Bill C-268

Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada Act

An Act respecting the Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada

This enactment requires the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to establish a process for ensuring the accuracy of the mobile network coverage data provided by Canadian carriers. It also requires the Minister of Industry to maintain and update the Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada. Lastly, the enactment sets out review and reporting requirements respecting the Framework.

Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada Act

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-268, which is sponsored by the member for Compton—Stanstead. This is a bill that I am particularly interested in, given my professional background.

The bill concerns the spectrum policy framework for Canada. The French word for spectrum is “spectre”. If Quebeckers and Canadians were asked what that makes them think of, 99.9% of them would probably mention ghosts or James Bond villains. Very few of them would talk about frequencies, airwaves or broadcasting in general. However, spectrum is absolutely essential to broadcasting and communications as we have known them today and for decades.

There is a reason why this topic is of interest to me. Before I got into politics, I dabbled in various fields, including radio. I worked at radio stations for three decades. That might be hard to believe. Some might say that this is impossible, because that would mean that I had to have started at the age of five or six, and they would not be far off. In any case, I spent many years in this fascinating industry. Issues related to spectrum, airwaves and broadcasting involve the technical side of the field that I was in and was genuinely passionate about.

Back in my day, although we are not talking about the 1920s or 1930s, we did not have this level of congestion. Regulations were in place, and the government was exercising some control over frequency usage, but it was not as important back then as it is today. It has been quite a while since this policy was last revised. It was revised in 1992 and again 15 years later, in 2007. Now, in 2026, almost 20 years later, we find ourselves needing to review these regulations and this framework.

In recent years, municipalities have begun implementing regulations to prevent owners from leaving vacant downtown lots unused. These lots must be developed because we need the space to alleviate congestion and we lack space to build housing. The same principle applies here. That is the analogy I would use to explain why spectrum allocation and frequency usage need to be managed in much the same way. There are telecommunications companies that have acquired frequencies but do not need to develop them or lack the resources to do so, because developing these services is quite expensive. As a result, they are holding these unused frequencies that could be put to other uses.

We have heard the industry call for more deregulation, rather than a stronger framework. I feel a little uneasy about that request, particularly in this case. We need to reach everyone. The argument we often hear from the industry is that 99% of the country is covered, that 99% of people have access to LTE or 5G technology, and that soon people will have access to the next technology. It might be 6G; who knows. Now, 99% does seem like a lot of people. Yes, that is true. It is good. It is much better than it was just a few years ago, but it still means that over 200,000 people do not have access to a cellular network.

In 2026, not having access to a cellular network is, of course, a problem for communication. It is certainly a problem when it comes to entertainment. Nowadays, entertainment is increasingly delivered through our electronic devices, our cellphones and tablets. In some cases, it is through our computers, but the fact remains that we need this system, these frequencies. We can say that those 200,000 people who do not have access to entertainment can always read a book or go play outside. Yes, there is always a way to make do, but these 200,000 people also do not have access to emergency safety services. We have seen cases where this mattered.

There have been situations where people needed to call the fire department or an ambulance urgently—after an accident or during a forest fire, since wildfires sometimes cut off regular communications where they are usually available—but were unable to access even the most basic emergency services. This is a cause for concern.

This is a cause for concern, and there is no reason why we should be prevented from providing this service simply because the companies do not want to develop it, even though they hold the required spectrum. People get the impression that everything is fine because almost everyone is connected. However, we are talking about an essential service. It becomes an essential service as soon as there is an incident like the ones I just mentioned.

Bill C-268 contains meaningful, positive measures that will improve the current situation. People in rural areas, such as Drummond, will no longer have to wave their phones around trying to get a signal. These measures are primarily aimed at ensuring that unused spectrum is put to use in one way or another. I think it is a waste to hold these resources and not take the necessary steps to use them, particularly in regions and situations where there is a pressing need that must be addressed.

I also like the idea of delivery timetables. According to Bill C‑268, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, would be required to act within a fairly short time frame of six months after the act's coming into force. It seems to me that the CRTC already has a rather large backlog of urgent matters to address, so entrusting it with managing this bill as a priority might be risky. There is a history of inaction at times due to the excessive workload that the CRTC faces. However, if everything goes well, we could already see results within six months of the bill's passage and implementation. I find that encouraging.

The other thing is that there would be a verification process to ensure the accuracy of data, such as mobile coverage data. When we check with companies that provide mobile phone services, we often get responses that do not accurately reflect the situation on the ground. We have seen this happen. I, for one, have been told that my region has 100% coverage and that there is no reason for there to be any problems. However, when we are passing through the rural parts of our ridings, it is rare not to come across areas where communications literally cut out and where there is no signal at all.

It is very frustrating, once again, to be told that 100% of the territory is covered when we run into situations like that. What are we waiting for? Are we waiting for something serious to happen before we realize that cell service has become something that we can no longer do without and for which we have an obligation to establish mechanisms to ensure reliable service? For now, obviously, that is not yet the case.

There would be a process to ensure the accuracy of mobile coverage data provided by telecommunications companies as well as data on network deployment. In short, there would be more transparency, more efficiency and a better overview of the situation. These are easy things to put in place. However, I will say it again, the argument that 99% and a bit of the population is covered is not enough. That is much better than 10 years ago, so congratulations may be in order. However, I find it extremely concerning that there are even a few people in this context who do not have access to basic security and emergency services. This requires us to act quickly.

On that note, I think it is pretty clear that the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑268 from my colleague from Compton—Stanstead.

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I began my career in radio. That was in 1974. I would imagine he was quite young then. At that time, more people were tuning into AM radio.

I rise today with great interest to support Bill C-268. This bill, introduced by my colleague, aims to improve cellular coverage in rural areas across Canada. The member who introduced this bill is my riding neighbour. We often go around together, and we call each other and chat from time to time. There are times when one of us misses something the other just said because the line cut out. We experience these problems, too.

I would like to begin by commending her leadership on this issue. I believe she is taking a serious, well-thought-out approach that is deeply rooted in the reality faced by citizens in all regions of the country.

Beyond the policies and regulatory frameworks, this debate is about something very simple, in my opinion: enabling Canadians to stay connected to loved ones, to services, to the economy and, most importantly, to their safety. Over the past several years, we have collectively made significant progress in terms of improving Internet access. This was discussed earlier. Substantial investments have been made to bridge the digital divide, which had become unacceptable. However, while progress has been made on that front, there is another equally fundamental and persistent issue, that of cellular connectivity.

Today, in Canada, nearly one-quarter of provincial highways have no reliable cellular coverage. Let us imagine what that means in practical terms. It means that a parent driving on a highway with their kids may have no way to reach someone in an emergency. It also means that a worker driving around a rural region may not have cell service for tens of kilometres. It also means that an accident could happen and there could be no immediate way to call for help.

This is not some hypothetical situation. This is an everyday reality. In my riding of Brome—Missisquoi, these situations are all too real. Dead zones are part of the landscape there. These include stretches of rural roads, forested areas, valleys, entire concessions and villages. I am thinking of Clarenceville, Saint‑Ignace‑de‑Stanbridge and the area between Bromont and Cowansville. Even at home, I have to wave my phone around to get a signal.

I am not talking about a connection that is simply slow or unstable. I am talking about total silence: no calls, no messages, no access. The consequences are very real. For instance, farmers tell me that they have to deal with disruptions in their daily operations, even as modern agriculture increasingly relies on connected technologies. Entrepreneurs also tell me that this limits their ability to innovate, attract clients and grow their businesses. Self-employed workers tell me about contracts they have lost simply because they could not be reached. Above all, citizens confide in me that they feel vulnerable when they are on the road, when a loved one is travelling and when they realize that, in certain situations, they are completely cut off from the rest of the world.

The impact of these disruptions is not limited to full-time residents of our regions. In a riding like Brome—Missisquoi, we get tens of thousands of visitors a year. They include families, cyclists and outdoor enthusiasts who come to enjoy our scenery, our wineries and our local attractions. A lot of these visitors are city dwellers who are used to uninterrupted connectivity, and when they encounter our dead zones, the consequences for them and for local residents are very real. People may get lost, be unable to use GPS, have trouble reaching emergency services if needed, or simply be unable to communicate with loved ones. Situations like these can quickly turn a positive tourism experience into a source of stress and anxiety.

In addition to the impact on individuals, this situation also has economic repercussions, because an area with unstable connectivity is less attractive. Visitors may be reluctant to come back. Tourism companies may lose business opportunities. All this is to say that the cellular coverage issue in the regions does not just affect the year-round residents. It affects everyone who visits, invests and contributes to the economic vitality of our communities.

In a riding like mine, cell service is not a luxury. It is a matter of public safety. It is a matter of economic development and a matter of regional equity. However, the official data make it seem like the issue has largely been resolved. The data shows coverage rates as high as 97%. Let me just say I know one thing about coverage: If the phone is showing just half a bar, there is no coverage.

It is important to remember that this data is largely based on information self-reported by telecommunications companies, without any systematic independent verification. This makes no sense. As a result, there is a disconnect between what the numbers suggest and what citizens actually experience. When the data is flawed, so are the decisions.

That is why the first good thing about Bill C-268 is that it tackles this problem at its root: the quality of the information. The bill requires the CRTC to establish a mechanism for independent verification of cellular coverage data. I believe this is a simple, reasonable and essential measure. Before we can fix a problem, we must first see it clearly, and right now, we cannot do that. Today, underserved areas are all too often underestimated or even invisible in decision-making tools.

The second pillar of this bill is just as important: modernizing our spectrum policy framework. This framework has not been updated since 2007. At that time, smart phones were barely a thing. In fact, they were only just coming onto the scene. Digital usage patterns were radically different. Data requirements were incomparable to what they are today. Since then, everything has changed, except the framework.

Continuing to rely on a framework designed for a different era means accepting that our policies are lagging behind reality. That is why the bill provides for a comprehensive review within 18 months. This review must address a fundamental question: Does our current approach truly enable us to serve the whole of Canada? In light of the experiences of regions like mine, the answer is quite clearly “no”.

Market forces alone have not been able to ensure equitable coverage. This is not a criticism; it is a statement of fact. In densely populated areas, investment happens naturally. However, in rural areas like ours, in remote regions where costs are higher and where, obviously, return on investment is less immediate, roll-out remains limited.

That is precisely why the third pillar of the bill is essential. It introduces a clear priority for underserved areas. It requires that future spectrum policy decisions consider, in a clear and deliberate manner, the needs of rural areas, remote communities, indigenous communities and roadside coverage. Roads are not trivial matters. They are the lifelines of our country. They connect our communities and support our economy.

I want to conclude by once again congratulating my colleague. She did tremendous work and I think the issue needed to be tackled head-on.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to take a moment to thank a couple of people who have been part of my office this session and who will be moving on shortly.

First I want to recognize Oliver Batchilder, who has been with my office as an intern through the parliamentary internship program. Oliver is sharp, diligent and very hard-working. In fact, I have told him he works harder than most full-time paid staff I have known around this place. We are going to miss having him around, and Parliament is lucky to have young people such as Oliver coming through its doors, but I know he is going to do great things and his future is very bright.

I also want to recognize Brenda Birch, my constituency assistant in Neepawa, who will be retiring in the coming weeks. Brenda actually lived in Ottawa for a number of years, but she likes to joke that she had to move back home to find a job in politics. Since then, she has been the friendly face and the steady hand for so many people back home in my constituency who needed help to navigate the federal government. She has done that work with an incredible amount of care and patience, and I know how much constituents noticed and appreciated her work. On behalf of my constituents, I wish Brenda all the best in her retirement, and I thank her for her years of service.

With that, let me turn to the legislation before us today. On the night of April 14, 1912, a wireless operator aboard the Titanic tapped out a distress call into the dark Atlantic. Some ships caught it. One that might have reached the Titanic in time did not, because nobody was at the radio and because airwaves in those days were more like the Wild West. At the time, wireless communication was still new. The rules were incomplete, and channels were crowded. More than 1,500 people lost their life that night, and the inquiry that followed revealed that wireless communication was a matter of life and death. That is why, in the years after the disaster, countries agreed that the airwaves needed to be better managed in the public interest.

I start there purposely, because more than a century later, we are still arguing about the same basic resource. Today we call it “spectrum”, and the importance of it has, if anything, only grown. Today we manage spectrum mostly through auctions, where the government sells telecommunications companies the right to use these public airwaves. That is a reasonable way to assign spectrum, but selling a spectrum licence is not the same as solving a problem of coverage.

We cannot see spectrum and cannot touch it, but it is behind almost everything we do. It is the call that connects, or does not. It is the alert that reaches our phone, the card reader at a small-town shop and the radio a volunteer firefighter uses on a gravel road. In the city, Canadians barely notice any of this, but in rural Canada, it is the line between being part of the country's economy and being shut out of it. Right now, rural Canada is too often on the losing end of that line.

Let us look at a recent example. In the government's recent 3,800‑megahertz spectrum auction, the licensing decision set a deployment requirement of just 5% population coverage within seven years for the Gander and Grand Falls-Windsor service area in Newfoundland, a region covering more than 144,000 people. Compare that 5% to the deployment requirement in a major city, where a provider has to reach 30% within five years and 70% over the long run.

That information is public. It is outlined in ISED's own licensing decision, for anyone who wants to check it out. That means a telecom provider can buy up the rights to serve rural Canada, let that spectrum sit there doing nothing for years, and clear a bar that is low, and the government calls that a mission accomplished. That is not good enough. Rural Canadians know it is not, because they are the ones living in the dead zone.

If the legislation makes it to committee, I strongly recommend that the committee review the large discrepancies between rural and urban tiers for spectrum deployment requirements. Long timelines for deployment of spectrum in rural areas result in the lack of priority given to deploying connectivity in rural regions. Telecommunications providers purchase this spectrum and slowly deploy it after they prioritize urban regions, where there is more revenue to be generated.

I have often asked myself why the deployment requirements are not equal between rural and urban regions, if we really want to close the digital divide. Any policy on this front must consider the spectrum that has already been licensed under weaker deployment requirements, because those terms and conditions were already agreed to and were reflected in the purchase price. Obviously, the telecommunications companies will oppose any accelerated deployment requirements. However, I will note that Telus, in recent government consultations, supported increased deployment requirements, so there is hope.

There is a revenue side to the story too, and it is worth being honest about it. Spectrum auctions have turned into a cash cow for the finance department, and all funds raised through an auction go into general revenues. A recent spectrum auction brought nearly $9 billion into the federal coffers, with three large carriers accounting for the overwhelming majority of these funds. I have no objection to the government's raising money, but raising money and actually connecting people are two different things, and we keep treating them as if they were the same.

There is a real policy contradiction in this. If the government's main objective is to raise as much revenue as possible for spectrum auctions, that can come at the expense of connecting more Canadians. When the government sells a telecom company a spectrum license and allows the company to never deploy it, or to deploy it very slowly, the public loses. This is a principle I have raised in the House before.

During the 44th Parliament, I introduced Bill C-288, which was passed. It was aimed at making broadband service information more accurate. This was because Canadians were being sold one story about the Internet but were buying and living an entirely different one. That same idea belongs in this debate on spectrum policy. The coverage maps tell one story, but the people who live on those roads tell another. The map will colour an entire municipality green and call it served, while the people in that municipality can tell us, down to the bend in the road, exactly where the call drops every time.

There is also the matter of spectrum that goes unused. We have had stretches in this country's history where a frequency has sat idle in rural and remote regions for years, serving no one, and the demand for connectivity has kept growing. Therefore, it is worth Parliament's asking whether our current rules put any real pressure on licence-holders to actually deploy, or whether smaller licensing areas, tougher deployment conditions and more enforcement might finally get that spectrum working for the people it is supposed to serve.

Underneath all this debate sits the question of safety. A dropped call in downtown Ottawa is an inconvenience, but a dropped call on a rural highway in a Manitoba blizzard, with a vehicle off the road and the temperature dropping to -40°C, can be the difference between life and death. That is the same lesson the Titanic taught us over a century ago. We should not need to relearn this in 2026.

This brings me to the legislation that is in front of us. Bill C-268 asks two fairly reasonable things: that mobile coverage data actually be verified for accuracy, and that this framework be reviewed on a regular schedule rather than being left to gather dust for another 20 years. I will not pretend that the bill would solve the whole problem, because it would not, but it would open the door and give the House a chance to ask questions that have been long overdue.

In the end, the question is a simple one: When we hand a company a piece of the public's airwaves, does it actually serve the public? It belongs to Canadians, and Canadians are entitled to know whether it is going to work for them. These are questions Parliament should take seriously, because Canadians, rural Canadians in particular, deserve action.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today on behalf of the people of Avalon to speak to Bill C-268, the spectrum policy framework for Canada act.

I would like to begin by thanking the member for Compton—Stanstead for bringing this legislation forward. Her work highlights an issue that affects Canadians in every region of the country, especially those living in rural and remote areas.

Cellular connectivity in Canada is no longer a luxury. It is essential. It connects us to our families and friends, it connects businesses to their customers, it connects students to their education and it connects Canadians to vital services, including emergency services. Quite simply, cellular connectivity connects Canadians to opportunity, yet many Canadians still do not have access to reliable cellular service. I do not mean just access on paper, but a real, dependable, working service in their everyday lives. This is especially true for rural and remote communities, like many of the communities I represent in Avalon.

I want to take a moment to make this real. Imagine that someone is at home and a wildfire suddenly breaks out nearby. They gather their loved ones and prepare to leave. They reach for their phone to call their neighbours, family, friends or emergency services, and there is no signal. They get in their car and drive away, but there is still no signal. They drive 10, 15 or 20 minutes, until, finally, they get a signal, but there is only one bar. This is not hypothetical. This was the reality for many residents across the Avalon Peninsula during the summer wildfires last year.

In moments of crisis, cellular connectivity is not about convenience. It is about safety. It can be the difference between getting help and being cut off. In remote and rural regions with long distances between towns or during harsh weather, reliable cellular service is not optional. It is essential to protecting lives.

This brings us to a critical point. We often hear that 97%, 98% or 99% of Canadians have access to cellular service, but we must ask what access really means. Does it mean just one bar? Does it mean a strong, reliable service? Does it mean being able to make a call without it dropping? Does it mean running a business, attending school or calling 911 without interruptions? In my hometown of Conception Bay South and throughout many communities in my riding, connectivity exists on paper. We are told we are fully covered and connected, but in reality, residents experience dropped calls, dead zones and unreliable service daily. In some homes, people have to walk from room to room to try to find a signal. This is not connectivity.

We need to rethink how we define and measure cellular connectivity in Canada. It is not enough to say a community is covered. We must ensure that the service is reliable, dependable and high-quality. This is exactly what Bill C-268 would play a key role in doing. This bill would help establish a framework to measure cellular connectivity across Canada. It would give us data to guide us in decision-making as we work to close the connectivity gap. That matters, because without accurate information, we cannot build effective solutions.

Improving connectivity is also about economic opportunities. In today's economy, nearly every business relies on reliable Internet and cellular service. Small businesses in rural communities are especially vulnerable. When connectivity fails, payment systems stop, debit and ATM machines do not work and online orders do not get processed. In many cases, customers no longer carry cash. If the system is down, the sales are lost. For seasonal businesses, like those in the tourism sector, any Internet or cellular downtime means a loss in revenue, and it does not take long for those losses to build up.

Without reliable service, businesses struggle to grow, attract customers and compete. This is one of the reasons why people are often pushed toward the urban centres. It is not because they want to leave their communities, but because the infrastructure they need is simply not there.

Connectivity also plays a critical role in education. In recent years, we have seen a major expansion of online and hybrid learning. Students can now attend classes, complete assignments and access resources from anywhere if they have reliable connectivity, but in rural communities, students face difficult challenges. Students may be forced to leave their hometown to pursue their education. Others may fall behind simply because they cannot access their coursework all the time. Schools may lack the infrastructure needed to fully integrate technology into the classroom. Beyond learning, there are also safety concerns. In rural areas, students often travel long distances by bus. Sometimes, they travel for more than an hour. If an emergency occurs, whether it is weather-related, medical or otherwise, reliable communication is essential. We cannot accept a situation where schools or families cannot connect when it matters most.

Part of the broader challenge we face relates to how we manage and allocate the communications spectrum in this country. The spectrum is the invisible infrastructure that powers wireless communication. It is the foundation of cellular networks. Decisions about spectrum, how it is allocated, who can access it and under what conditions have a direct impact on connectivity outcomes.

Too often, the development of the spectrum is prioritized in densely populated urban areas, where returns on investment are highest. That is understandable from a market perspective, but it leaves rural communities behind. We need to ensure that the communications spectrum policy in Canada supports equitable access, not just profitable access. That means encouraging deployment in underserved areas, improving rural coverage obligations and making sure that carriers are accountable for delivering real service.

Satellite-based connectivity has made some considerable progress in recent years and helped bring services to some remote areas, but these solutions are still evolving and the costs can be high for individuals and families. Technology will be part of the solution, but it cannot replace the need for strong and reliable wireless infrastructure.

For too long, rural Canadians have felt like they are at the back of the line. They do not expect to be first, but they expect to be included. Right now, too many feel like they are still waiting to be part of it. Urban Canada has seen major improvements in connectivity. Now it is time to ensure that rural Canada is not left behind. That requires commitment and it requires a clear understanding of where the gaps truly are.

That is why Bill C-268 is so important. It is not the final solution, but it is a necessary step forward. It would help us better understand the reality on the ground and help us measure what truly matters. It would guide us toward more effective policies and investments. Most importantly, it would allow us to reaffirm a simple but powerful message. When we say we are connecting Canadians, we mean all Canadians, no matter where they live, no matter how remote their community is and no matter the challenges they face.

Canadians deserve reliable connectivity, not just in cities, but in every town, every community and every region in the country, because in today's world, connectivity is not optional. It is essential to safety, it is essential to opportunities and it is essential to ensuring that no community is left behind.

I am proud to support this bill.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege, as always, to rise and speak on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. It is a particular privilege to speak to a bill such as this one, which speaks directly to one of the most persistent concerns I hear from people in the rural communities in my riding, scattered across Elgin County from Rodney to West Lorne, Straffordville, Vienna and Port Burwell. Oftentimes, they do not have dropped calls because they live in dead zones where they cannot even make a call. They cannot so much as send a text message or load a web page on their phone.

Obviously, we cannot have coverage everywhere we go in the country, but we look on the coverage maps that are published by many of the large telecoms companies and realize that much of what is on those maps is pure fiction. They will claim full coverage, as we see across southwestern Ontario in particular, when everyone who lives there knows that is just a joke.

I thank my colleague across the aisle from Compton—Stanstead for introducing this very important discussion. I have actually spent some time in her riding in the past, and I know it is very rural. Parts of it are very similar to my own riding. I know her constituents see many of the same challenges that mine do and that members across the aisle have seen in their own communities. It is something we encounter.

One of the things I love the most about my role is getting to criss-cross all of these different parts of these ridings and communities where people have to be on the go. Sometimes, it is a great privilege to be in areas where no one can call me. That is sometimes a convenience. Sometimes, it is an inconvenience. I am sure that we have all had periods when the whip could not get a hold of us because we were in an area without cell coverage. Still, for a lot of Canadians, that is incredibly important.

I want to explain what cellular service is, fundamentally. We can often trivialize the idea of being connected, and for good reason. In this world, we are overconnected sometimes, but we are not talking about the ability to download a game. We are not talking about the ability to idly scroll the Internet. For people in rural communities, the ability to connect to a cellular network is absolutely critical. As technology evolves, we see farmers incorporating more and more technology into their work that requires cellular connectivity, especially if they are out in the field, far from the Wi-Fi routers they may have in their homes or, increasingly, in their barns.

In our work on the justice committee, we heard from Liz Brown of Valora Place, which is an abused women's centre in St. Thomas, about how domestic and intimate partner violence in rural communities can be aggravated by not having the cell signal to make emergency calls. I do not wish to be overly dramatic or alarmist, but sometimes, a lack of cellular connectivity is literally a life-or-death issue if a person cannot get a signal to make a call. That is the case not just in an intimate partner violence situation, but in any emergency. If a person cannot call 911, they cannot get the help they may need in a crisis.

We also have, in general, the economic needs of travelling around rural communities. Stores increasingly want to use QR codes to load a menu at a restaurant, for example, or to redeem a coupon someone may have found. These rely on cellular connectivity that, increasingly in rural communities, is not available.

One important point I will raise here is that rural communities have, for much of the last 10 years, felt very ignored by the Liberal government. We see announcement after announcement devoted to big cities. We have people in rural communities truly feeling left behind. While there has been leadership from provincial governments and, in some cases, from the federal government over the past years on rural broadband, this idea of rural cellular connectivity seems to have been almost entirely ignored.

I go back to two things that I believe need to change fundamentally. One is something that I hope and am optimistic this bill could address, which is the accuracy of coverage maps. The bill would require the CRTC to establish a process to ensure the accuracy of mobile network coverage data provided by Canadian carriers. This means that when people in Sparta, Iona, Iona Station or Dutton look at the coverage areas for a company that might want their business as a cellular customer, there has to be accuracy in those maps.

It is important to note that I am not talking about situations where, every once in a while, a call drops in an area. I am talking about perennial dead zones, where the telecoms companies are claiming they offer coverage, but the people attempting to use their phones there are not receiving it. That is a very important distinction.

We know that there are always going to be glitches and down points. We know that there are going to be slight variances and variations in coverage from day to day. We know that the weather can affect this. We know that there are going to be technical issues on the coverage maps. However, we are talking about establishing, as a baseline, an expectation that a lot of Canadians have that they are not going to pay for a service they are not receiving, and that they are not going to pay for a service that is not available to them at all points, especially when they may need it most.

It is interesting that the bill happened to come up today. Last week, I rose in the House and asked a question in question period about this very issue, which was about what the industry minister would do to ensure accuracy in telecom maps. I was very pleased that the parliamentary secretary to the industry minister rose to answer my question, but he did not actually address the substance of the issue. He talked about affordability, which again is a very important issue, but I would love to see concrete action from the government on the actual question of accuracy in the coverage maps.

Here is where I hope we can go if Bill C-268 is referred to committee. The bill requires a process for ensuring accuracy, but that is only the first step. We also have to be able to expand that coverage. In that sense, I hope this can be the beginning of a longer-term discussion about not just identifying where these dead zones are, but also fixing them.

I do not wish to be biased, but actually I do wish to be biased towards my part of the country, because it is a beautiful place. However, the regions I am talking about are not even insanely rural and remote areas. We are sometimes talking about communities that are 15 to 20 minutes outside of very large cities, like London or St. Thomas, which are still seeing these coverage dead zones. If we cannot have full coverage in an area as densely populated as southwestern Ontario, we are certainly not going to have it in areas of the country that are far more sparsely populated and far more rural.

We know that the telecom companies have tried to respond to some of these concerns by saying that we can move ahead with satellite technology. We have seen Rogers, in particular, Bell as well, advance satellite phones as an answer to some of these problems, but again, if people are near the Canada-U.S. border, as the vast majority of Canadians are, this satellite technology is not available to them. We still have the same problem, which is that we have people looking to a new technology, but that not solving the problem, which is applicable to not just the farmers in my riding, but all the people who live in these rural communities who want to work in these communities, want to study in these communities and, as my colleague for Avalon said a few moments ago, hopefully want to stay in these communities. We do not want people having to leave the place they call home because they feel they do not have the technical capabilities they need to live their lives there, to feel secure there and to feel like they can be on the go and run their businesses there.

I want to see from this Liberal government a real commitment to rural communities, like the ones I have the great privilege and honour of representing. I want to see us identify ways to ensure accuracy in telecom coverage maps in rural Canada, but I also want to see us fix and expand those areas where we know the coverage is not there. This is a crucial issue, and it is one that has wide-ranging implications for the economy and business, for connectivity and well-being, and yes, even for public safety and justice.

Conservatives will always stand in support of transparency and accountability. I believe that companies have a moral obligation to provide accurate information, and I believe that government, given the manner in which it regulates telecom companies, needs to do its job and ensure this.

My question I would like to leave everyone with is this: We have a framework proposed here. What do we do to turn this into real action? That is what I would like to see.

I appreciate my colleague raising this issue. It is about time we get some attention for rural Canada from the Liberal government.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Compton—Stanstead has five minutes for her right of reply.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today after my colleagues, and after speaking last month in the House, to conclude debate at second reading on Bill C‑268.

I thank all my colleagues who spoke. I am pleased to see that this is not a partisan issue. I want to thank the members for Tobique—Mactaquac, Joliette—Manawan, Egmont, Portage—Lisgar, London—Fanshawe, Brome—Missisquoi, Drummond, Avalon, Riding Mountain and Elgin—St. Thomas—London South for supporting the bill.

My colleague from Elgin—St. Thomas—London South was talking about people who live just outside urban centres and have no Internet connection. I live in a city with a population of nearly 200,000, and I do not get more than one bar of Internet signal inside my home. Members of Parliament from every region of the country and every party have described exactly the same reality: roads with no signal, underserved communities, and citizens who cannot rely on their phones when they need them. That is also my personal experience, as I just mentioned. I am one of those people who has to move closer to a window to get better reception. On the roads in my region, I know exactly where I have to tell the person on the other end of the line that the connection is going to drop and that I will have to call them back in a minute. Sometimes it is even worse: I have to call back in 10 minutes.

As the member for Portage—Lisgar pointed out, people have come to accept a level of service that would be considered unacceptable in any other sector. He gave the following example: No one would agree to buy a car that stops working as soon as they turn onto a certain road. In too many rural regions, people are paying full price for cell service that disappears once they reach a certain road or a certain village. My colleagues from Drummond and Brome—Missisquoi demonstrated what this is like by holding up their phones and pretending to search for a signal. We all do that in the regions. We laughed about it because it is something that we do all the time. However, behind such anecdotes lie much more serious concerns.

My colleagues talked about emergency services, first responders, accidents, serious health problems and women experiencing violence who cannot always rely on the network when they need it. The mayor of Martinville, Michel‑Henri Goyette, was the one who reminded me that this issue goes beyond cellphone call quality. He also reminded me that we should not settle for mediocrity. That is why, as my colleague said, I have tackled this issue head-on. That is why I am bringing it before the House. It is a matter of economic development, public safety and fairness for people in rural areas.

The member for Egmont reminded us that poor connectivity limits access to telehealth, remote learning and new learning opportunities. The digital divide is becoming a social, economic and regional divide. We know where the dead zones are. Constituents know them; mayors know them; paramedics know them; firefighters know them. The problem is not whether they exist. It is having the tools needed to map these areas and guide future decisions.

Bill C‑268 proposes two practical measures. First, it would require a process to verify the accuracy of wireless coverage data. If we want to fix connectivity gaps, we need an accurate picture of where those gaps actually exist. Second, it would modernize Canada's spectrum policy framework, which has not been updated since 2007. Technology has changed immensely since then, and our policy framework must evolve as well.

We do not agree on everything, but there is something we seem to agree on: Doing nothing is not an option. The bill would not be the finish line, but a starting point. The bill would get the ball rolling. It would create a better understanding of the problem, and ensure that rural connectivity is considered as a priority in future spectrum policy decisions.

I urge all members to support Bill C‑268 at second reading and to refer it to committee for further consideration.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill C-268 be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 6:37 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.