Discussion · Private Members' Business
Greg McLean Conservative
“I want the House to pass this bill. It will not fix every dead zone, but it makes sure the government checks whether cell coverage maps match what Canadians actually experience. Reliable service is essential for public safety and the economy, and the rules should be reviewed regularly.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at third reading of Bill C-268, an act respecting the spectrum policy framework for Canada. I would like to thank the member for Compton—Stanstead for bringing this legislation before Parliament and for her efforts in advancing this important discussion. As Conservatives indicated at second reading, we support the objective of improving accountability and transparency in how wireless coverage is measured and how spectrum policy is reviewed in Canada. After hearing the testimony presented before the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, Conservatives continue to support this bill, and we believe it is a constructive step in the right direction. That said, I believe it is important that we be honest with Canadians about what the bill could and could not accomplish. In 2007, smart phones were only beginning to emerge. Streaming services were in their infancy. Remote work was relatively uncommon. Cloud computing was not yet part of everyday life for most Canadians. Artificial intelligence was largely the subject of academic research rather than a tool used by businesses and consumers every day. Today, virtually every aspect of modern life depends on connectivity. Our businesses depend upon it. Our educational institutions depend upon it. Our health care systems depend upon it. Bill C-268 would not eliminate every dead zone. It would not immediately bring cell service to every kilometre of highway. It would not instantly connect every rural and remote community. However, it would address a fundamental question that Parliament should always be asking, which is whether we are measuring success accurately. Too often in Ottawa, governments become preoccupied with targets, statistics, maps and announcements. Canadians, on the other hand, judge success much differently. Canadians judge success when they pick up their phone and it works. They judge success when they can call for help, as my colleague from Portage—Lisgar said. They judge success when they can operate a business, connect with customers and communicate with family members. That gap between what governments report and what Canadians experience in their daily lives was a recurring theme throughout the committee’s study of this legislation. Witnesses acknowledged that there can be a difference between coverage that exists on paper and coverage that is actually experienced in the real world. For many Canadians, particularly those living outside major urban centres, that reality is all too familiar. They have all experienced it. A coverage map indicates service is available. A government report indicates objectives are being met. A telecommunications provider states an area is covered, yet when Canadians attempt to make a call, send a message or access emergency services, they discover that reality does not quite match the map. The demand for reliable connectivity has increased exponentially, yet the framework that guides Canada’s spectrum policy has remained largely unchanged. It is entirely reasonable for Parliament to insist that such an important framework be reviewed on a regular basis. In fact, Conservatives argued at committee that reviews should take place every two years instead of every five years. Technology evolves rapidly. Markets evolve rapidly. Consumer expectations evolve rapidly. We believe that more frequent reviews would have better reflected the pace of technological change. Unfortunately, that amendment was defeated. Nevertheless, the principle remains the same, which is that regular review is better than no review. While much of this debate is focused on rural and remote communities, I would like to discuss why this matter is also important to the people I represent in Calgary Centre. Calgary Centre is an urban constituency. It is home to office towers, entrepreneurs, financial institutions, technology start-ups and thousands of highly skilled professionals. At first glance, it may appear that connectivity challenges affecting rural Canada are far removed from the lives of those living and working in downtown Calgary. Nothing could be further from the truth. Calgary’s prosperity is deeply connected to what happens beyond city limits. The engineers who design energy infrastructure in Calgary often oversee projects operating hundreds of kilometres away. The geologists evaluating resource opportunities rely on data generated from remote locations across Alberta. Energy companies monitor pipelines, facilities and operations spread across vast areas of Western Canada. Construction firms, transportation companies and service providers routinely operate in areas where connectivity remains unreliable. Workers travel these roads every day. Truck drivers travel these roads every day. Tradespeople travel these roads every day. Families travel these roads every day. All of them expect a basic level of connectivity and safety. In many respects, connectivity has become just as important to modern commerce as roads, railways and airports. Without it, economic activity becomes more difficult, less efficient and less competitive. This is particularly true for Alberta’s energy sector. The energy industry is increasingly reliant on sophisticated communications technologies, real-time data, remote monitoring systems and advanced automation. Reliable connectivity supports productivity, efficiency and safety. It helps workers communicate. It helps operators monitor critical infrastructure. It helps businesses compete in a global economy. It helps ensure that Canadian resources can continue contributing to our national prosperity. When people think about connectivity, they often think about convenience: the ability to browse the Internet, the ability to stream a video and the ability to check emails. Those things certainly matter. However, connectivity today is also an essential economic tool. For energy producer monitoring facilities in rural Alberta, connectivity is not a luxury. For a business serving clients across multiple regions, connectivity is not a luxury. For a worker travelling to a remote site, connectivity is not a luxury. It is infrastructure. There is another aspect of this legislation that deserves attention, and that is public safety. Perhaps the most compelling argument for improving coverage accuracy and accountability is the impact that connectivity has on emergency response. When Canadians find themselves in distress, they need confidence that they can call for help. That expectation should not depend on a postal code. It should not depend on whether someone happens to be driving along a major urban corridor or a more remote stretch of highway. It should not depend on whether someone lives in a large city or a small community. Across Canada, we have witnessed floods, wildfires, severe storms and other emergencies that have demonstrated the importance of reliable communications infrastructure. First responders depend on communications systems to coordinate their response. Families depend on communications systems to receive alerts and information. Individuals depend on communications systems to seek assistance. When connectivity fails, the consequences can be significant. That is why accountability matters. That is why transparency matters. That is why accurate information matters. Canadians deserve to know whether coverage claims actually reflect real-world outcomes. I often say that effective public policy starts with a simple principle: tell Canadians the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If there is a coverage gap, we need to identify it. If there is a problem, we need to acknowledge it. If objectives are not being met, we need to be honest about it. Only then can meaningful solutions be developed. Bill C-268 would help move us in that direction. It would create a mechanism for better verification. It would require regular review. It would provide greater transparency. It would give Parliament additional tools to assess whether policies are delivering the outcomes that Canadians expect. Would this bill solve every problem? No. Would it eliminate every dead zone? No. Would it instantly close every connectivity gap across this vast country? No. However, it would make it harder for governments and regulators to rely solely on paper success when Canadians are experiencing something entirely different on the ground. For Conservatives, that is an important principle. Governments should be judged on results, not aspirations, not announcements and not press releases, but results. At the end of the day, Canadians do not care what a coverage map says if their phone cannot place a call. They do not care what percentage appears in a government report if they lose service on the highway. They do not care how success is defined in Ottawa if they cannot connect when it matters most. Canadians deserve reliable service. Canadians deserve accurate information. Canadians deserve accountability. Canadians deserve a spectrum policy framework that is periodically reviewed to ensure that it remains relevant in a rapidly changing technological environment. For those reasons, Conservatives will be supporting Bill C-268 at third reading, and I encourage all members of the House to do the same.”
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at third reading of Bill C-268, an act respecting the spectrum policy framework for Canada. I would like to thank the member for Compton—Stanstead for bringing this legislation before Parliament and for her efforts in advancing this important discussion. As Conservatives indicated at second reading, we support the objective of improving accountability and transparency in how wireless coverage is measured and how spectrum policy is reviewed in Canada. After hearing the testimony presented before the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, Conservatives continue to support this bill, and we believe it is a constructive step in the right direction. That said, I believe it is important that we be honest with Canadians about what the bill could and could not accomplish. In 2007, smart phones were only beginning to emerge. Streaming services were in their infancy. Remote work was relatively uncommon. Cloud computing was not yet part of everyday life for most Canadians. Artificial intelligence was largely the subject of academic research rather than a tool used by businesses and consumers every day. Today, virtually every aspect of modern life depends on connectivity. Our businesses depend upon it. Our educational institutions depend upon it. Our health care systems depend upon it. Bill C-268 would not eliminate every dead zone. It would not immediately bring cell service to every kilometre of highway. It would not instantly connect every rural and remote community. However, it would address a fundamental question that Parliament should always be asking, which is whether we are measuring success accurately. Too often in Ottawa, governments become preoccupied with targets, statistics, maps and announcements. Canadians, on the other hand, judge success much differently. Canadians judge success when they pick up their phone and it works. They judge success when they can call for help, as my colleague from Portage—Lisgar said. They judge success when they can operate a business, connect with customers and communicate with family members. That gap between what governments report and what Canadians experience in their daily lives was a recurring theme throughout the committee’s study of this legislation. Witnesses acknowledged that there can be a difference between coverage that exists on paper and coverage that is actually experienced in the real world. For many Canadians, particularly those living outside major urban centres, that reality is all too familiar. They have all experienced it. A coverage map indicates service is available. A government report indicates objectives are being met. A telecommunications provider states an area is covered, yet when Canadians attempt to make a call, send a message or access emergency services, they discover that reality does not quite match the map. The demand for reliable connectivity has increased exponentially, yet the framework that guides Canada’s spectrum policy has remained largely unchanged. It is entirely reasonable for Parliament to insist that such an important framework be reviewed on a regular basis. In fact, Conservatives argued at committee that reviews should take place every two years instead of every five years. Technology evolves rapidly. Markets evolve rapidly. Consumer expectations evolve rapidly. We believe that more frequent reviews would have better reflected the pace of technological change. Unfortunately, that amendment was defeated. Nevertheless, the principle remains the same, which is that regular review is better than no review. While much of this debate is focused on rural and remote communities, I would like to discuss why this matter is also important to the people I represent in Calgary Centre. Calgary Centre is an urban constituency. It is home to office towers, entrepreneurs, financial institutions, technology start-ups and thousands of highly skilled professionals. At first glance, it may appear that connectivity challenges affecting rural Canada are far removed from the lives of those living and working in downtown Calgary. Nothing could be further from the truth. Calgary’s prosperity is deeply connected to what happens beyond city limits. The engineers who design energy infrastructure in Calgary often oversee projects operating hundreds of kilometres away. The geologists evaluating resource opportunities rely on data generated from remote locations across Alberta. Energy companies monitor pipelines, facilities and operations spread across vast areas of Western Canada. Construction firms, transportation companies and service providers routinely operate in areas where connectivity remains unreliable. Workers travel these roads every day. Truck drivers travel these roads every day. Tradespeople travel these roads every day. Families travel these roads every day. All of them expect a basic level of connectivity and safety. In many respects, connectivity has become just as important to modern commerce as roads, railways and airports. Without it, economic activity becomes more difficult, less efficient and less competitive. This is particularly true for Alberta’s energy sector. The energy industry is increasingly reliant on sophisticated communications technologies, real-time data, remote monitoring systems and advanced automation. Reliable connectivity supports productivity, efficiency and safety. It helps workers communicate. It helps operators monitor critical infrastructure. It helps businesses compete in a global economy. It helps ensure that Canadian resources can continue contributing to our national prosperity. When people think about connectivity, they often think about convenience: the ability to browse the Internet, the ability to stream a video and the ability to check emails. Those things certainly matter. However, connectivity today is also an essential economic tool. For energy producer monitoring facilities in rural Alberta, connectivity is not a luxury. For a business serving clients across multiple regions, connectivity is not a luxury. For a worker travelling to a remote site, connectivity is not a luxury. It is infrastructure. There is another aspect of this legislation that deserves attention, and that is public safety. Perhaps the most compelling argument for improving coverage accuracy and accountability is the impact that connectivity has on emergency response. When Canadians find themselves in distress, they need confidence that they can call for help. That expectation should not depend on a postal code. It should not depend on whether someone happens to be driving along a major urban corridor or a more remote stretch of highway. It should not depend on whether someone lives in a large city or a small community. Across Canada, we have witnessed floods, wildfires, severe storms and other emergencies that have demonstrated the importance of reliable communications infrastructure. First responders depend on communications systems to coordinate their response. Families depend on communications systems to receive alerts and information. Individuals depend on communications systems to seek assistance. When connectivity fails, the consequences can be significant. That is why accountability matters. That is why transparency matters. That is why accurate information matters. Canadians deserve to know whether coverage claims actually reflect real-world outcomes. I often say that effective public policy starts with a simple principle: tell Canadians the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If there is a coverage gap, we need to identify it. If there is a problem, we need to acknowledge it. If objectives are not being met, we need to be honest about it. Only then can meaningful solutions be developed. Bill C-268 would help move us in that direction. It would create a mechanism for better verification. It would require regular review. It would provide greater transparency. It would give Parliament additional tools to assess whether policies are delivering the outcomes that Canadians expect. Would this bill solve every problem? No. Would it eliminate every dead zone? No. Would it instantly close every connectivity gap across this vast country? No. However, it would make it harder for governments and regulators to rely solely on paper success when Canadians are experiencing something entirely different on the ground. For Conservatives, that is an important principle. Governments should be judged on results, not aspirations, not announcements and not press releases, but results. At the end of the day, Canadians do not care what a coverage map says if their phone cannot place a call. They do not care what percentage appears in a government report if they lose service on the highway. They do not care how success is defined in Ottawa if they cannot connect when it matters most. Canadians deserve reliable service. Canadians deserve accurate information. Canadians deserve accountability. Canadians deserve a spectrum policy framework that is periodically reviewed to ensure that it remains relevant in a rapidly changing technological environment. For those reasons, Conservatives will be supporting Bill C-268 at third reading, and I encourage all members of the House to do the same.