee Account (Web Profile)

For existing licensee account, the account number must be provided in the designated field of the eligibility screening form. If applicants do not already have a licensee account, an account must be created through the SMS webpage by setting up a new Web Profile. The licensee's name must be identical to the name provided in the eligibility screening form. Information on how to create a new Web Profile can be found here.

Step 3: Applying for a licence

Once the IPW opens, eligible applicants will be able to apply for the available access spectrum licences of their interest through the SMS, on a first come, first served basis.