Industry and Technology Committee on Oct. 6th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Colleagues, we are going to get under way here.

I want to explain a couple of things in terms of clause-by-clause. First of all, we have a few new faces. We have Michelle and Andrew, who are here from the legal services in House administration. Their job is to help shepherd us through the process.

We have Andre Arbour, who is here from ISED, and Mr. Kellison will be joining us shortly. They're here to answer questions that you may have on the specifics of the bill, whereas Andrew and Michelle will be here on the legalities of it.

I know we have a few members who have not gone through this process before, so feel free to ask questions if you're unsure of how things should proceed. Essentially, clause-by-clause, as the name suggests, is the specific examination of each clause or section of the bill before us. It is our responsibility, at the committee stage of a piece of legislation, to review it; to either amend or not amend it, based on the majority view of the committee; and then to provide the bill back, in whatever form it takes, to the House. It will then go through its final stages of reporting and third reading.

As I said, because it's our first time, in particular, and it's a relatively short bill, feel free to ask questions. We really want to make sure that the environment is one where members feel comfortable with what we're doing.

The very first thing that we have to go through is as follows. Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, and of the preamble is postponed. We'll get back to them.

(On clause 2)

The chair calls clause 2.

Mr. Ste‑Marie, go ahead.

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

Thank you. Sorry to bother you.

I'll be voting in favour of the clause, but since we have the industry officials here and given that we just heard from the CRTC representatives, I'd like the industry officials to clarify something, first. This should be the only time I ask such a question.

The CRTC officials told us the commission has a fund to improve cellular connectivity. The department has one too, and Quebec has a program.

In order to transfer the CRTC funding, as was done in the case of Internet connectivity, could the department just ask, or would a legislative change be necessary?

This will be the only time I ask a question like this. If the witnesses don't know the answer, they can get back to us in writing.

[Andre Arbour, Director General, Telecommunications Policy Branch, Department of Industry]

I'd like to thank the member for the question.

This bill doesn't affect the CRTC fund. What's more, ISED's universal broadband fund provides some flexibility.

There is no direct effect. There are benefits tied to the accuracy of the available data.

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

Sorry, but I'm going to stop you there. Thank you, and I fully understand what you're saying.

Can you get back to us with a written answer on the CRTC-administered fund? Would a legislative change be necessary to transfer the funding to another program that wasn't administered by the CRTC?

My question has to do with what the CRTC officials told us.

[Andre Arbour]

Thank you for clarifying.

If funding were transferred between the CRTC and another federal organization, it would have a huge impact, quite frankly, since the CRTC is an independent tribunal. The Financial Administration Act would also come into play in the case of a department like ISED. Yes, it would be quite a big deal.

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

That's very clear. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

Colleagues, just to clarify as well, in looking at the bill, you may see, for example, “2” and then, in parentheses, “1”, and then “2” after, with “1” being the subclause. When we are adopting a clause, we are adopting everything within that clause. In other words, we don't do “2” and parentheses “1” and “2” independent of one another. When we're adopting, they're being adopted together.

Does that make sense?

Shall clause 2 carry?

(Clause 2 agreed to)

Shall clause 3 carry?

(Clause 3 agreed to)

(On clause 4)

On clause 4, Mr. Groleau, would you like to move your amendment, sir?

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Yes, I assume my fellow members received the amendments.

Given the breakneck speed of technological change and the CRTC's failure to serve our regions, Beauce and all other rural areas in Canada, even though we've been fighting for years for a network, I don't think it's unreasonable to require that a review be undertaken every two years.

I am therefore asking my fellow members to support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Groleau.

Colleagues, for clarification purposes, the amendment has been moved, much like during any other motion. It is now up for debate. Once debate has subsided, we will call the question as to whether we want to adopt the motion.

Go ahead, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just asked the CRTC officials what they thought of such an amendment, whereby the review would have to be carried out every two years instead of every five years. They said they had an ongoing process, so they would have no problem with a review every two years instead of every five. For that reason, I will support the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you.

Mr. Bardeesy, you may go ahead.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you.

I thank my fellow members for their comments, and I understand the spirit behind them.

In the bill, I think the most important thing is to trigger the process, something that hasn't been undertaken in nearly two decades. The bill forces the department to develop the spectrum policy and report on it. We feel it is very important to trigger the process.

I appreciate the point about technological change, but I worry that the requirement to undertake a review every two years would be too onerous for the department, staff and companies. A review every five years provides time to create the maps. It also gives companies time to respond to the creation of the maps and policy. Making them respond every two years would likely disrupt, not speed up, the progress we need.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you.

Seeing no further speakers, I will call the question on whether the CPC-1 amendment should carry. Because we are in clause-by-clause on a piece of legislation, colleagues, we're going to be more formal in the recording of the vote than we might otherwise be.

Madam Clerk, I'll ask you to take the vote please.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Colleagues, the amendment has been defeated. We now move on to the adoption of clause 4, unamended. I'm going to look for support here.

(Clause 4 agreed to)

Shall the short title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Shall the preamble carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Shall the bill carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Shall the chair report the bill to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Colleagues, that concludes our clause-by-clause revision of Bill C-268. I want to thank Mr. Kellison and Mr. Arbour for hustling down here earlier than we had scheduled. The same goes to our folks from legal here.

Colleagues, I'm going to suspend, but before I do, I'm looking for consent from the committee to move us into consideration of our draft reports. We have an hour remaining in this meeting as scheduled, and we need to look at our AI report. In discussions with colleagues, I didn't hear any opposition to that, but I'm just looking for consent to move us, following the suspension, into consideration of our draft report on AI.

Seeing no opposition, I'll consider that to be the will of the committee. We're going to briefly suspend.

[Proceedings continue in camera]