Ryan Williams

[Affordable Housing and Groceries Act, September 25th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, a tax is a tax, and a tax that is imposed on companies is always passed onto consumers. We want to ensure there is no more tax.

When it comes to an example of that, we just have to look to the utility sector in Great Britain in the late nineties when there was a windfall tax imposed on the utility companies. In the studies that came out 10 years later, every company that had a windfall tax increased their prices and those who bore those prices were the middle class. The middle class will always pay the higher prices imposed by any windfall tax or tax in general.

We on this side of the House are for no new taxes.

[Affordable Housing and Groceries Act, September 25th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, to the first question, if we just cut the carbon tax, it would at least eliminate 14¢ or 15¢ right now and about 60¢ later, so that is a good idea. We are full of great ideas.

Second, yes, the Competition Bureau is important, but it needs to have the right laws in order to enforce them. Right now, we look at different examples, but the Rogers-Shaw merger for one, was allowed to go forward. By the way, it would have gone forward regardless because of the efficiencies defence.

The Competition Bureau needs to have the right tools and the right powers in order to look at competition and to stop some of the mergers I mentioned that happened in the grocery industry. Five or six of those mergers probably should never have been able to happen, so much so that we had an Independent Grocers Association owned by a major monopoly in Canada. How bad is it than an independent grocer is not independent at all? We need to strength those laws and we look forward to making those changes.

[Affordable Housing and Groceries Act, September 25th, 2023]

That is okay, Madam Speaker. I have all the time in the world today.

Canadians pay some of the most punishing prices in the world at the grocery store. Canadians pays double the rent they did only a few years ago. Canadians have it really tough, and inflation is the culprit, fuelled by the government's reckless spending and a punitive carbon tax. It has increased prices significantly over the past year, almost 18% for groceries alone. Inflation is rising in faster in Canada than in the United States, and has risen over 43% in the last two months. This is after the government said it was gone.

It is also a story about a lack of competition and competition laws to look after the consumer, the people, and to boost competition in the industry. After eight years of the Liberal government, we are finally seeing some results. We are finally seeing some competition law changes in a government bill. I will be the first to admit this is a really good idea, especially to eliminate the efficiencies defence, which, of course, right now allows any companies to merge if they find efficiencies. A lot of times those have been in job losses. Superior Propane used it not just once but three times because it is such a good law.

I say it was a great idea, because it was actually my idea. For the first reading of the efficiencies defence in Bill C-339, I read in the House on June 8, and we were supposed to go to debate in November, but I digress. This is a great idea, and I give credit to the government where credit is due for taking this great idea. It is a good start. That is combined with the Leader of the Opposition's idea only a few weeks ago to eliminate the GST in purpose-built rental housing, which is a great idea. I want to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on his first piece of government legislation. Just wait until we form government. It is going to be something.

This is a big one. As much as we can shrug and say this bill would do some of what we want to do to tackle grocery prices in Canada, this bill misses one of the biggest, most pressing actions of all, which is to remove the carbon tax, which is added for farmers with no rebate. The median price is $150,000 per farm. Where does that price go? It gets added to what the consumer pays. What about the carbon tax for the trucker who picks up the food from the farm? Where does that price go? There is no rebate; it gets added to what the consumer pays. The carbon price is added on the cold storage facility that stores the food. Where does that carbon tax go? It gets added to what the consumer pays.

Where does the carbon tax to the grocery store go? It is added on what the consumer, who drives to the grocery store and picks up the groceries, pays. The carbon tax adds cost after cost to what the consumer pays. It punishes farmers and consumers. At the end of the day, when we look at what is missing from this bill, when talking about trying to tackle grocery prices, we are missing the deletion of the carbon tax, which is something that the Conservatives really support.

Additionally, Canadians can buy food across Canada from really only five competitors. Let me tell everyone this right now. If anyone has ever visited No Frills, Provigo, Zehrs, Fortinos, Valu-mart, Dominion, Superstore or Shoppers Drug Mart, they have shopped at Loblaws. For those who have ever gone to Farm Boy, Lawtons, Foodland or Longo's, and my favourite, the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, which is not independent, they are all owned by Sobeys. Those who have ever gone to Jean Coutu, Super C, Food Basics or Brunet have gone to Metro.

Three Canadian competitors plus Walmart and Costco makes five competitors controlling 80% of all the grocery retail in Canada. By comparison, Americans have 10. At least they have dealt with it. The Americans are not perfect, but at least they are there. When we compare Canadian grocery prices to American ones, the Americans have no carbon tax, there are more competitors and the prices are lower. If Canadians are buying $40 or $50 worth of groceries, Americans are paying only $25 to $30. Sometimes it is really great to have these American neighbours so we can compare what they have and what we do not have.

How big is Loblaws? Let us talk about that for a moment. This is really neat to me. Loblaws sells 62% of Coca-Cola in Canada. Let us think about that for a minute. Loblaws is so big that it controls the whole market for Coca-Cola.

Why is that important? Take an independent like Freson Bros. Freson Bros. is Canada's largest independent grocer in the great province of Alberta and they have independent grocers. Freson Bros. is so great. As an independent supplier in rural Canada, they have Red Seal butchers and Red Seal bakers.

They employ really great individuals in their local independent stores. These are really, truly independent stores that pay good wages in rural areas, and yet they have to pay more for Coca-Cola because Loblaws holds the monopoly.

That is what monopolies do. They hold dominance and they control prices. When one has less choice as a consumer, then the monopolies win. If it was not for Coca-Cola having dominance through Loblaws, maybe that would be something that we could pay less for.

That example can be used over and over again when it comes to products that consumers try to buy every day in their stores. We call it abuse of dominance and it is prevalent among our big five major grocers.

Worst of all, Canadians are paying increases on food that is actually shrinking. Shrinkflation is the phenomenon of buying products that are actually decreasing in size. A lot of Canadians are not even aware of this. When one goes to the grocery store and one buys a pack of, let us say, granola bars for our children, normally there would have been six in a box. Consumers are now finding that there are five.

When parents go to put those granola bars in their students' lunches, they are paying a little bit more for a product that is smaller. That phenomenon is shrinkflation. That is coming because of inflation, because of this dominance of monopolies.

All the while, Canadians are seeing food prices that are actually going up. Food prices in all of Canada, this year, increased 6.8%, almost 7%. The two-year increase is 17%. Meat had a 6.5% increase this year. Over two years, it was 13.5%. Eggs increased around 3% this year. Over two years, it was 20%. Breakfast cereals increased 10% this year. Over two years, it was 25%. Fresh vegetables increased 9% this year. Over two years, it was 19%. Coffee, and we all need coffee, especially, sometimes, in the House, increased 8% over one year. Over two years, it was 24%.

Food purchases by restaurants increased 8% this year in costs, and 14% over two years. Think of a lot of these restaurants, these small, independent local businesses that took on loans during the pandemic and now have to try to pass these costs off to consumers. It is really difficult for consumers who want to go out for a meal.

From seed to source in Canada, there is also little choice. We talk about what has come into Canada. We talk about the growing influence of Walmart and Costco. Decisions made by the Competition Bureau over the last 20 or 30 years allowed, in one instance, one grocery store to buy another; and allowed a major chain, Amazon, to buy Whole Foods, which I think will have a dominant effect in the future, even though it has decreased stores lately.

We think of where we have Amazon warehouses. If we look at the next 50 years, we may not even be using grocery stores any more. When we look at automation and the increase of innovation, grocery delivery could be all in the form of warehousing. When we look at what that impact of Amazon, an American company, not a Canadian company, has, it is pretty significant, when we look at what it could mean over the next 20 or 30 years.

When we look at the consolidation, the actual competition laws that exist, yes, we have had some pretty bad decisions by the Competition Bureau, but it was all the result of a bad Competition Act.

We allowed Sobeys to buy IGA. This one is amazing to me. The Independent Grocers Association should be independent and was formed as being independent. Sobeys now owns IGAs. They say half are independent. I do not really believe that. They are owned by a major corporation.

Metro bought A&P. Loblaws bought Shoppers Drug Mart. I think, at the time, when the Competition Bureau looked at it, it said, look, we have a pharmacy, we are not going to have an impact for consumers.

Now, as we look at it, Shoppers Drug Marts, which are open sometimes to midnight, are the only grocery store in some of these rural towns across Canada. What I am hearing is that they are making as much as 20% profit on fresh produce. Let us think about the costs already. Again, it is based on supply and demand, but we allowed this under our laws. We allowed Loblaws to buy Shoppers Drug Mart. Sobeys bought Longo's. It bought Farm Boy, and again, there is less independence. We have allowed this through our existing competition law.

The result has been that if one walks into any store, it is an illusion that it is not part of the big three. It is also a consolidation that gives Canadians little choice. We talk about freedom. It is the freedom of Canadians to decide where their money is going to go, where their paycheques are going to go. The illusion has been, through this lack of competition, that Canadians have choice.

The reality is that Canadians have little choice. Even with the Loblaws brand of Your Independent Grocer, it is no more independent than any other grocery store or any other business.

I want to tell a little story also about Kleenex in Canada. We can no longer buy Kleenex in Canada. Is that not sad? At the end of the day, Kleenex is beholden to the big brands. Loblaws, for instance, because it has a monopoly, decides where it wants to put certain brands. It says to suppliers that if they are going to lower prices, this is where they need to lower them to. If they are going to drop five or 10 cents, this is where it is at. Right now, that is held by Kruger paper in Canada, and that is the Scotties brand, with the funky boxes and great colours.

The problem with that and the story of Kleenex leaving Canada is this. As we did last week, we have a “perp” walk and bring all the five grocers in. The government officials told them to lower prices and that they are going to impose a tax on them. We know that, with these companies being big conglomerates and publicly traded companies, a tax will only go to the consumer. We know this in a capitalist society. It is simple economics. Everyone knows this. The conglomerates put pressure then on the manufacturers.

Let me say this. I have a Kruger paper manufacturing facility in Quinte West in my riding, which employs 120 employees. If the companies feel the pressure to decrease prices, they start to find savings in other areas of that business, which means layoffs and shorting shifts, hurting Canadian workers. That is the power that these big monopolies have. With respect to competition laws and how we have to fix them, we need to fix the dominance that these big monopolies have. It is Kleenex today and we do not want it to be Kruger tomorrow. That is really important. Big players cannot control smaller players. We have to make sure small players have their say when it comes to the Canadian economy because then it is really the consumer who has the say.

I want to talk about shrinkflation. It is really fascinating. It is the process of shrinking product sizes while keeping the prices the same or even increasing them. In essence, people are getting less for the same amount of money. This trend is becoming more prevalent in the grocery industry and its consequences ripple through our households.

Let us start with the grocery stores themselves. As people walk through the aisles, they might notice that their favourite products do not seem as big as they used to be. A cereal box, a bag of chips or a carton of ice cream all appear slightly smaller. Manufacturers are reducing the quantity of the product. It is often in subtle ways, like reducing the number of cookies in a pack or slimming down the width of a candy bar. I have some examples of this. A year ago, a jar of Nutella was 400 grams and now it is 375 grams, which is a 6.3% reduction. Campbell's Chunky soup was 540 millilitres and now it is 515 millilitres, which is a 5% reduction. Crispers used to be 175 grams and is now 145 grams, which I noticed the other day when I was picking up some groceries for my children for school. This is a reduction of 17%.

With respect to a family on a budget, I talked to somebody the other day who said that for their family, because of the increases in rent and mortgage and bringing home less of a paycheque, they make a dinner for the family and they make something else for their children. They cannot afford to give the same meal to the children as they do for their family, and it might be a grilled cheese sandwich. Even with Kraft Singles, before, a package was 24 slices and now it is 22 slices. When people are making lunch or dinner for their family, that is a big deal; It is a reduction of 9%.

We have Chewy granola bars. A box used to contain six bars and now it contains five bars. A bag of Tim Hortons fine-ground original blend coffee used to be 1,000 grams and now it is 930 grams, which is a reduction of 7%. That is pretty sad.

When I talk about a box of granola bars that went from six bars to five bars, there is something else significant that happens with that reduction. That is the imposition of a new tax, called the snack tax, that goes onto everyday grocery items. Not a lot of Canadians know this, but there is a snack tax that goes on many items like cookies, chips, ice cream or granola bars, which maybe sometimes is the only thing we can put in our child's lunch bags. When the manufacturer uses shrinkflation and decreases prices, that snack tax is automatically implemented. This means that because of inflation, because of dominance of our monopolies and now because manufacturers are shrinking their products, we actually have government tax going on some of these items in the grocery stores. The government is now making money on items because of inflation and that is really sad.

When we take this to committee, this is something we are obviously going to study. I know my colleague before me from the NDP talked about some other elements. How sad is it that the government is making money on certain elements of what is happening in the grocery store? That is what is happening when it comes to shrinkflation.

When it comes to looking after the consumer, who looks after rent and groceries, we certainly have a lot of ideas we need to implement that are going to help the consumer. A lot of these ideas came from this side of the House but also from a lot of great committee work from members on this side of the House. We need to be very cognizant when we are putting all this forward that we are doing the best we can for consumers, the families who every day need to make decisions for their households at the grocery store.

This bill is equivalent to the shrug emoji. We can support it, but it needs a lot more to actually make grocery prices affordable in Canada. After eight years, the tired Liberal government is out of ideas. There are a few good ideas in here thanks to Conservatives, but it fails for the most part to follow through with better ideas to address the major oligopoly in Canada, which gives Canadians little choice and has them paying more at the grocery store for less.

Shrinkflation and the taxes that follow are eating more of Canadians' paycheques. The carbon tax takes a chunk from farmers, those who deliver the food and of course the consumers who buy the food.

Competition Act changes are good, but we must go further to stop the abusive dominance provisions that exist in the Competition Act. The provisions that are the most prevalent include those that allow monopolies to take advantage of Canadians, of consumers, and most importantly, of manufacturers and farmers in the whole process.

Most of all, we need more competition in Canada from food manufacturers and farmers to ensure Canadians have freedom of choice. When they have freedom of choice, they will decide best where to put their money, where to put their hard-earned paycheques. We need more competition to bring lower prices home for Canadians and their families.

[Affordable Housing and Groceries Act, September 25th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to request unanimous consent to split my time with the hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

[Points of Order, September 21st, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, it has to do with the management of Private Members' Business. My private member's bill finished first reading on June 8. It is scheduled to have its first hour at second reading on November 21.

When the government presents, as its own, legislation that was in front of the House as a private member's bill, it takes away from parliamentarians who have, oftentimes for the first time in their career, worked hard to bring a private member's bill before this House. It is bad precedent when a member who has already introduced a bill to the House has it taken by the government, as the member loses their spot in the queue to present private members' business.

For future parliamentarians and for this instance, the same-question rule or the rule of anticipation will come into effect should the Liberal government bill make quicker progress, which, given that most House debate time is controlled by the government, is likely to occur. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am asking you for your assurance that I and future parliamentarians have recourse to the provisions of Standing Order 92.1(2), or, if necessary, that you will invoke your authority under Standing Order 94(1)(a) to “make all arrangements necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of Private Members’ Business” in the event that my bill enters replenishment yet winds up in one of those legislative dead ends if the government bill vaults ahead of mine.

To this end, I would refer you to the ruling of your predecessor on November 4, 2011, at page 2984 of the Debates, concerning the procedure of an irregular private member's bill. It states:

...I am reluctant to deny the member what is likely his only opportunity in this Parliament to have an item on the order of precedence....

In light of the unique nature of this particular situation, the member...will be permitted to substitute another item onto the order of precedence. The substitution shall be done pursuant to the spirit of Standing Order 92.1....

The procedure and House affairs committee subsequently recommended an amendment to Standing Order 92.1, which the House adopted in 2015 as Standing Order 92.1(2), facilitating the replacement of items in situations where a private member's bill is dropped “for having been ruled out of order by the Speaker”.

In the interests of fairness, to ensure that precedence is looked at to the fullest extent possible and for future parliamentarians, I would ask for the Chair's assurance that, if the progress of my bill, Bill C-339, becomes doomed because it was big-footed by the Liberals' sudden and new-found concern with attacking the skyrocketing cost of living and competition law, I have recourse to replace my bill with another item on the provisions of either of these Standing Orders.

[Points of Order, September 21st, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

While crime in Canada is up 40%, I would like to report a theft in the House of Commons. My private member's bill, Bill C-339, to eliminate the efficiencies defence in the Competition Act, has been stolen by the Liberal government and presented as its own piece of legislation. The entire bill—

[Radiocommunication Act, September 19th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, the simple answer is, yes, the government has taken all this money in, and at the end of the day, Canadians have paid more for Internet and cellphone than ever before. Canadians pay the highest cellphone bills in the whole world and they pay double for the Internet what the Americans and Australians do.

The answer from our side is to make sure there is more competition. Perhaps we should also ensure that when we are collecting all that money for spectrum, we should be looking at an urban component and a rural component, because the rural component needs help and the urban component is doing just fine.

[Radiocommunication Act, September 19th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, when this bill gets to committee, I will definitely be in favour of any amendment that is going to improve it.

For the most part, the amendments in the Senate have already satisfied some of my colleagues' concerns, including the effects on rural Canada and those companies, specifically with respect to the fact that the minister would have all the power to determine what happens if spectrum is unused. The biggest provision of this bill would be that of punishing only those who are grossly negligent in terms of not using spectrum that they said they were going to sell, in other words, using spectrum only for speculative activities by buying and selling it for more profit. If companies want to develop that spectrum in a rural area, I think they are going to find support from the minister in ensuring not only a use-it-or-lose-it provision but also the use-it-or-share-it provision that is in this bill.

We are going to be happy to discuss that at committee and make this bill the best it can be going forward.

[Radiocommunication Act, September 19th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, the federal government takes the lead. Certainly, we have given the role to municipalities and provinces in terms of also fulfilling these obligations. However, it ultimately comes down to the company. The company is the one responsible for that spectrum, which is a taxpayer-owned entity, and for rolling that entity out in a timely and affordable fashion.

We realize that Canada is a large geographic area, so perhaps one of those answers is that we need more companies. The answer we have stated all along from this side of the House is that we need less government and more people in order to fix a lot of the problems here. We need more Canadian companies that can provide those services, provide spectrum and Internet to Canadians so Canadians have cheaper Internet and so they have Internet as a whole.

[Radiocommunication Act, September 19th, 2023]

moved that Bill S-242, An Act to amend the Radiocommunication Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, access to high-speed Internet on our phones, tablets or computers has become not just a want but a need and a necessity to participate in today's economy, to go to school, to be educated, to communicate or, even as we saw this summer, for public safety.

The Internet, which was a luxury when I was a kid, has now transformed into a public utility. Nary a function in today's society can be completed without it, yet 40% of rural Canada is not connected to high-speed Internet. Almost 60% of our first nations communities are not connected to high-speed Internet. Especially troublesome is that those in rural areas who are connected find it inadequate and expensive.

In a 2021 poll conducted by the Canadian Internet Registration Authority, 68% of people said that the organization they communicate most with online is their bank. A strong Internet connection may also be a factor in determining someone's health care, as 28% of Canadians consulted a doctor virtually in 2021. As this nation faces a shortage of doctors and health care practitioners, that number is only going higher.

There are also simpler conveniences that come with reliable Internet, such as food and grocery delivery, car sharing, social media and online booking portals. Farmers these days now have equipment with software that can only be updated online using the Internet.

Rural Canadians suffer most of all as the world goes more digital and they are stuck in the stone age. Why does this matter? Well, it matters because Canada is rural. Of the 3,700 municipalities in Canada, only 94 are urban or have over 100,000 in population. That means 97% of Canadian municipalities are rural.

Even in my home riding of Bay of Quinte, only a three-hour drive southwest of Ottawa, with Belleville, Prince Edward County and Quinte West, when travelling east to west and north to south, we often lose cell coverage. A lot of my residents do not have reliable high-speed Internet, and we are a three-hour drive from over 10 million people in a part of this country that should be considered urban and have reliable and cheap high-speed Internet.

The answer to those problems is to have more competition with more companies competing, and especially to have more Canadian companies competing and filling in the gaps when it comes to technology and spectrum. We must get more rural Canadians connected to the Internet and get more cellphone towers in Canada. The government's role is to ensure that the rules and regulations in place benefit rural Canada as much as they do urban Canada.

This bill is for rural Canada to ensure that when Canada gives a public utility resource like spectrum or spectrum licensing to a company, the company uses the spectrum to connect rural parts of this country and its over seven million people to high-speed Internet. The bill is entitled “use it or lose it”, and it will mean that if a telco buys spectrum intended to service a geographic region in Canada and within three years does not service 50% of that geographic area, the minister has legislative options to ensure that another company will.

I would like to personally thank Senator Patterson from the great Nunavut and his incredible staff, who have already passed this bill and shepherded it through the Senate. When discussing this bill, the senator revealed that this is his last year in the Senate. He actually turned 75 on almost the last day of the year that he can serve as a senator. He told me that if his generation is going to be remembered for anything, it will be the last one that remembers the world before the Internet. Can members imagine that? With this bill, Senator Patterson will be remembered for protecting this public utility for all of rural Canada.

The senator talked to me about the importance of this bill in the north, in the Northwest Territories, in Nunavut and in the Yukon. When it comes to the Internet, we are either five years ahead or five years behind. In rural Canada, we are certainly five years behind.

In the north, Northwest Territories Premier Caroline Cochrane, during a recent wildfire when phone and Internet lines were out, stressed that they had been asking for upgrades for decades, with no response. She said, “It angered me that we have been pleading and begging to have the same infrastructure that people in the south take for granted. Not extra, just basic infrastructure.”

P.E.I. resident Julie Lauren pays $161 per month for her home Internet service. Just for context, that is more than eight times what Australians pay. She lives in Bonshaw, P.E.I., a rural community just 30 minutes outside of Charlottetown. To have high-speed Internet at home, Lauren says that the only company she found that provides reliable service in her area is Starlink, a United States-based satellite Internet provider operated by the American company SpaceX. Most Canadians either cannot afford Internet or cannot get it because it has not rolled out yet.

Worse, how many times in the past have telcos abused the Internet spectrum, a public utility, as their own real estate and asset and profited from it? There are many examples of this very thing having happened. In 2008, after a competitive auction that lasted 331 rounds, Quebecor Media and Videotron Ltd. shelled out $96.4 million for the exclusive rights to a block of wireless airwaves in Toronto, outside of its own market of Quebec. However, the telco never built a wireless network in Canada's most populous city, and in June 2017 sold the unused licences to Rogers Communications for $184.2 million, netting an $87.8-million profit. A month later, Videotron earned an even larger windfall of $243.1 million by selling a handful of spectrum licences to western Canadian telecom company Shaw Communications Inc. In 2013, after scrapping its on again, off again plans to launch wireless services, Shaw sold 18 licences to Rogers for $350 million, nearly twice the $189.5 million it bought them for in 2008.

The message could not be clearer. Spectrum is a public utility, a public good. The government owns it and leases it to companies with the idea that they will use it. Spectrum should not be flipped like a piece of real estate; it should be developed. It should be given to companies to develop, especially in rural Canada so it can get the high-speed Internet it needs.

Although the government says it can do just that by law, there has been very little done about it. This bill would give the minister powers to do something about it. The minister's new powers would include repealing licences that do not meet the geographic deployment conditions. Right now they are met only by population. A lot of the time what will happen to spectrum licences if the licence holder fulfills the population conditions, which in tiers two to four include an urban component, so, for example, if a licensee fulfills the Toronto component but not the northern King region or Vaughan component, is that it can still hold on to that licence even though those rural users do not have Internet. This would make sure it is geographic, that 50% of the geographic area must be met, not just the urban area. It would include consent to an agreement to transfer the licence to a new provider if the original owner has partially deployed service.

Therefore, there would be a provision to use it or share it, so it would not be as cruel for those who are actively trying to deploy spectrum. It would give the minister the power to make a decision to work with that provider as long as it is working with the ministry and the minister. It would allow a spectrum licence to be shared among two or more companies to deliver the service through an assigned geographic area, which is not just use it or lose it but, if need be, use it or share it, which I think is very innovative.

These amendments came from the Senate. I would like to congratulate the senators on the many important amendments to the bill. There were many great improvements to its original form. One of the amendments was to ensure that those buying tier one to tier four licences would not be able to meet deployment conditions by simply deploying to the urban areas with those large geographic tiers, but would also be required to provide service to smaller rural and remote areas nestled within, in order to meet the obligations under this legislation. We are trying to work with those providers.

It also laid the foundation for other amendments focusing on the use-it-or-share-it regime, which would allow the minister to make the decision to share parts of the spectrum with companies that could fulfill the obligations of the spectrum rollout. In addition, it would provide ministerial flexibility to either outright revoke the licence or reallocate tier five areas, which are rural, within the licence, to other providers who are already able and ready to service the underserviced areas. A lot of those were independent service providers, like a company called Storm, which is actively working on that.

The amendments also include a provision that would clarify the intent to ensure that licence holders cannot sell the licence up to and including three years minus a day, in an effort to avoid penalties for not complying with licence conditions. We would be giving the minister the power also to ensure that companies, on the 299th day prior to the 300 days the government has to revoke this, are complying. We would be giving the power to the minister, which is very important.

Another amendment would require the minister to start a competitive bidding process within 60 days not only of the revocation of a spectrum licence but also where the licence holder has voluntarily surrendered the licence as a result of not being able to meet its licensing obligations.

A further amendment addressed the concerns over the ability of smaller proponents, small companies, to raise the required capital to participate in the competitive bidding process, giving the minister the flexibility to use competitive bidding or other reallocation processes such as a first-come, first-served model when a licence is revoked or surrendered. Again, we have many small businesses that want to participate in this licence process. Let us give the minister the power to select those smaller companies, especially when it comes to rural Canada and the north.

Not all companies are bad, and spectrum auctioning is a necessary process where there is much demand and little supply like in urban Canada, but in rural Canada there is less supply, and this bill is awfully needed to fix that. Therefore, this bill would be a small start in the spectrum policy review in Canada, especially in rural Canada.

Senator Patterson noticed the importance of this bill in raising awareness of the major problem of connectivity including in indigenous communities, and the impact this plays on Canada's reconciliation process, especially as it pertains to enhancing the language and culture of those in remote communities. The senator also made many comments close to my heart on how the government should develop incentives and policies that foster competition and facilitate the entry of Canadian companies into the competitive market.

Canadians have had bad or worse connectivity in rural and remote areas in Canada. The really bad news is that most of Canada is rural and that 40% of rural Canadians do not even have access to high-speed Internet. That number is almost 60% for our first nations peoples. This is at a time when Canadians need fast, reliable Internet and cellphone coverage for their economic well-being, for their kids' education and perhaps, most important, for their safety.

This bill would ensure that those companies that win spectrum auctions actually use the spectrum they are buying in rural areas of Canada that need it. This is, with no small effect, to work on ensuring that the Canadian government and its minister of industry have a role to play in ensuring that the spectrum licences in this public utility purchased by companies are being put towards providing good, fast, reliable Internet for Canadians, or that a use-it-or-lose-it provision would ensure that, at the very least, the asset owned by the Canadian public is not just speculative for companies trying to earn another buck.

I want to thank Senator Patterson of Nunavut for putting forward this very important bill, a very timely one for when he retires. It is my hope that we in this place can support the work he has done in the Senate and this great first step to address rural connectivity in Canada.