Debates of Nov. 2nd, 2023

Radiocommunication Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this is interesting subject matter. I do not believe it would be in our best interest, ultimately, to see Bill S-242 pass. I understand that the Bloc in particular came up with an alternative idea of having the matter brought forward to a standing committee. I do believe there is a great deal of merit in that.

What we are talking about is an issue that I think there would be a great deal of sympathy toward. I care deeply about rural Manitoba, and at the end of the day, whether one is north of Dauphin or in any region in the province of Manitoba, we would like to deliver a modern spectrum that would incorporate rural connectivity. I think that is really important, and it is very admirable to see what we can do as a House to better facilitate that maximum connection. I do not believe that the bill itself would achieve that. I think it could add a great many complications and there could be some side effects that members would not necessarily want to see, like the billions of dollars in licences that have already been given out over the last decade and how that could potentially be jeopardizing. There are some very well-defined timelines that are being incorporated into the legislation.

I do not think that would be the intent of what the mover was suggesting. I think the intent is wanting to see more rural connectivity, like I do. That is why I think the INDU standing committee is well positioned. I believe it might actually be initiating a study on it now. I would like to allow that standing committee to continue to do the study, and hopefully we can come up with some good ideas as to how we can achieve two things: dealing with spectrum deployment and meeting the needs of rural connectivity. To me, a big part of it is about the infrastructure. We need to recognize that we need more infrastructure in our rural communities. I had the good fortune of being able to acquire a relatively modest cottage in Sandy Hook, between Winnipeg Beach and Gimli. Even though it is only 45 minutes away from the city of Winnipeg, there are some connectivity problems there. We now see fibre optics being brought into more rural communities in Manitoba.

Interestingly enough, the other day I was talking about the Canada Infrastructure Bank. One of the projects through the Canada Infrastructure Bank is rural connectivity. The point is that whether it is the private sector or government working and encouraging this through the possible spectrum auctions that take place, we should be doing what we can to encourage connectivity. That is why I was glad to see the Canada Infrastructure Bank had that as a project. Manitoba is not alone; it is one province that is actually dealing with some of the infrastructure through that particular bank. I am hoping the Conservatives might change their opinions on the Canada Infrastructure Bank, especially if they take a look at all the different projects out there.

Why is connectivity so important? I believe it is one of the ways in which we can ensure ongoing rural economic diversity. We can look at what is on the web today. There are a number of small businesses. We often hear about small businesses being the backbone of Canada's economy. I go to some smaller workshops and community gatherings where there are small business entrepreneurs getting their businesses up and running.

One of the things we will always find on their business cards is a QR code, which we can take a picture of to go to their website, where we will find amazing products being sold through the Internet. The nice thing about this is that we can live anywhere and do not have to be in the big cities, whether it be Winnipeg, Edmonton, Regina, Toronto, Vancouver or wherever. The Internet can play an important role in levelling the field, providing opportunities for people in rural communities that were never there before. I see that as a positive thing.

When we talk about the issue of spectrum deployment and going forward, I think that the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, or INDU, is doing its job in coming up with some ideas and recommendations of how we can incorporate these ideas when we do auction off spectrum so that all Canadians would be able to benefit by it. People would be surprised by the number of communities where a dial tone is virtually the best they are going to get in terms of speed, it would seem, at times.

The need to move on this is important, but I do not believe that Bill S-242 is going to advance the cause to the degree some might imply. In fact, it could be the opposite and could cause more damage. For that reason, I will not be supporting the bill. I would encourage members to go to the INDU committee and let us see it do some wonderful work and come up with some recommendations, because I am sure that it will.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising this evening to speak to Bill S‑242, an act to amend the Radiocommunication Act, an issue that I care a lot about. I have championed this issue since I was elected in 2019, and yet here we still are four years later.

I want to paint a picture of what is happening in Laurentides—Labelle in this regard. I want to show my colleagues this wonderful riding, but they better not get lost because, quite honestly, there are many roads in Laurentides—Labelle where the GPS cuts out because there is no signal. People do not have to bring their phone if they come to visit us. Is that acceptable in 2023?

I want to take 30 seconds to name some of the 43 municipalities in Laurentides—Labelle. They include Sainte‑Lucie‑des‑Laurentides, Sainte‑Agathe‑des‑Monts, Lac‑Supérieur, Lac‑Tremblant‑Nord, Mont‑Blanc, Notre‑Dame‑du‑Laus, Notre‑Dame‑de‑Pontmain and Ferme‑Neuve. I will not name them all, but nearly all of them have areas where there is no cell coverage. Cell connectivity is not just intermittent but completely lacking in some cases. I have experienced it myself many times.

I am thinking of Sainte‑Lucie‑des‑Laurentides in particular. There is no signal next to city hall. It is not the time to get lost in the woods, and having a good sense of direction is key. We are talking here about 1,475 residents who are held hostage by a lack of service, which is, quite frankly, essential in 2023. This is also a community whose economic, social and community development is being hampered by this lack of service, which should be essential.

As everyone knows, the housing crisis has reached every corner of Quebec, and Laurentides—Labelle is no exception. Sainte‑Lucie‑des‑Laurentides would like to attract real estate projects, welcome new residents and offer them a dignified place to live, but it has to wait. A major obstacle stands in the way. Unfortunately, a lack of cellphone service has put a damper on all potential plans, and the municipality is paying the price.

In 2023, what are people being told? Are they being urged to come live in Sainte‑Lucie‑des‑Laurentides for an outstanding lifestyle surrounded by lakes, rivers, hiking trails and even a child care centre, as long as they can do without their cellphone because the area has no signal? It is the same story for other municipalities in Laurentides—Labelle. Only the names change.

I can think of another example. Let us imagine an entrepreneur, the president of a small business, who has to set his cellphone on the kitchen table to be able to work, to have the slightest access to the network. There is almost no chance of teleworking, with a network that cuts out every two seconds. How can anyone be efficient? I think this is unacceptable.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, I really care about the issue of cell coverage. During the 2019 election campaign, however, I quickly realized how much the Liberals were ignoring the issue. I also quickly realized how important this issue is to Quebeckers and Canadians. It is even a question of public safety. When people in a municipality tell us that, during a power outage, they have to knock on neighbours' doors because the Internet, cellphones, landlines and wireless phones at home do not work, that is another matter altogether. It is a question of public safety.

In recent years, the mayors of the 43 municipalities in Laurentides—Labelle signed a letter. The reeve of the Pays‑d'en‑Haut RCM also signed the letter, which was sent to the former economic development minister, the member for Ahuntsic-Cartierville. Twenty-four resolutions from 24 municipal councils calling on the federal government to take action were tabled in the House.

I even sponsored a petition started by an individual named Lynne Gornon. I applaud her mettle and hard work. She asked the federal government to work with big telecoms to build cell towers in rural areas quickly for public safety reasons. Thanks to grassroots efforts, the petition garnered nearly 3,500 signatures in a matter of weeks. Since then, nothing has happened, nothing at all. That is a difficult thing to explain to people, and it is hard to make the claim that this is an important file.

Along my route from here to home, I go through about 10 places where there is no cell service. I just found out that I can make a call with a signal if my car breaks down. I cannot actually call someone, but apparently I can call 911 if I have to. I hope I never have to try.

Why is the federal government doing nothing? If this is so important, why is it not doing something?

Let us talk about the bill before us. Telecommunications companies can acquire spectrum licences during auctions organized by the federal government, but they are not required to use them in their entirety. That is what happens and it does not sit well with us. For rural and remote areas, the licence ends up being unused, which does not serve the public. The bill will not be favourable to our proposal.

It is not that the objective of connecting every under-serviced area is not commendable. We believe that if the bill is referred to committee, a tremendous amount of amendments will need to be made. From the outset, we will have to ask stakeholders to testify to give us answers to some of our questions so that we know, as legislators, whether this is viable. In its current form, the bill is not the right vehicle to meet the objective, even though I agree this is an urgent problem.

This study in committee will allow us to have a bill that is much more comprehensive and better overall, allowing us to respond more favourably to potential investments.

I would like to talk about how the spectrum areas are managed. This could help the people who are watching us to understand this issue. This could be delegated to the Government of Quebec. As in all areas, the Government of Quebec is well positioned to know and recognize the most pressing needs of its communities. It has proven it. With operation high speed, Quebec managed to gradually meet its objectives.

The Government of Quebec's commitment and dedication in this particular matter show that we are capable of implementing ambitious connectivity strategies for Quebeckers. Finally, I think it is worrisome that the bill gives additional powers to the CRTC, particularly with regard to the management of spectrum areas and auctions.

It is of the utmost importance to me that the federal laws and Quebec's provincial laws complement one another rather than compete against one another. We need to think about our constituents. I think that sending the bill to committee is a good idea.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise and offer my thoughts on Bill S-242, which was first introduced into the Senate by Senator Dennis Glen Patterson of Nunavut and, of course, the bill is being sponsored here in the House by the member for Bay of Quinte.

Essentially, what we need to discuss with respect to this bill is spectrum. A lot of people may wonder what that is.

I would say, first and foremost, that it is a very important public resource. It is essentially the resource that refers to the range of frequencies used for wireless communications, such as Wi-Fi and cell service. These are services that many of us take for granted, especially in urban areas and in work environments such as this.

Every time we pull our phone out, we just know that we are going to have access to the Internet and to important information. It allows us near-instantaneous communication with many of our work colleagues and our constituents, even though the constituents that I represent are three time zones away from Ottawa.

There are different lanes, or frequency bands, within the wireless spectrum. They all have different speed limits, and each is suited to a different type of data traffic. The government's job in this is to regulate and allocate frequency bands to different companies and organizations for use to ensure that there is enough spectrum available for everyone and that different devices can communicate without interfering with one another.

That regulation of wireless spectrum is the responsibility of one department, that is, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. ISED is responsible for developing and implementing policies and programs related to the efficient and effective use of spectrum resource. This includes licensing and allocating spectrum to various users, such as wireless carriers, broadcasters and government agencies. The decisions that ISED makes affects how quickly Canadians are connected.

I want to talk about rural Canada, especially my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. My riding is about 4,700 square kilometres of beautiful southern Vancouver Island real estate, and it is a very rural riding. I would say that about 90% of my riding's population lives along the east coast of Vancouver Island, going from Chemainus down to Langford. The most beautiful part of my riding, I would argue, is over on the southwest coast.

When a person is driving up to Lake Cowichan, gets down to Mesachie Lake and takes a left turn to go to Port Renfrew, they know that they are out of luck in terms of cell service until they get to the water's edge. This happens within a few kilometres of having departed the highway.

There are significant geographical chunks of my riding where, when one is out there, one does not have access to cell service. Indeed, this is true for most of British Columbia.

I acknowledge that British Columbia is a very complex province to get these services to. This is because of our terrain. We are the most mountainous province. It is a source of great pride and great beauty, but it comes with its challenges when one lives there. The mountains make a perfect physical barrier between two devices trying to connect with one another.

My constituents are experiencing these problems but, right across Canada, we know that the stats show a picture in which 63% of rural households do not have access to high-speed broadband. That includes 14% of highways and major transport roads that do not have access to LTE wireless services, the really fast kind of wireless service.

Up in the Northwest Territories, Yukon and Nunavut, no households have access to high-speed broadband. Moreover, 72% of highways and major transport roads do not have access to LTE wireless services.

This is a critical service that is important in connecting us to the outside world, to safety services and for our work. However, so much of rural Canada still does not have access to that.

The Canadian Internet Registration Authority released 2021 data as a part of its Internet performance test. This showed that the median rural download speeds were measured at 3.78 megabits per second, compared with an astounding 44 megabits per second in urban Canada, a difference of 11.7 times.

The digital divide between urban and rural Canada is starkly seen in these statistics. We know that urban speeds have actually been climbing, while the rural Canadian upload speeds, on average, are falling and have not been keeping the same pace.

Let us turn to Bill S-242. I was looking at the introduction speeches in the Senate and here in the House, and I have looked at how other colleagues have responded to the bill. I think the senator who sponsored the bill in the other place summed it up quite well when he said that the bill is essentially the “use it or lose it” bill.

Bill S-242 would essentially amend Canada's spectrum policy to ensure that this very important and critical resource is used to connect Canadians and is not used as a vehicle for billionaires to be trading back and forth with one another. It would require that all spectrum licence holders deploy spectrum to 50% of the population within prescribed geographic regions contained in the licence area, known as tier 5 areas, within three years of acquiring the licence. It would ensure that those buying larger licence areas would not be able to meet deployment conditions simply by deploying to the urban areas within those larger tiers. They would also be required to service the smaller rural and remote areas nestled within. It would give the minister the flexibility to decide whether to revoke the entire licence outright or to reallocate those tier 5 areas within the licence to other providers that are ready and able to service the underserved areas.

There is also a third component to the bill, which is a civil liability clause. The intent of this clause is to ensure that if the licence holder, by acting in bad faith, does not meet the deployment conditions and has had its licence revoked, the population that had been serviced by it and had the service lost due to the revocation could initiate a civil claim for damages.

I will conclude by saying that we have a situation here in Canada where, if we look at the history of spectrum sales and allocation, we know that the Canadian government, over time, has been deeply discounting spectrum for smaller regional carriers that have consistently failed to deploy it. There are areas all across this great country of ours that are sitting unserved by broadband because of limited access to the spectrum resources. It is a scarce public resource, but it has been squandered because it has been licensed to regional carriers that have preferred to flip it for profit rather than improve the lives of the Canadians it is supposed to serve. This is very important, because it is estimated that next-generation 5G connectivity will add billions of dollars to Canada's GDP over the next half-decade. The lack of reliable connectivity in rural communities is depriving them of access to the 21st-century economy and all the opportunities that it has.

As the NDP's agriculture critic, I know that in rural communities right across the country, with the incredible advancements in agricultural technology and innovation, connectivity to the Internet is so crucial, especially with the next-generation machinery that is coming out, with its ability and artificial intelligence. If we want our farmers to stay on the cutting edge of agricultural technology and to continuously punch above their weight as the agricultural powerhouse that is Canada, we need to solve this problem and make sure that connectivity is where our farmers are doing their important work for our country.

Fundamentally, Bill S-242 is about making sure that those who buy spectrum actually use it. When somebody buys a public resource, especially at significant discounts, as has been our country's history, they should be buying an obligation to connect Canadians. This is an essential service. We must find pieces of legislation that would protect it and protect consumers, and that is why I am proud to say that I will be voting in favour of the bill's going to committee for further study. I believe there is an opportunity for some amendments to be made there. I look forward to listening to other colleague's comments.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the opportunity to talk about a bill from a senator who has become a great friend. The senator is from Nunavut, with a lot of deep history in Nunavut and Northwest Territories even before the boundaries had been reformed.

Many call this the “use it or lose it bill”, but I think it should be called the “connecting Nunavut, Northwest Territories, Yukon and northern Canadian communities bill”, because that is what it is about. My file, officially, is shadow minister for northern affairs, Arctic sovereignty and northern economic development. Connectivity is absolutely imperative now. It is across the country, but even more so in these remote communities that we represent.

I was a little puzzled. I heard the Liberal member across the way say that they were not going to support the legislation. I am troubled by that, in that it has been said, and I have said it before, that the NDP-Liberal government has abandoned the Arctic. By opposing this bill, it just further proves that that is exactly what is happening.

I am going to get into what the bill is, and I am going to give Senator Patterson a lot of credit. This is from his summary:

My name is Dennis Patterson....serving as Senator for Nunavut since 2009. Prior to that I served as a 4-term Member of the Legislative Assembly for the Northwest Territories (pre-division) representing the riding of Frobisher Bay, now known as Iqaluit. I spent 16 years in office as a senior minister and spent 4 of those years as Premier.

Given the remoteness of my region, adequate and reliable access to internet services was a major focus of mine during my time in office and I have continued to work hard on the issues during my time in the Senate. In today's society, access to internet is much more than recreational; we have become increasingly reliant on internet for a host of things that include, but are not limited to, work, school, the administration of justice and health applications.

Use-It/Lose-It is the policy that those who buy spectrum are taking on an obligation to deliver services to Canadians. It sets out that if you get a fair chance to use your spectrum, and if you don't, the government should take it away and give it to someone who will use it. This policy treats spectrum like the public utility that it is.

I could not agree more. There are examples where somebody had said, “buy it and flip it” for a huge profit, without building a stick of infrastructure that is very important.

I want to give a shout-out to some of my fellow shadow ministers for their work on this. The shadow minister for innovation, science and economic development, the shadow minister for pan-Canadian trade and competition, and the shadow minister for rural economic development and connectivity are all doing great work on this.

In summary, for the people who are watching today, including residents from Nunavut, Yukon and Northwest Territories and northern parts of Canada, the bill would implement a “use it or lose it” approach to licence spectrum. The legislation would force licence spectrum holders “to deploy the spectrum to provide service to at least 50% of the population within the geographic area covered by the spectrum licence, within three years of the licence's issuance” or potentially have the licence revoked.

The bill permits the minister to revoke the spectrum licences that do not abide by the aforementioned regulations, and the minister must, within 60 days, reissue the revoked licences to competitive bidders.

One of my colleagues, the shadow minister for pan-Canadian trade and competition has spoken about how we have the most expensive cellular service, Internet services in the world. What I would expect from that, as I think every Canadian should, no matter whether they are from Iqaluit or Toronto, is that these big telcos, that are making huge amounts of money, would be building infrastructure in the remote communities. That really comes with getting that spectrum. It is expected, and this bill would set out to make that the way it is going to be.

I am just going to refer to an article from the Nunatsiaq News. This is one of the publications specifically in Nunavut.

Nunavut senator touts law that could improve communications in North.

Patterson said his bill, which passed third reading in the Senate on April 20, would improve access to wireless services in rural and underserved communities like those in Nunavut.

The senator went on to say, “What's happening now is that telecom companies who are operating are tending to favour larger communities, so we have a disparity in services such as they are between the larger and smaller communities.”

As an example of how telecom companies flip spectrum and make hundreds of millions of dollars while doing nothing for our local communities, the article says, “He said in 2008, Shaw Communications bought a particular spectrum licence for $190 million and sold that licence for $350 million in 2013. Then in 2017, Shaw purchased another spectrum licence from a company called Vidéotron for $430 million, which netted Vidéotron a $243-million profit.” This is all while building zero infrastructure in Canada, but in the north especially, in communities that need it desperately. The senator said, “Broadband access is critical to Nunavut in particular because of the vital services that we rely on here, including health and telehealth, education, business and economic development and communications with the broader world.”

Part of my role is economic development in northern regions in our country. I have been to all three territories several times, and a common topic of conversation is connectivity. Residents in those communities order from Amazon, as we all do, but they do not just order things; they order food in many cases because they cannot access it in their remote communities. It is therefore even more necessary that they have good connectivity.

I have known Senator Patterson for many years, and anybody in this place who has ever met the senator will know that he has a passionate desire to serve not just the region of Nunavut but the people of Nunavut and the north. Anytime someone speaks to him, he has a sealskin vest on or something with sealskin made by a local in one of the communities he represents. He always has a smile for the north. Those in the room might not know, but he is reaching age 75 pretty quickly and soon will no longer be in the Senate chamber. We will miss him there. I want to give him a lot of credit for advocating for people in the north and the things that really matter in the north. I know he is doing his best with this.

The bill has gone through the Senate and is in this chamber, and while I have accused the Liberals of abandoning the north, it is an opportunity for them to support the north and make this happen. However, we have to look at it in a different way, as a geographical area. It is a geographical area with real people who rely on connectivity for their daily lives, as I just said, including for food and health. It does not get more important than that.

This is such an easy thing for the government to support. Hearing the member from Manitoba say Liberals are going to oppose this bill is surprising to me. I should not say “surprising”. It is upsetting to me. However, as I have said many times before, the NDP-Liberal government has abandoned the north. I would challenge members to change the direction they are going on this bill and prove to residents of Nunavut, Yukon and Northwest Territories that they support them and that they indeed have not abandoned the north. I will leave it up to them to make that decision.

The viewers tonight can see the way the government is going to vote on the bill. If it votes in favour of this bill, good; if it votes no, it again proves my point that the NDP-Liberal government has abandoned the north.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the importance of universal connectivity and the importance of putting wireless spectrum to use to achieve that objective. I am also pleased to speak about the steps that our government is already taking to see that Canadians from coast to coast to coast benefit from affordable high-speed Internet and cellphone service.

When I was elected four years ago, over 5,000 households in my riding did not have access to suitable high-speed Internet. I am very glad to say that in the last four years, we have cut that number in more than half. There are less than 1,500 that still need an upgrade in service, and we are working day and night to make sure that happens.

Today, 93.5% of Canadians have access to high-speed Internet, compared with 79% in 2014. More than 99.7% of Canadians have cell phone coverage. That said, we want to do more. Our government is committed to universal Internet connectivity. That is why, since 2016, our government have committed more than $7.6 billion in funding to expand broadband services. It is working. We are on track to reach 98% coverage by 2026 and 100% coverage by 2030.

Since 2016, our government has also more than doubled the amount of spectrum available for mobile services. Our spectrum rules are designed to complement our investments in high-speed Internet. We impose strict “use it or lose it” rules that require providers to meet increasingly ambitious deployment timelines and targets. For example, over the next few years, the rules we established for our recent 5G spectrum auctions will mean that the benefits of this spectrum will extend to 97% of our existing wireless network footprint, which covers 99% of Canadians. These rules improve services for millions of Canadians.

Our government is also implementing other “use it or lose it” spectrum policies. We recently announced a new licensing policy that will give easy local access to 5G spectrum for Internet service providers and innovative industries as well as rural, remote and indigenous communities. We are also strengthening older deployment requirements and developing policies that will give new users access to unused spectrum even in areas where deployment conditions have been met. These policies are designed to support rural connectivity and rural economic development and to provide essential access to indigenous communities.

Bill S-242 wants to ensure spectrum is put to work connecting Canadians, particularly those in rural and remote regions of Canada. Our government's actions make it clear we share this intent. While the goal of Bill S-242 is to be commended, I question whether it is the right vehicle to get us there.

I am concerned Bill S-242 would create several unintended consequences that, rather than improve connectivity, would let big players off the hook and actually reduce existing services. I worry it would limit competition, chill investment and increase costs for Canadians.

First, the bill would set a universal population coverage requirement for every spectrum licence issued. It is important to mention spectrum licences are issued for a wide variety of important services and not just for mobile and Internet access.

Bill S-242 would apply to all spectrum, regardless of its intended use. This includes spectrum used for things like firefighting, transportation, precision agriculture, municipal services, earth monitoring and national defence. These users would risk losing their spectrum under the framework Bill S-242 would create.

Bill S-242 would also be applied retroactively to spectrum where the rules have been made, creating uncertainty and disrupting investment plans. Investments are already rolling out on the basis of meaningful “use it or lose it” requirements. That includes for 5G spectrum auctioned only two years ago. Changing the rules now is unfair to businesses and it sends the wrong signal to attract future investments.

I am also concerned the bill's timelines and coverage requirements would be impossible for small providers, leaving only the largest players in the game. This would reduce competition and drive up prices for consumers at a time when we are trying to accomplish the opposite. More competition is a good thing.

Given all these uncertainties, I am concerned that Bill S‑242 would not even improve connectivity. In most regions, the 50% coverage required under the bill is much lower than the actual targets set for 5G spectrum, which can be up to 97% of a carrier's mobile network coverage. Collectively, these networks already serve 99% of Canadians. However, in very remote regions, these requirements are too stringent and could force service providers to close down and leave communities with no service at all.

That is why the government sets coverage targets based on various factors, and only after public consultation. These targets are becoming more and more ambitious, yet they are achievable and are designed to encourage investment and expansion in new regions over time.

Access to affordable and reliable high-speed Internet is a right of every Canadian, no matter where they live, and we are on a clear path to achieve it. While I applaud the intent of Bill S-242, the government will not be supporting the bill because it would clearly do more harm than good.

Spectrum is one of several elements that support universal connectivity. It goes hand in hand with other enablers, such as technology, infrastructure and investments. These tools are all backstopped by policies and programs designed to best leverage these elements for the benefit of all Canadians. A one-size-fits-all approach to spectrum management ignores that reality altogether.

Of course, that was not the bill's intent, but rushing into a legislative solution is not the best way to move forward. I congratulate the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue on his motion to study the telecommunications sector more broadly. A closer look at the factors limiting access to the regions that are hardest to serve, and the tools at our disposal to remove those barriers, will only bring us closer to our objectives.

We need to ensure that we have the right framework in place to encourage investment, lower prices and improve services for Canadians. At the same time, such a study could examine ways to improve the overall competitiveness of our wireless communications sector and ensure that Canadians have access to high-quality, affordable and reliable high-speed Internet services no matter where they live.

We continue to take steps to improve Internet connectivity and the availability of services in rural areas. We look forward to studying these issues further in committee in order to promote the objectives we all share.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is multi-faceted. Unfortunately, it is rigid and highly technical and urgently needs a number of amendments. It encompasses commercial interests, logistical issues, economic considerations and, for good measure, regional development and the vitality of rural and remote communities.

We are living in the 21st century. Our lives are not what they were in the last century. These days, everything has to move quickly. Access to bandwidth, commonly known as a network, is a necessity. Millions of people started teleworking during the pandemic, which shows that work habits are changing, and reliable, secure Internet access is a must.

In November 2018, the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development launched a consultation to determine whether creating a fifth tier was necessary, given spectrum saturation and the introduction of new technologies like 5G. Tier 5 is the very local spectrum, the smallest service areas. After several meetings, the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development concluded that it was indeed necessary to create these areas. By subdividing further, it became possible to improve broadcast coverage in rural and remote areas, providing coverage that tier 5 could not. That is where things stand right now.

Experts found that the least densely populated areas lacked adequate coverage and that telecommunications giants were buying usage rights to spectrum that they were not necessarily actively using. Experts explained that telecommunications giants chose to do nothing with this bandwidth. They turned it into a product for financial speculation so that they could resell the usage rights for much higher prices than the initial auction price. That is capitalism 101.

Currently, telecommunications companies can acquire spectrum licences at auctions organized by the federal government, but they are not required to use them in their entirety. This situation is problematic for remote, rural areas where a company can hold a licence for a certain range of frequencies, but because it is not considered economically viable, it remains unused and inaccessible to the public.

The wording in Bill S-242 is very rigid, as I said earlier. A major problem is that there are no provisions that would provide an incentive for the industry to invest. More specifically, there is nothing in the bill to require any consultation with the industry that could lead to the development of a strategy that would benefit all parties involved.

What is needed is a formula that shares the investment risk. Of course, absolutely no one is against connecting people in remote areas or who are underserved, but at the same time, it is critically important to ask questions and call things as they are. Is any reasonable person going to put up a $1-million tower and provide expensive annual maintenance and upgrades in a place that can only be accessed by air? We will have to talk about the importance of public service.

The answer to that question may be obvious, but I would say that, in this particular case, it is not quite that obvious, and there could be loopholes. If the bill goes to committee, the Bloc believes it will need extensive amendment and stakeholders will have to testify so lawmakers can come up with an effective public policy. In its current form, this piece of legislation is not the right way to achieve those goals.

The bill does not take into account the interests of co-operatives and businesses or provincial and territorial efforts to connect the most remote communities. If the federal government wants to move forward, the risk has to be shared. No private company, no matter how big, is going to invest in sparsely populated areas where the investment and the operating costs eclipse any possibility of realizing a marginal profit.

Presumably areas of commercial interest, those likely to produce a profit, are already covered by companies or co-operatives. The reason some regions are poorly served or not connected is that existing policies offer companies no incentive to fill those gaps. That said, all telecom observers and experts agree that more competition in this key economic sector is absolutely necessary.

The telecommunications share of Canada's GDP is constantly growing. The government's shift to digital in areas such as health records, distance learning, income tax returns, car registrations—we know a thing or two about that in Quebec—is making Internet access even more critical. Then there are the numerous businesses that are transforming their operations by migrating to the Internet. Not being connected in 2023 leaves people vulnerable and excluded from new ways of interacting with the government. I would even go so far as to say that it excludes them from society.

Ottawa promised 98% high-speed Internet connectivity by 2026 and 100% by 2030. Comparing data from CPAC, or the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada, and the CRTC, one quickly realizes that Canadians will have to perform a major national blitz to achieve this ambitious goal.

Quebec, however, grabbed the bull by the horns in 2021. That year, the Quebec government launched its Opération haute vitesse, or operation high speed, which was spearheaded by the province's high-speed Internet and special connectivity projects secretariat. The aim is to provide coverage to the 250,000 Quebec households that, despite private initiatives by providers and financial incentives from government programs, do not have access to adequate coverage in their region.

It is Quebec's department of energy and natural resources that has the mandate to track the progress of the rollout of telecommunications services. There is no doubt that this initiative has accelerated the rollout of services, a problem that has gone on for far too long for many Quebeckers. My colleague from Laurentides—Labelle talked about that and said that it has been her cause since 2019.

In the context of the Government of Quebec's operation high speed, the preferred technology for making internet services accessible was fibre optics. However, there are all kinds of other technologies that can be used to connect every home: the coaxial cable, fixed wireless and the low Earth orbit satellite. Several technologies can be used.

Let us come back to Bill S‑242, which we are describing as very imperfect. It is not normal for countless communities to be so underserved or, worse yet, have no telecommunications service at all. Contrary to what people living in cities might believe, this does not only happen north of the 56th parallel. Again, my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle said it best. It is more important for federal and provincial laws to be complementary and not in competition than it is to think about strengthening the powers of the CRTC, which is what Bill S‑242 does.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The hon. member for Bay of Quinte with his right of reply.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank Senator Patterson for bringing this bill forward. I think he did the work he needed to do in the Senate. It has been very enjoyable to debate this bill and hear the responses from all members of Parliament.

Canadians understand that they pay some of the highest cell phone bills in the world, but some are surprised that they pay the highest cell phone rates and some of the highest Internet rates in the world. Rogers, Telus and Bell are numbers one, two and three of the priciest telecommunications carriers in 48 countries out of the whole planet. Canadians already know that they pay this.

However, the bill coming out of the Senate was to do one thing and one thing only: it was to tackle spectrum speculation, such as companies buying spectrum at auctions and then making money on that. The two examples we used were, first, Rogers, which had bought, in 2013, a bunch of spectrum, and only five years later it made a $189.5-million profit. It held that spectrum, and when the spectrum became valuable, it sold it. The second was Quebecor and Videotron. In 2008, it bought $96.4-million worth of spectrum and sold it for an $87.8-million profit just nine years later. This bill was only meant to look at spectrum speculation and to ensure that we tackle that.

The current spectrum rules say that a company who buys and keeps spectrum can hold it for 20 years and has to serve a population model only after 20 years. The new rules under this bill maintain that, after three years, a company would have to hit a 50% geographical area, meaning that it cannot just look at population. A lot of these providers are looking only at the city of Toronto and not hitting the northern portions of it, or to the riding of the member for Milton, who spoke earlier. They are looking at the denser populations but not outside of those.

What is most important about this bill, which normally I am against, is that it would give the minister a new power to decide what is best for a community, which means that the minister could decide if the auction was bought and was only speculative. The minister could then change that auction and ensure that it went to someone else. However, if a provider was attempting to develop an area that it was purposed for, then the minister could extend that auction and make sure that the area gets through by that auction. That is what this bill is all about: giving the minister more power to stop spectrum speculation.

What is the point of this? Well, some members have talked about that 60% of rural Canada, where seven million Canadians live, that is not being serviced by high-speech Internet, and when they are, they are served by American companies, such as Starlink and Xplore, which are both American owned and controlled. However, when we look at Canadian companies serving Canadian markets, especially in the north and rural Canada, this bill was to ensure that we have companies that do that.

Members talked about this does not quite do what they do, which is spectrum auction reform, meaning that we are going to look at the $9 billion that Canada makes that goes into general revenues and ensure that perhaps some of that needs to go back to rural Canada to connect the north and connect rural municipalities. We have 3,500 municipalities in Canada and only 94 of them are urban, which means that over 3,400 municipalities in Canada are rural. It would be best for all of us as MPs to look at rural strategies to look at this.

Most importantly, let us get rid of this spectrum speculation. This whole premise is an anomaly and it was a flaw in the original bill of spectrum auctions, which allowed companies to make money simply because they bought an asset that is publicly owned, a public resource. Spectrum is for all Canadians. When we look at this bill, and I think it is a good one coming from the Senate, it would ensure that we tackle that flaw in this bill and ensure that we then look at the future.

In the future, yes, we need more competition in Internet. We need more competition for cell phones. We do not just need a fourth carrier, we need 40 carriers to ensure that we look after Canadians' Internet needs and that all Canadians are connected to the Internet. We need it for health, for safety, and for employment, and we certainly need it for the prosperity of this great nation.

I am thankful for this opportunity. This is a great bill, and I hope everyone can support it.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

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.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 8, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Climate Change

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this evening's adjournment proceedings. I am pleased to be able to rise to pursue a question I originally asked on June 7 of this year.

It was in question period and I had the honour to address my question directly to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. We could actually feel the smoke in Parliament that day. I do not know how many of my colleagues remember that, but on June 7, the forest fires across Canada had reached the inside of Parliament. As I said in my question, the Ottawa bubble had been pierced by the reality of the climate crisis. We felt it in the chamber. There was smoke in our eyes. Our eyes were burning and it brought home forcibly that we are in a climate emergency.

My questions to the Prime Minister were directly about what a government would do if it understood that it was an emergency. I know the Liberals continually claim that they have done more for climate than any previous government. That is possibly true. Certainly, the climate plan put forward under the government was never as complete or as effective as it could have been if Paul Martin's government had not been brought down on November 28, 2005. Money was in place in the 2005 budget and the plans were stronger and more comprehensive.

However, here we are and it is 2023. Time is literally running out. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has told us clearly that in order to hold to 1.5ºC global average temperature increase, which is not a political goal but a goal required by physics and chemistry to ensure a livable climate for our kids, global greenhouse gas emissions must peak and begin to drop rapidly by 2025.

That is why António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, has said that continued investments in fossil fuels and fossil fuel infrastructure is “economic and moral madness”.

We started talking about the forest fires this year. All around the world, scientists have tracked Canada with alarm. We had a fire season that started earlier and lasted later. In total, it burned approximately 19 million hectares. We also had floods that took lives in Nova Scotia. We also had fires that extended as far as evacuating all of Yellowknife. Both in total area affected and in the number of people affected and lives disrupted, nothing should have said so clearly to the Liberals as this forest fire season that it is not enough to put in place policies on one hand to reduce greenhouse gases, if we keep subsidizing fossil fuels with the other hand.

Now is the time to bring in an excess profits tax on the fossil fuel industry, which is bringing in $4.2 billion as Motion No. 92 would have it. Now is the time to cancel the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion before wasting a single additional dollar of public money. Now is the time to say that if we are serious about reconciliation, we do not drive that pipeline through Stk’emlupsemc te Secwepemc Territory. Now is the time to understand this is an emergency and we act like it.

From now on, we take it so seriously that building fossil fuel infrastructure and expanding fossil fuel production will stop, and stop now.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see my friend and colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands on the screen, but it would be nicer to see her in the House. I hope she is feeling better soon and will be able to rejoin us, because I know she loves it here and does such great work.

It is extremely refreshing, after a couple of days in the House of arguing about whether climate change is real with the Conservative Party, and great to get a push in the opposite direction. I say this with all sincerity. Would it not be great if what we debated in this House of Commons was how to fight climate change and not whether to fight it?

In the last couple of years, the member for Carleton took over the reins of the Conservative Party; when it ditched Erin O'Toole, it ditched all progressive values and the word “climate change” from its vernacular, despite having run on a promise to price carbon. Conservatives deny that now. They say they never said that and that they do not believe in climate change. Today, when we were having a debate about carbon pricing, I heard some things from the other side that I prefer not to repeat and will keep off the record. Their climate change denialist rhetoric is not worthy of debate in this House.

I would like to thank the member for her questions, for her strong work and advocacy on climate action and for mentioning the climate emergency over and over in this House, because it needs repeating. We are not just in a climate emergency in Canada, but around the world. I can assure the House that the Government of Canada is taking this very seriously. As the member said, our government is the Canadian government that has done the most to advance our country on climate action.

It is also important to share some facts about the global energy future that we are advancing toward. The International Energy Agency projects that, by 2030, almost half of the world's electricity supply will come from renewables, and 80% of new electricity capacity from now until 2030 will be renewable. That is great news: Canada's electricity grid is already 80% renewable. Despite efforts from Danielle Smith, the Premier of Alberta, to put a moratorium on all new renewable energy projects, we will continue on that path.

In addition to all that, 50% of all new U.S. car registrations will be electric. Heat pumps and other electric heating systems will outsell fossil fuel boilers. We will continue to work in that direction; in order to ensure that Canada is able to seize the economic opportunity in front of us and stave off the climate emergency, we have invested in job-creating measures, such as renewable power development. In budget 2023, we announced a wave of strategic investments to continue our work to catalyze job creation and to attract international investors.

Let me provide a couple of examples of that progress.

In Nova Scotia, EverWind Fuels recently received approval from our government to build North America's first facility to produce hydrogen from renewables.

In Ontario, Volkswagen, Umicore, Stellantis, Marathon Palladium and others have decided to invest in our battery ecosystem, and we are supporting those investments.

These are great examples of getting projects built, whether by responsibly developing critical minerals in a manner that unlocks economic opportunities for rural and indigenous communities or by helping the next generation of steel and auto workers build the electric cars, buses and trucks that the world needs to displace fossil fuel vehicles.

I will highlight MTB in Milton, a truck company that is doing Canada's first ever diesel-to-electric city bus conversion. I am very proud of that.

Out west, we see big things happening in Saskatchewan. We are seeing BHP construct the largest potash mines in the world, to have among the lowest emissions. Cowessess First Nation has built one of the largest wind farms in the country. Sadly, Premier Smith's moratorium on renewable energy approvals is ongoing, but this has not stopped Alberta's renewable energy industry from pushing forward, and it will continue to do so.

I will be back in a moment with a soft rebuttal to my hon. friend and colleague.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that we need to have a sensible discussion in this place. The climate emergency is not going away; it is galloping on and threatening lives.

When we talk about affordability, we need to recognize that climate emergency events make life less affordable for everyone. In fact, they threaten our very lives, livelihoods and communities. We need to take the climate crisis far more seriously than we do. This means that the Liberals cannot continue to do one thing for climate and another for fossil fuels at the same time, all the time, and think that amounts to climate leadership. It does not.

We need to cancel the Trans Mountain pipeline. We are building it with public money. We are violating indigenous rights while building it. If it is finished and starts shipping diluted bitumen out in tankers in larger numbers, it is not a question of if but when there will be a major spill, despoiling the Salish Sea in ways that can never be cleaned up.

Please, for the love of God, we must take this seriously.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will just reiterate what a refreshing debate this has been to participate in.

I sincerely wish we could be having conversations in this House about how to fight climate change, not about whether to fight climate change, as with the Conservatives. Climate change is an existential threat. We are in an emergency, and the debate from the Conservatives over whether we should do the bare minimum is beyond the pale.

Fighting climate change is about creating good, sustainable jobs for generations to come and is not beyond our government, but it is so disappointing to see the Conservative Party of Canada filibustering the sustainable jobs act. Earlier today, the Canadian Labour Congress, which represents three million workers, called on Conservatives to end that debate. The Conservatives are also against Bill C-49.

It is astonishing what we have to tolerate in this House with respect to the level of debate when it comes to climate change. I once again thank my friend and colleague for her extraordinary leadership on this. I appreciate everything she does. I hope we can debate and have a conversation in person sometime very soon.

Oil and Gas Industry

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to ask a question I asked in this House just last week about the Impact Assessment Act and the Supreme Court's ruling that overturned the federal government's move on the Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-69. The government moved ahead despite everybody it could possibly consult with, including opposition parties, every provincial legislature, 100 first nation bands across Canada and many other parties, saying the Impact Assessment Act as written was unconstitutional and treaded on their rights. So many rights are expressed in legislation, yet this was ignored for so long.

The Government of Alberta was backed by nine provincial governments at various points in time throughout the process. It took four years because the reference case took two years to go through the appeal court system and then almost another two years to get to the Supreme Court of Canada. It was four years of lost economic activity and, effectively, constitutional strife in Canada. That is a long time.

How many projects were held up in Canada in that time? It was hundreds of billions of dollars in projects. Right now, 42 projects have not received an environmental assessment. About half of them are under the old regime, the one before the Impact Assessment Act, called the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which was passed by the previous government and effectively allowed a whole bunch of environmental assessments to be done.

What amazed me was the response I got from the parliamentary secretary for housing when I asked a question about the federal government's involvement in this. He said at that point in time that the previous government's legislation got nothing done and had a gutted process. We cannot have it both ways. I cannot say how many times I hear from the other side of the House that they have their cake and eat it too and that the old legislation they tried to fix did not get anything done and yet was gutless. We cannot have both those things at the same time, but that is the continued narrative I hear on this all the time. It bewilders me to some degree, because it contradicts itself in so many ways, but he said that.

This was supposed to deal with the fact that the Impact Assessment Act had to go back and get corrected as quickly as possible. Getting it corrected as quickly as possible would bring forward economic activity in Canada so we can get something done in this country again, including in all the provinces across Canada. This has to happen.

I think about all the economic activity that has been held up because of the uncertainty created by the Impact Assessment Act and how it has affected so many project proponents across Canada. It is an embarrassment. It is an international embarrassment too that so much capital, including Canadian investments, is being deployed elsewhere and not here in Canada. That includes the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. This is a travesty. We need to get over it as quickly as possible.

How do we do that? We could put forward legislation that is constitutional very quickly; stop sitting on our hands; take some lessons from some environmental advocates, environmental experts and constitutional experts; and listen to what they are saying: Stay in our lane, abide by our jurisdiction and get some proper legislation we can abide by in this country.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by reminding the hon. member for Calgary Centre that the Supreme Court of Canada's opinion on the constitutionality of the Impact Assessment Act confirmed that there is no doubt that Parliament can enact impact assessment legislation, so this government will stay in its lane and continue the 50-year-long tradition of assessments to support the environment and the economy, while respecting the boundaries clarified in the Supreme Court's opinion.

I would also remind my hon. colleague that the Impact Assessment Act was necessary to fix the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of 2012, which created uncertainty in timelines and lacked accountability. Canadians were calling for greater transparency, trust and confidence in the environmental assessment process after the introduction of CEAA 2012, a need which the current government responded to with the Impact Assessment Act.

I have some local context to this. There is a local project that was assessed under the Environmental Assessment Act, and it had a tragic outcome, I will say. The Impact Assessment Act sought to create a better set of rules that respect the environment and indigenous rights, and that ensures that projects are assessed in a timely way. In fact, the government recently approved the Cedar LNG project under the Impact Assessment Act, working closely with the Government of British Columbia. Colleagues will not hear that from the member for Calgary Centre or any Conservative who continually says that the current government never gets anything done, which is false. We are approving sustainable and renewable projects that respect environmental considerations all the time.

For this assessment in particular, the federal government relied on the provincial assessment process, meeting the goal of “one project, one assessment”. Final decisions have been made in seven other projects in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec after a thorough and public planning phase, that no further impact assessment was required, allowing those projects to proceed.

Attracting investment and supporting the major job-creating projects of a cleaner, 21st-century economy requires regulatory certainty from the Government of Canada, and we will continue to deliver that. That is why the government is working quickly to introduce targeted and meaningful amendments to the act that would align with the opinion of the court. In the interim, we are providing guidance to businesses, provinces, indigenous groups and stakeholders to ensure that projects currently in the assessment process have an orderly and clear path forward. To this end, we have introduced a statement on the interim administration of the Impact Assessment Act. The guidance in that statement provides clarity and continuity for proposed projects in the system or entering the system, until amendments are brought into force.

Protecting the environment while growing a sustainable economy, in line with international commitments for net-zero emissions, requires robust environmental legislation, something the previous Harper government was incapable of producing. As work is undertaken to amend the Impact Assessment Act, the principles to protect the environment, respect indigenous rights and maintain public confidence in the process will remain ever central to the impact assessment process.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's input on the matter, although, again, he is picking and choosing where he gets to take his facts on this.

Think about the greenhouse gas pricing act that happened at the Supreme Court just two years ago. In fact, at that point in time, the government did not consider that reference an opinion; it took it as if it were actually the law of the land. Now, the government is saying that it was just the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, that it will work with it, and that it accepts that as confirmation, of course, that the federal government has the right to work in this realm. That is exactly what it said. However, the federal government can do that only in its lane. Effectively, 11 sections of the bill, out of 168 sections, are where the government actually has a lane. The Supreme Court does want the federal government to go back and refine that. That is what the government seems to be ignoring at this point in time.

The best thing to do is to be surgical about this, amputate most of the bill, as people say, and go forward with making things capable of being built in Canada so we have an economy in this country again.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada's opinion on the constitutionality of the Impact Assessment Act upheld the federal government's role in enacting federal environmental assessment legislation, while clarifying federal jurisdiction. The government will carefully and quickly work to introduce targeted and meaningful amendments that are in line with the court's opinion, while continuing existing work to respond to budget 2023 commitments to improve regulatory efficiency.

There is one thing that people watching back home can be sure of: this government is focused on a balance, not just casting a quick “yes” over to any organization, agency or company that wants to explore an energy project. That is really important because the environment matters to the government, and it matters to most Canadians as well. The result of that process will be an improved one for assessing major projects which protects both the environment and the economy. In the meantime, the government will provide guidance to our many stakeholders and indigenous partners to ensure as much clarity as possible for projects currently in the system, as well as for those ready to enter it.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The hon. member for Brantford—Brant not being present to raise the matter for which adjournment notice has been given, the notice is deemed withdrawn.

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:07 p.m.)