Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I began my career in radio. That was in 1974. I would imagine he was quite young then. At that time, more people were tuning into AM radio.
I rise today with great interest to support Bill C-268. This bill, introduced by my colleague, aims to improve cellular coverage in rural areas across Canada. The member who introduced this bill is my riding neighbour. We often go around together, and we call each other and chat from time to time. There are times when one of us misses something the other just said because the line cut out. We experience these problems, too.
I would like to begin by commending her leadership on this issue. I believe she is taking a serious, well-thought-out approach that is deeply rooted in the reality faced by citizens in all regions of the country.
Beyond the policies and regulatory frameworks, this debate is about something very simple, in my opinion: enabling Canadians to stay connected to loved ones, to services, to the economy and, most importantly, to their safety. Over the past several years, we have collectively made significant progress in terms of improving Internet access. This was discussed earlier. Substantial investments have been made to bridge the digital divide, which had become unacceptable. However, while progress has been made on that front, there is another equally fundamental and persistent issue, that of cellular connectivity.
Today, in Canada, nearly one-quarter of provincial highways have no reliable cellular coverage. Let us imagine what that means in practical terms. It means that a parent driving on a highway with their kids may have no way to reach someone in an emergency. It also means that a worker driving around a rural region may not have cell service for tens of kilometres. It also means that an accident could happen and there could be no immediate way to call for help.
This is not some hypothetical situation. This is an everyday reality. In my riding of Brome—Missisquoi, these situations are all too real. Dead zones are part of the landscape there. These include stretches of rural roads, forested areas, valleys, entire concessions and villages. I am thinking of Clarenceville, Saint‑Ignace‑de‑Stanbridge and the area between Bromont and Cowansville. Even at home, I have to wave my phone around to get a signal.
I am not talking about a connection that is simply slow or unstable. I am talking about total silence: no calls, no messages, no access. The consequences are very real. For instance, farmers tell me that they have to deal with disruptions in their daily operations, even as modern agriculture increasingly relies on connected technologies. Entrepreneurs also tell me that this limits their ability to innovate, attract clients and grow their businesses. Self-employed workers tell me about contracts they have lost simply because they could not be reached. Above all, citizens confide in me that they feel vulnerable when they are on the road, when a loved one is travelling and when they realize that, in certain situations, they are completely cut off from the rest of the world.
The impact of these disruptions is not limited to full-time residents of our regions. In a riding like Brome—Missisquoi, we get tens of thousands of visitors a year. They include families, cyclists and outdoor enthusiasts who come to enjoy our scenery, our wineries and our local attractions. A lot of these visitors are city dwellers who are used to uninterrupted connectivity, and when they encounter our dead zones, the consequences for them and for local residents are very real. People may get lost, be unable to use GPS, have trouble reaching emergency services if needed, or simply be unable to communicate with loved ones. Situations like these can quickly turn a positive tourism experience into a source of stress and anxiety.
In addition to the impact on individuals, this situation also has economic repercussions, because an area with unstable connectivity is less attractive. Visitors may be reluctant to come back. Tourism companies may lose business opportunities. All this is to say that the cellular coverage issue in the regions does not just affect the year-round residents. It affects everyone who visits, invests and contributes to the economic vitality of our communities.
In a riding like mine, cell service is not a luxury. It is a matter of public safety. It is a matter of economic development and a matter of regional equity. However, the official data make it seem like the issue has largely been resolved. The data shows coverage rates as high as 97%. Let me just say I know one thing about coverage: If the phone is showing just half a bar, there is no coverage.
It is important to remember that this data is largely based on information self-reported by telecommunications companies, without any systematic independent verification. This makes no sense. As a result, there is a disconnect between what the numbers suggest and what citizens actually experience. When the data is flawed, so are the decisions.
That is why the first good thing about Bill C-268 is that it tackles this problem at its root: the quality of the information. The bill requires the CRTC to establish a mechanism for independent verification of cellular coverage data. I believe this is a simple, reasonable and essential measure. Before we can fix a problem, we must first see it clearly, and right now, we cannot do that. Today, underserved areas are all too often underestimated or even invisible in decision-making tools.
The second pillar of this bill is just as important: modernizing our spectrum policy framework. This framework has not been updated since 2007. At that time, smart phones were barely a thing. In fact, they were only just coming onto the scene. Digital usage patterns were radically different. Data requirements were incomparable to what they are today. Since then, everything has changed, except the framework.
Continuing to rely on a framework designed for a different era means accepting that our policies are lagging behind reality. That is why the bill provides for a comprehensive review within 18 months. This review must address a fundamental question: Does our current approach truly enable us to serve the whole of Canada? In light of the experiences of regions like mine, the answer is quite clearly “no”.
Market forces alone have not been able to ensure equitable coverage. This is not a criticism; it is a statement of fact. In densely populated areas, investment happens naturally. However, in rural areas like ours, in remote regions where costs are higher and where, obviously, return on investment is less immediate, roll-out remains limited.
That is precisely why the third pillar of the bill is essential. It introduces a clear priority for underserved areas. It requires that future spectrum policy decisions consider, in a clear and deliberate manner, the needs of rural areas, remote communities, indigenous communities and roadside coverage. Roads are not trivial matters. They are the lifelines of our country. They connect our communities and support our economy.
I want to conclude by once again congratulating my colleague. She did tremendous work and I think the issue needed to be tackled head-on.
