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

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

moved that Bill C-268, An Act respecting the Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of pride that I rise today in the House for the second reading of Bill C-268, the spectrum policy framework for Canada act. This is an important step in the parliamentary process regarding an issue that is truly significant, not only in my rural and mountainous riding, but also for my colleagues across Canada who live in rural, remote, or isolated areas. We are talking about the issue of cellular connectivity.

In recent years, a great deal of work has been done to improve Internet connectivity. I am proud to say that in Quebec, nearly 100% of the population has access to high-speed Internet. With the progress we have made, we can now move on to the next step, which is improving cellular connectivity in rural areas. This issue was brought to my attention during the election. First, in my region, when someone is driving on the roads, even on highways or numbered secondary roads, it is not uncommon for them to have to tell the person on the other end of the line that they are going to lose the connection and will have to call them back a few minutes later. In my area, locals know that whenever someone drives past Mount Orford, they lose connection for a while. It is a minor inconvenience, but it is pretty annoying. We need to remember that there are people living in areas where this service is never available. There are connectivity black holes that need to be addressed, in my opinion.

During the election campaign, this was an issue that many local residents brought up with me, and I promised to work on improving the situation. In my view, this is an issue that the federal government can work on with the provinces, municipalities and telecommunications companies to improve the situation.

To date, it is estimated that roughly 25% of secondary roads in Quebec are not connected. In addition, it is estimated, I think incorrectly, that 97% of the population has access to a cellular network. I believe there is a problem with the way that this is measured if 97% of Canadians are said to be connected, because for many areas in my region, this is clearly not the case. I live in a city with a population of nearly 200,000, and even in my own home it is difficult to get an Internet connection.

For me, this may be anecdotal, but for many businesses and Canadians, it goes beyond that. These are real problems. It is a safety issue and an economic issue, and that is what I wish to address today. That is why I have decided to work with the rural caucus and several stakeholders back home on this situation to help improve it. In 2026, I think that Canadians across the country are entitled to equal cellular service.

The main issue that this bill seeks to address is incomplete or even non‑existent cellular coverage in regions across Canada, including in my own. This is an issue that we talk about a lot within the rural caucus. I know that the teams of the various ministers responsible for this issue are involved in the issue, but I think that it is really important to keep it as a top government priority. In this day and age, we need to move forward. It is a safety issue, because people do not have access to 911. It is an economic issue, because this hinders the development of certain businesses. In addition, it is simply a fairness issue, because cellular service should not depend on the postal code. In 2026, we should not have to live like this.

I want to give a few examples from my riding. I was recently speaking with the chief of the intermunicipal fire safety board in the Coaticook region. In this fairly mountainous region, which is quite close to the U.S. border, firefighters responding to emergencies sometimes have no cell service and are unable to call for backup upon arriving at the scene. As a result, a firefighter, sometimes even the fire chief, has to leave the scene to call for backup.

Some stories are pretty terrifying. Sometimes, especially when first responders are attending incidents in more remote areas, like at the end of a dirt road, it can take several minutes to connect to a cellular network to make a call and then return to the scene. We need to put ourselves in the shoes of these firefighters if they need to reach other services, such as SOPFEU or, in the case of my riding, which is very close to the border, with American services that come to support Canadian services. This means they often have to leave the scene of the fire or emergency to go a short distance away and then come back.

These situations could lead to disasters. Rural areas have managed relatively well so far, but it is important to remember that, in the regions, people are entitled to cell service that is just as good as what is available in the cities.

Someone from my riding came to Ottawa very recently. It was Andrée Gagnon from Maison Séjour, which welcomes women who are victims of domestic violence. Ms. Gagnon indicated that, on certain occasions, there are women who try to get to the shelter to escape a critical situation at home but who do not have access to cell phones. As a result, they are stuck in a home where they are victims of violence. They cannot leave their home because they cannot call for help, because there is a lack of cellular connectivity.

Ms. Gagnon also pointed out a fairly troubling fact: electronic monitoring devices do not work where there is no cellular network or Internet access. Imagine the danger posed by an abuser whose electronic monitoring device does not work and which therefore leaves their victim unprotected. This is where really terrible situations can happen, and this is the kind of situation that needs to be resolved. That needs to be looked at, and that is what Bill C‑268 is about.

I have another example. I talk a lot about safety, and that is something that is very important to think about.

However, there is also a lot of talk about economic development. Take, for example, the transportation industry, where vehicles experience problems when travelling on secondary roads, numbered roads and even highways. These vehicles sometimes do not have access to a cellular network. Truckers cannot maintain contact with their dispatcher or business. Situations like that are very inconvenient for businesses. This does not just happen in rural and remote areas. It also happens on highways. This is the sort of problem encountered by people who transport goods across Canada and to the United States.

This week, I was also talking with the president of UPA Estrie, Michel Brien, who owns a dairy farm. He was telling me that everything on his farm is now connected to his cell phone. He can activate his milking machines and monitor his cameras, but that all really depends on a cellular connection that is not always reliable.

There are some really worthwhile technologies available to farmers. I am talking here about basic farm monitoring, but we are moving towards precision farming, which will save farmers a lot of money on input costs when they are able to fully utilize these tools. However, for that to happen, farmers need to have access to high quality cell service.

Whether we are talking about farmers, forestry companies, transportation companies or SMEs, our economy depends on our ability to communicate and to communicate effectively. This is the kind of challenge we face in my riding, so it is absolutely essential that we sort this out. As I said, it is also a question of fairness: No matter where someone lives in Canada, they should have access to the same cellular service. It is 2026.

The solutions proposed by the bill follow two main lines of action. First, we need a better understanding of the situation on the ground, as we can only improve what we can measure.

As I said earlier, according to the CRTC, 97% of the Canadian population has access to a mobile network. This data comes from telecommunications companies, but I am not convinced that these companies and I share the same understanding of what constitutes access to a mobile network. One bar might constitute a connection for them, but it does not allow someone to make a call, it does not keep a call going and it does not allow for a good-quality conversation. For me, that does not constitute a connection.

The bill's first requirement is to map out the situation with much clearer parameters. It is about choosing a series of parameters that will allow for better measurements and for an independent review of the data. When we have a better idea of where the issues are coming from, we can start to address them.

The second part of the bill is about modernizing the spectrum framework. The spectrum framework is the mechanism by which frequencies used for cellular connectivity are distributed. That framework has not been updated since 2007. When it was last updated, it was assumed that market forces would end up connecting the entire Canadian population. Needless to say, that did not happen. Almost 20 years later, we recognize that connecting remote regions is not profitable. There is no incentive for telecommunications companies to connect remote regions. The change we want to make to the spectrum policy is stated in the bill's preamble. It is about making sure that cellular connectivity takes into account the realities of remote regions.

I think that the timing is perfect. We may be a bit behind, but the timing could not be better for a bill like this. First, we have made many investments in fibre optic Internet connectivity, which makes the construction of new infrastructure more profitable. Having fibre optics allows for cellular towers. Major investments have been made. Spectrum auctions are also coming up.

With the new spectrum auctions approaching, it is important to adjust the auction parameters to ensure that, in the rollout for telecommunications companies, there is not a requirement that 50% of the population in a large region be connected within five years, for example. What that means in a rural area is that only the largest population centre will be connected, leaving a vast expanse of land without any connectivity. We therefore need to recalibrate, and now is the time to do so, as new technologies, such as low-orbit satellites, are being deployed. While satellites are going to be launched in the relatively near future to connect people to cellular networks, this service must prioritize the regions over urban centres, because it is in the regions where connectivity is still lacking. In short, the bill aims to improve measurement, planning and investment.

In conclusion, I am very pleased to see that this bill transcends party lines. Many of my Liberal colleagues have supported it. Some Conservative and NDP colleagues have also supported it. Our colleague from the Green Party supported the bill too. As this shows, the bill crosses party lines. I am also very pleased that Senator Aucoin has agreed to take the matter to the Senate after the bill is studied in the House. I am asking for this bill to be studied in committee, for a more connected, safer, fairer and stronger Canada.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for introducing this bill, which could have far-reaching effects and help a lot of Canadians. Black holes exist in my riding, too. In particular, in one section of the Saint-Nicolas sector of Lévis, right in the city at the head of the bridges on the way to Saint-Antoine-de-Tilly, cell service suddenly disappears. These people are asking us to do everything in our power to restore their service. Will this bill help the people in my riding, especially in Saint-Nicolas?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I have had conversations about this.

The people of Saint-Nicolas live in an urban area. They certainly do not live in a rural area, yet they have cell service issues. The bill aims to map out this situation. We will see that there is clearly an issue in this area. Then, we will be able to roll out services where there are none right now, mainly in remote and isolated areas, but also in regions like his, in urban centres. I live in Rock Forest and face the same challenge as the people of Saint-Nicolas.

I hope the bill will help resolve the situation, even in urban areas.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my colleague for her commitment and dedication to getting this issue solved.

In my riding of Avalon and in many ridings throughout our country, as was just highlighted so many times, cellular connectivity is very poor and in most cases does not exist. There are instances in Avalon when police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders cannot be contacted. It is a huge issue. Families also cannot communicate with each other.

In today's society, people use connectivity in order to make sure we are well connected and that everyone is connected with us. How would the bill address the connectivity gaps that exist in my riding of Avalon and in other rural areas throughout Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been working with my colleague, who is chair of the rural caucus. He is a member who is really engaged on this issue. We have been talking a lot about it, and not only talking but taking action as well. We met with Bell and Rogers to talk about how they are helping with this, what their challenges are and where they want to go with it. I thank the member for his involvement and commitment on this important issue.

Yes, the bill would help in Avalon. We would have a better map of the situation, and then we could then address the situation by prioritizing rural places that are a bit outside the scope, so the people in the member's riding can be connected.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Campton—Stanstead on her bill and her speech, which was rich in content and information. It was well researched.

I would like to come back to the case of unused spectrums. Why do the cell phone companies choose not to develop them, in the hon. member's view?

To me that is absurd.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is true that there is spectrum that is not being used. The problem is that companies are honouring the agreements they have signed with the government. The way the contracts were drawn up requires, for example, connecting 50% of the population across a very large area within a relatively short period of time. As a result, there are places that are not connected. I would say that the agreements that were signed have, for the most part, been honoured. Clearly, that is not where the solution lies.

The aim is to ensure that future contracts take into account the reality that connection is much more unreliable in rural areas than it is in urban centres.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-268, An Act respecting the Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the people's House, and it is a joy to rise on this occasion to offer our support for this private member's bill. The member for Compton—Stanstead has worked hard on this issue. I hear her refer often to people in rural communities and in the rural areas of her riding and district. I congratulate her on her efforts in addressing this area of grave concern.

Across the country, in rural and remote areas, connectivity is a huge, ongoing challenge. I represent a district that is well acquainted with this challenge. There will be times when I am in the middle of a great conversation, enthralled and just getting to the highlight, and then all of a sudden I am talking to myself. “That didn't work so well”, I think. Whether it is in Arthurette, in Craig Flats, in Brockway or heading toward Forest City, there are lots of dead zones.

For many of the citizens and residents of my region, that is a huge concern for public safety and for health care. If they are in a rural area and do not have really good reception, they are not sure they can get the help they need when they need it. We want to address this and take any steps we can. The bill is one of the steps we can take to address this issue by helping to hold the providers accountable and by bringing transparency. We commend and support those efforts.

We are looking forward to supporting the bill through to committee and then continuing to press the government to do all it can to address the ongoing need for increased coverage and broadband access across the rural and remote areas and regions of our country.

Many times, rural Canada feels forgotten, left aside and not thought about or considered in policy deliberations that take place in the House. I understand that a disproportionate amount of the population is concentrated in urban centres, but so much of what makes Canada a truly incredible country is housed in rural Canada and in remote Canada. Whether that is our vast natural resources of our incredible oil and gas sector, our energy sector and our mining sector, or our agriculture sector, many of the centres and hubs of tremendous resources and financial capacity are housed in rural and remote communities.

Part of making sure that those areas remain vital, vibrant and prosperous is ensuring that people can inhabit those places, still function at a high level and participate in society in a meaningful way. Part of that is connectivity so people can continue to work, do business and be able to reside in these places. Whether they are working in a lumberyard, whether they are on a tractor on a farm and are in need of GPS, or whether they are in the resource sector, working, providing livelihood and gaining substance from that, having the ability to connect is critical.

The bill is one step toward making sure we are holding providers to account and bringing transparency, and we are going to ensure that they are meeting the objectives and the targets that need to be there. It is an important step, but obviously we need continued focus on broadening and opening up competition, on allowing and encouraging more providers to get into the space so access can become more affordable for Canadians and so Canadians who live in rural and remote areas can have options for connectivity.

We will continue to press, from this side of the House, for the bill to remain a priority and for it to get the support it needs. We will also press for an enhanced discussion. Beyond discussion, enhanced action needs to take place to bring connectivity to those Canadians who have oftentimes been overlooked and forgotten.

As I was preparing my speech, I could not help but reflect a bit. I was reflecting on an ancient story that came back to me as I was reflecting on the importance of connection and connectivity. I got to thinking about people and what they go through when they feel disconnected. Oftentimes, it goes far beyond just cell and broadband access. There is a deeper lesson in this, which is that, when anyone feels disconnected, it comes with all kinds of other societal challenges. Social isolation is a big problem. It is very real. Social anxiety is a big problem. When people feel disconnected from family, that leads to many issues. When they feel disconnected from help, that leads to issues. If they feel disconnected from resources and services, that leads to multiple issues.

I was reflecting on an old story, and I believe there is a correlation. It goes like this.

There was once a man who was travelling from one community to another. The way it is written, it is said that he fell among thieves. He was robbed, beaten, left on the side of the road and abandoned. After they had stripped him and taken his goods, they left him there half dead. This man was lying in a ditch with no help. He was feeling isolated, cut off from help, cut off from resources and cut off from his family. He was left to die.

The man heard the sound of footprints coming down the road and was probably feeling happy that help was on the way. I am sure his hopes were rising, even though his strength was faint and he did not have the capacity to help himself fully. He thought that this was his answer because he heard help coming down the road. As this gentleman came up to him, his hopes, which had been rising so quickly, were quickly dashed. Why? It is because this gentleman, who was a priest, a religious man, looked at the man in the ditch and decided he did not have the time to deal with him. It was too messy and too complicated. He had to get to an important meeting, so he crossed over on the other side and kept on walking.

Then came another man. The man in the ditch thought about how the last one did not work out well, how he left him more hurt, isolated and disappointed, but that maybe this one was his answer. Along came a very educated man. He was prestigious, a lawyer, a scribe. He was well regarded in the community. He was distinguished and had all kinds of resources. The man in the ditch thought to himself that this guy could help him, he could get him connected to what he needed to get better. Surely this was his answer.

We can see that the hope was rising up inside the man who was lying by the wayside, in the ditch. He was thinking that surely this was the guy who could get him connected. Though it promised much and the man had the ability to do so, he looked at the man in the ditch and figured that he was too far gone and he had no time for that. He had more important things to deal with. He was busy, so he crossed over to the other side and kept on walking. The man in the ditch grew worse and more despairing.

Then there was a third gentleman who came along that road. Members will recall the story. He did not come from much pedigree. He was not known as a person in a position of great authority. He was a stranger and a commoner, but something happened inside that man when he saw the man in the ditch, who was disconnected, cut off from resources and the sources of help he needed and was desperate for. This kind stranger was so moved, he got off his donkey, climbed down into the ditch, bandaged up his wounds and spent some time with him. Thankfully, he did not just give him a band-aid or put a bandage on him and move on. He did something very important, which relates to this bill, believe it or not. He took the man and connected him. He decided to take him to the local area hospital and make sure that he got the help he needed. He made sure that he was connected, had found a new circle and had the resources he needed to be hooked back up on the way to recovery and wholeness.

Of course, that is the ever-famous story of the good Samaritan.

There is good news in this bill. I see a correlation. If we can help people get connected to the help they need, if they are isolated and cut off, hurt by life circumstances, maybe because of where they live or because they do not have access to all the latest technology, we can somehow build a bridge of connectivity to them and help them gain access to the help, public safety, health care and resources they need to better their situation.

I thank the hon. colleague across the way for her efforts on this bill.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his speech. The lesson to be learned from this parable is that we have a good Samaritan for connectivity in the House. I want to salute the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead and announce that my party will also support Bill C-268, even if it is the member for Compton—Stanstead's bill. It goes to show that anything is possible. I am kidding, of course, there is nothing else to say. In all seriousness, this bill is important. I want to officially congratulate the hon. member for bringing it before the House. I think it could really make a difference. I congratulate and thank her.

This is not a revolutionary idea. We want to bring signal to places where there is currently nothing but a total void. The bill's objective is to modernize the way spectrum is managed, because things currently work as if the BlackBerry was the absolute peak of technological advancement. The bill would force the government to dust off its policy every five years. Five years is a long time in a world where phones become obsolete before we can even finish reading the box.

There is also this almost subversive idea of asking the CRTC to verify whether companies are telling the truth when they claim to cover a region. I know, the word “verify” sounds radical, as in “really verify”. Apparently, on paper, Canada is covered just about everywhere, except where there are people, roads, or an accident on a stormy night.

We are also asking the Minister of Industry to produce a report within 18 months. In Canada, when we are not quite sure what to do, we write a report. Here, at least, there is a deadline, which, in the world of public policy, is already something of an adrenaline rush.

Bill C‑268 also provides for an extensive consultation process, as should be the case for any good report. They will talk to everyone, including telecommunications giants and elected officials in rural municipalities, in other words, those who know very well what it is like to have no signal. They will talk to public safety agencies, academics, the CRTC and, obviously, any other stakeholder as needed. Loosely translated, it means that anyone who is breathing and has an opinion on the topic has a good chance of ending up on the list. On paper, it is beautiful. It gives the impression of a big, inclusive circle where everyone has their say. In real life, it sometimes looks like a family dinner where everyone talks at once, except that no one really has the power to cut the cake when it is time for dessert.

That said, the topics to be discussed are by no means trivial. One of them is competition, a Canadian fantasy that is often talked about but that remains mysteriously absent from monthly phone bills. Another topic is the deployment requirement, in other words, forcing companies to do what they are supposed to do, but do not always do. The topics also include the issue of unused licenses, those bits of spectrum lying dormant somewhere, probably in a virtual drawer, hoping they might have a use someday.

The report will have to contain concrete information, not just impressions, but results. Connectivity assessments will be done, some related to public safety, because when things go wrong, a phone is not a luxury, but a lifeline. Data will be gathered on actual coverage, not the kind of data shown on PowerPoint slides. Ideally, proposals will be submitted to fix a system that quite frankly is falling apart at the seams. In short, consultations will be held, information will be compiled and analyzed, and then action must follow. Cell signal is not going to wait around for the next report before deciding to disappear or finally become available. The crux of the problem is simple: Companies can buy pieces of the spectrum—which is a public good, after all—and decide not to use them, but rather to keep them on a shelf like an old toaster that was bought on sale and never used.

Bill C-268 is essentially saying, politely but firmly, that the government needs to either develop the network or let someone else do it. Meanwhile, we keep hearing that 99.5% of Canadians have access to LTE, the generation preceding 5G. That sounds pretty impressive, except for the fact that it still leaves about 200,000 people in a sort of digital void. Two hundred thousand people is not exactly a small village. We are talking about an entire region staring at their phones the way people used to watch the sky for snow, hoping something would fall.

Even when coverage exists in theory, making a call on a rural road is often practically impossible. If someone has an accident in February, it is not just the ditch that is deep, but also the network. The bill seeks to bring some order to all that. The bill aims to force the CRTC to ensure that coverage maps are not just fiction. It seeks to compel the government to revisit a policy framework that dates back to 2007, nearly 20 years, to a time when the word “streaming” still meant watching water flow.

The fact is that spectrum is a rare resource—invisible, but rare, much like the government's willingness to listen. When two signals overlap, it creates noise. When no one uses it, it creates emptiness. In both cases, it helps no one.

The current framework leaves a lot in the hands of the market by letting companies decide, which is fine as long as nothing goes wrong. In more rural areas, however, the market's motivation is about on par with that of a teenager on a Saturday morning: it exists on a theoretical level.

The Bloc Québécois has a simple reminder: If spectrum is a public asset, then it should serve the public, not only in profitable areas, not only in large urban centres, but everyone, including those who live at the far end of the road.

It is true, Bill C-268 is not going to solve everything. There will still be reports, consultations and committees—the usual trio. There may also be a bit of stalling, because, let us face it, the CRTC sometimes moves at the speed of an old 56-kilobit-per-second modem that goes beep, beep, beep. At least this bill is heading in the right direction, a direction where access to the network is not a luxury, but a basic necessity; where calling for help does not depend on one's postal code, as my colleague pointed out in her speech; and where people finally stop pretending the whole country is covered just because it looks good in a PowerPoint. This bill does not reinvent the wheel, but at least it tries to get it rolling.

Again, I want to congratulate and thank the member for Compton—Stanstead for her important bill.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great honour to second debate on this important bill, Bill C-268, an act regarding the spectrum policy framework for Canada. While the title may seem dry, the intent of this legislation is very clear.

We must take steps now to ensure accountability in the provision of cellular services. In part, this must be done because the day-to-day safety of millions of Canadians must be protected. Further, equal access to high-quality and dependable cellular services is absolutely fundamental to the success of thousands of businesses across our country. For those reasons, I want to thank and congratulate my colleague, the member for Compton—Stanstead, for bringing this matter forward.

Like myself and dozens of other members in the House, the member for Compton—Stanstead has heard from many constituents that cellular phone service in many rural areas is poor and unreliable. This is unacceptable, and I share the frustration of constituents in my constituency of Egmont. Time after time, I have had phone calls that are dropped mid-sentence or connections that simply cannot be made. I have heard from residents who have had calls interrupted during medical emergencies, and far too many small businesses have told me about lost opportunities due to inadequate service.

As a public representative, I have spent my career focusing on the value of infrastructure. In my mind, the availability of high-quality and dependable infrastructure is the absolute cornerstone of economic and social progress. At its most basic level, of course, infrastructure is about roads, bridges, wharves, environmental protection and buildings. Of course, all these capital projects are absolutely necessary, but there are further levels to the idea of infrastructure. For instance, an appropriately funded education system is an element of social infrastructure, and the same goes for health care. In other words, the laws, regulations and policies that underpin our extraordinarily important social programs are a form of infrastructure.

What makes all of this so attractive and important to me as a public representative is that the benefits that accrue from a great deal of our infrastructure, whether physical or written, are generally available to all citizens equally and without cost or favour.

In the case of cellular phones, our job is to ensure that these services are provided to Canadians in an equal manner, so that running a small phone-based business in my home community of Tignish is on par with running a similar operation in Toronto or Vancouver. In other words, a phone call is a phone call. It should not degenerate in quality just because a Canadian chooses to live outside of a major urban centre.

As every member should understand, there are undeniable challenges to living in a rural area. There are fewer amenities. There is travel for shopping. Entertainment and work are often a bit of a long haul, and waiting for a snowplow in the winter often requires a degree of patience and planning, but these challenges are all understood, and the benefits of rural life usually outweigh those minor inconveniences.

Inadequate cell phone service is not a minor inconvenience, not anymore. Reliable cellular service has now evolved into a basic, fundamental necessity. In other words, reliable cellular connectivity is now an essential that supports so much of what many Canadians take for granted, such as safety, economic development, health care services, education and social connection.

Let me start with safety. My constituency is a little different from many of the more remote Canadian communities. Generally speaking, we will never be too far from a house, village, town or community, but many parts of Canada experience extremely harsh weather conditions and long stretches of empty highways. I, for one, would not want to be travelling up north in February without a reliable form of communication. In such conditions, the ability to make a call save a life.

Of course, there is the economic aspect as well. As the proposed bill points out in its preamble, equal access to cellular service is currently being undermined, and that is deeply unfair to the millions of Canadians who live in rural areas. In my community of Egmont, all of the sectors that drive our thriving economy rely on cellular service, including agriculture, fishing and tourism. All of these incredibly important sectors need to communicate to the wider world because their customers all have high expectations. Imagine trying to negotiate a deal with one of our valued trading partners in Europe, and the call keeps buzzing and dropping. An awful lot can get lost in translation, and even more can get lost if the customer simply decides the hassle is just not worth it.

We have emergencies and economic links, then, but there is also health care. In my home province of Prince Edward Island, there is an extremely severe health care crisis under way. On the federal side, we have provided the provincial government with hundreds of millions of dollars to address significant shortfalls in access to health care. The province assured the federal government that this additional funding would solve the crisis and that barriers to access would fall immediately after the money was committed. This did not happen.

Despite the sincere efforts of the federal government, the situation has become worse. One solution is virtual care, but what happens when the connectivity is poor? Well, the answer to that question is fairly simple. Once again, the residents of rural areas face a barrier to health care, and the misery of inadequate access to services is worsened again.

Finally, I will turn briefly to education. I am a great believer in making sure that high-quality education programs are easily accessible to all Canadians. As the new technologies began to emerge some years ago, I listened to young residents in Egmont talk happily about being able to access important new skills from the comfort of their home communities. As we all learned during COVID, distance learning was absolutely essential. Today, however, we see the difference in access to many programs widening. There is a gap, and students in major metropolitan areas have another major advantage over their rural counterparts. Is this fair? Is this equal? Of course not, and it is infuriating to many rural Canadians.

Ultimately, appropriate cellphone service is essential to the future of rural Canada. It enhances safety, supports economic activity, improves access to health care and education, and strengthens social ties. As technology continues to evolve, the importance of reliable mobile connectivity will only grow. Ensuring that rural communities have access to high-quality cell service is not just a matter of convenience but essential for equality, opportunity and quality of life across Canada. This is why I support this important bill.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, for many people living in big cities, a dropped call is an irritant, but then they dial again and it works just fine. For rural families, it can be dangerous. It can mean a farmer cannot connect to the equipment that keeps his or her modern operation running or, worse, cannot make a call if the combine starts on fire. It can mean a family driving on a lonely stretch of highway in a snowstorm has no way to call for help if disaster strikes. For a first responder, it can mean the difference between getting there on time and getting there too late, and the trauma that can follow.

In Canada, cell service should not be a luxury or simply a perk. It is basic infrastructure in an advanced nation like Canada. When it fails, people notice, and sometimes, particularly in rural Canada, they pay for it. That is why this issue matters so much.

“Spectrum” may sound like something regulators just talk about, but it is the invisible infrastructure behind every call, text, emergency alert and wireless connection that people rely on. It is also a public resource. The public owns it. Companies are licensed to use it, but government is supposed to manage it in the public interest. When spectrum policy works, people get better service, stronger competition and fewer dead zones. When it fails, families pay full price for half service at best sometimes. Signals drop, towers do not get built, smaller companies get squeezed out, and consumers get fewer choices to purchase from. Worst of all, prices stay high, and the same companies continue to call the shots on how this process works.

Bill C-268 would require the CRTC to verify the mobile coverage data it gets from Canadian carriers. That matters because every rural resident knows there can be a huge gap between what the coverage map says and what the phone actually delivers for them. On paper, an area may be completely covered and may appear served, but it is not. In reality, that service may mean one weak bar at best, or a call that drops halfway through, or a signal that disappears the moment the road dips or the weather changes. I bet every single rural member of Parliament in this place knows exactly what I am talking about. We know instinctively where the dead zones are in our ridings. We know where we can make calls on the road, where we simply cannot and where, unless we have downloaded it, an audiobook or podcast is going to cut out, too.

What matters is not just the stretch of highway where we know service is awful. We know that people stand outside their houses holding their phones up in the air hoping they might get that one bar. People live there, and despite being told they are served, they know they are not. That is why accurate coverage data matters. Rural folks do not need someone or some big company telling them they are covered when their own experience shows them that is not the case. They need a system that measures service as it actually exists in the real world.

This bill would force Parliament to take another look at Canada's spectrum policy framework. That matters because the bill's own preamble makes a pretty remarkable admission that Canada's spectrum policy framework has not been updated since 2007. That is not just a long time ago; in the world of telecom years, that is ancient history. This framework predates the smart phone in the world we live in. It predates the app economy. It predates connected farms, remote work and the expectation that people should be able to bank, work, run a business and stay connected from almost anywhere in this great nation. Canada's public airwaves are being managed under a framework that has been sitting on the shelf since the flip phone era, thinking back to when we had to press enough characters 14 different times just to say hello and to have the patience of a saint.

Since then, the world has changed immensely, as we all know, and the framework governing our public airwaves was written for a very different country than the one we are living in today. Bill C-268 would require the Minister of Industry to review that framework, report back to Parliament and hear from people who understand the stakes, such as rural municipalities, first responders, the CRTC, telecom providers and spectrum licence-holders, who would all to come to the table to help us understand what the challenges are and how they can be fixed. In plain English, Parliament would finally have to ask whether Canada's public airwaves are being used to connect people or if we are letting an outdated system limp along while rural communities are left buffering and paying full price for next to no service at times.

It is amazing that we have become accustomed to this issue. In any other part of life, people would be furious to pay full price for a service if it only worked half the time at best. Imagine buying a new truck and it randomly just stops working while driving down certain roads. Imagine ordering home Internet to be told that it works wonderfully, except if someone tries to use it. Nobody would accept these services, yet with cell service, too many people have been trained to just shrug it off as if that it is just the way it is. People know where the call will drop, so they avoid making calls, and if they live in that area, I guess they just do not make calls from their own house without a land line. They know where they cannot send a text, they know what corner of the house gets that service consistently, and they know that stretch of road where they are just out of luck.

Simply, they have adapted to bad service, but that does not make it okay. Even worse, they are expected to accept this from some of the biggest and most profitable telecom companies in the country. At some point, we have to stop treating bad cellphone service like bad weather, as if it just happens and there cannot be anything done about it.

This is the conversation that Parliament is long overdue to have, and it is why Conservatives believe this bill should go to committee for study. At committee, members should hear from those rural municipalities and from our first responders, who understand the public safety risks. They should hear from industry stakeholders about the barriers to deployment and from the regulators about how coverage is measured and, most importantly, verified.

We need to make sure this work leads to the problem being fixed, however. The last thing we need is another taxpayer-funded paperweight. A spectrum policy that only works on paper does not work, at least for the people I represent. A coverage claim that falls apart the moment someone leaves town is not good enough.

For Conservatives, the test is simple. Does federal spectrum policy help get service to people who need it, yes or no? That should be the starting point of this conversation, not whether the consultation process checks every box or whether the department can point to another strategy, another target or another dashboard on some website. The question is whether the person on the rural road, the farmer in his field or his yard, the family at the lake and the small business owner heading through bad weather can connect when it matters most to them.

Does it support competition? People are tired of being told to be grateful for whatever service the few companies decide to provide us. Competition is supposed to mean more choice, better prices, better service and a real reason for service providers to have to fight for their customers. If spectrum policy lets the big players sit comfortably on public airwaves while new entrants struggle to gain a foothold, then the system is not working.

Does it encourage investment in our country? At the end of the day, speeches do not build cellphone towers, and press releases do not expand coverage. People need this infrastructure. The rules should reward deployment, reduce unnecessary delays and create confidence for companies willing to build, especially in places where the business case is harder. A serious spectrum policy should help to get service built where it is needed, not simply where it is easiest.

Does it make better use of a public resource? Spectrum belongs to the public and should not be treated like private property for companies to hoard, because communities will continue to go without the service. If public airwaves are licensed out, people should expect public benefit in return.

Finally, does it recognize that rural Canada cannot be treated as an afterthought? Rural people pay many of the bills for this country. They run businesses. They grow our food. They move the goods we all need across this country. They volunteer in fire halls. They drive long distances, they face tough weather, and they keep our rural communities going and our nation going. They should not be expected to accept second-class service.

Those are the questions I believe this committee should examine. At second reading, we are voting on the principle of the bill. We believe that coverage data should be accurate and rural and remote connectivity should be taken seriously. That does not mean every word in the bill, as I see it, is perfect. It means the issue is real enough, serious enough and urgent enough that it deserves proper study. We can support sending this bill to committee so members can hear from the people closest to the problem, test the evidence, ask the hard questions and make sure the focus stays where it belongs: on better service, accountability, more competition and public safety.

We will also be clear that the government has had years to deal with these problems. Rural dead zones did not appear yesterday. The framework did not suddenly become outdated just last week. People have been raising these concerns for a long time. The bill opens the door to greater scrutiny. The question now is whether Parliament will do more than wring its hands, because in 2026, nobody should have to wonder whether their phone will work when they pick it up to use it and need it most.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-268, the spectrum policy framework for Canada act, first and foremost because of my previous career working in information technology. The wireless spectrum was taught to me when I took computer engineering technology at Lambton College in Sarnia, and also, from time to time, the wireless spectrum was discussed in my information technology career. However, today, this act addresses a foundational yet often overlooked pillar of Canada's digital economy: how we manage and govern the wireless spectrum.

Spectrum is not an abstract concept. It is invisible infrastructure that powers our phones, enables emergency communications, connects businesses and supports the daily lives of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. In a modern economy, access to reliable connectivity is not a luxury; it is a necessity.

Despite its importance, Canada's spectrum policy framework has not been formally updated since 2007. Nearly two decades have passed without a legislative requirement to review, modernize or even systematically evaluate how this critical public resource is being managed. In that time, the world has changed dramatically. Technology has advanced. Data consumption has surged. Entire sectors of our economy have become digitally dependent, but our framework has not kept pace.

At its core, Bill C-268 introduces three key elements: verification, accountability and transparency.

First, the bill would require the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, to establish a process to verify the accuracy of mobile network coverage data submitted by telecommunications providers. This is not a minor technical adjustment; it addresses a long-standing concern that coverage maps are largely based on self-reported data from carriers.

When Canadians are told that they have service, they expect that service to work, not just in theory, but in practice. Too often, that is not the case. We have all heard stories of dropped calls on major highways, lack of signal in rural communities, lack of signal in one area of someone's residence when there is signal at the other end of the residence, and unreliable connectivity in remote regions. These are not isolated inconveniences. They are systematic issues with real consequences. For a family travelling on a remote road, a lack of signal can mean no access to emergency services. For a small business, it can mean lost revenue. For indigenous and northern communities, it can mean continued exclusion from the digital economy.

Accurate data is the foundation of good policy. Without it, we cannot identify gaps, allocate resources effectively or hold providers accountable.

Second, Bill C-268 would mandate a comprehensive review of Canada's spectrum policy framework within 18 months of the act's coming into force. This is a critical step. For too long, updates to the framework have occurred on an ad hoc basis through departmental processes without a structured, legislated requirement for review—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member. The time has elapsed for Private Members' Business. He will be able to take up the balance of his time when this matter next comes up.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. The order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from May 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-268, An Act respecting the Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[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.