Debates of May 5th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Measures to Support the Manufacturing Sector

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 6, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:52 p.m so we could begin private members' hour.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be amended as follows: Matt Jeneroux (Edmonton Riverbend) for the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson (North Vancouver—Capilano).

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

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.

Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada Act

[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.

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

Finance

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on adjournment business to seek a little more accountability from the government for its response to a question that I asked in question period a couple of weeks ago. I questioned the government about the deficit, which had not yet been tabled. I simply asked whether or not the government could give assurance to the House that it would not be higher than the projected deficit that Justin Trudeau submitted in the last financial update that was tabled in the House when he was prime minister.

Some will recall the chaos around that. The finance minister resigned two days or so before it was to be tabled. For those of us who were here then, we did not even know if there was going to be a budget that day. It was chaotic. There were boxes. Nobody knew if we were even going to get a briefing in a lock-up over it. It was delayed. There was no speech. When we did receive the budget, there was no signature and no name. It was like an anonymous budget just dropped by a random Liberal minister who was called upon to do it. The finance minister resigned over that budget or had resigned already. The former prime minister resigned not long after that.

The issue then was the deficit. The deficit was so big then that nobody was willing to take responsibility for it. The Liberals' own cabinet and caucus decided enough is enough and it was time to bring in somebody who could actually balance the budget or at least control spending and restore fiscal sanity. However, as it turned out, it actually got worse. The first budget the government tabled was more than twice the last budget, which was so bad it resulted in resignations.

In response to that, this is what the member said. He would not give assurance that there would not be more than $30 billion in deficit. It turned out to be $67 billion. However, he said, “We are building big, we are building bold and we are building across this country.” What are Liberals even talking about? What are they building? They are not building anything.

They talk about the need for energy infrastructure. They talk about the need for all kinds of infrastructure. They have been campaigning and talking about this since 2015 without doing anything. Here we are, over a year after the Prime Minister said they were going to build major projects at unimaginable speeds. The government gave itself extraordinary new powers to approve new major projects. None have been approved. None are being built.

The Liberals are not building big across the country. They are just talking about it. Each time, it is as if they are having an out-of-body experience when they say, “Oh, if only we had a pipeline, we could be an energy superpower.” They had one on the table that was approved. The very first thing they did in 2015 was cancel the northern gateway pipeline. Then they chased out the proponent of the energy east pipeline. Then they chased out the private sector builder of the Trans Mountain pipeline.

The government has no track record on building anything, and the budget that it brought in is twice as bad as Trudeau's final budget, the one that triggered his resignation.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House that our government's focus remains clear and disciplined. We are controlling what we can control, which means maintaining fiscal sustainability while making targeted, high-impact investments for Canadians; maintaining our fiscal anchors; and ensuring that every dollar spent on behalf of Canadians supports growth, resilience and improving the well-being of Canadians. That is the direction we need right now, and it is in the context of global changes we are witnessing, which are sudden and, I would say, unprecedented.

Global economies are more than a year into a profound rupture, characterized by the trade decisions made by the U.S. administration. Economic security, industrial policy and geopolitical competition are increasingly shaping investment, trade and financial decisions. Of course, the recent conflict in the Middle East, which has disrupted key shipping routes and damaged energy infrastructure, has pushed energy prices higher, underscoring the fragility of global supply chains and adding to already elevated uncertainty.

Despite this environment, the government is delivering an $11.5‑billion improvement in the projected 2025-26 budgetary balance. This strength carries into future years, improving the budgetary balance relative to last year's budget by an average of $10.7 billion per year from 2026-27 to 2029-30 before new measures. I will note that, in addition, our deficit-to-GDP ratio, one of the key fiscal anchors, is well below the G7 average, as shown on page 12 of the spring economic update.

Fortunately, this fiscal room allows the government to improve affordability and raise Canadians' standard of living through targeted and responsible policy measures, particularly in the areas of fuel, food and housing affordability. This is a move that started in budget 2025 and indeed, before then, with some income tax cuts for which we were happy to get the support of the other side. It marked a strategic shift in the government's management of public finances, focusing on expanding federal capital spending to mobilize investments while maintaining fiscal responsibility.

Our budget 2025, as members know, set out a clear plan to build the strongest economy in the G7. We are moving toward that with very strong growth rates projected in relation to other G7 countries, and again, the strongest fiscal position in the G7, in particular with a debt-to-GDP ratio well below that of our G7 peers.

Our plan remains rooted in fiscal responsibility, not for its own sake, but to create the capacity to invest our long-term economic strength and greater self-reliance. I want to mention again that there are two fiscal anchors, which are balancing operating spending with revenues by 2028-29 and maintaining a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio, both of which we are obtaining.

We also remain committed to the disciplined implementation of budget 2025 efficiency measures, including the comprehensive expenditure review, which, together with other measures in budget 2025, total $60 billion in savings and revenues over 5 years.

We are now in the implementation phase. The focus is turning toward targeted, ongoing reviews, beginning with efforts to rein in spending on external management and other consulting services. These are not easy decisions; they are challenging but necessary actions. We will continue to support our objective of spending less to invest more.

In these serious times, with these serious geopolitical headwinds, it is important to make targeted investments, control what we can control, maintain our fiscal anchors and attend to the affordability and economic needs of Canadians.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, is he talking about maintaining their fiscal anchors? Is this parliamentary secretary serious?

He was not here, I guess. Maybe he has not been here to see how many fiscal anchors have been declared and discarded since 2015, even the one he cited in his remarks. He possibly misspoke, but he said that they have a declining debt-to-GDP ratio. They do not. If we look at the budget, it is right there in the statement. They got rid of that fiscal anchor. That is not the current one.

He talked about the Liberals congratulating themselves on their deficit being $11 billion lower than what they forecasted five months ago. That is like congratulating themselves for taking off the carbon tax after they put it on in the first place.

I do not know what else to say. The standard of living is unchanged in 10 years with these guys.