“We support this bill and want to keep discussing it. But I want the member to answer for today's jobs report. The country lost 50,000 private-sector jobs, and youth unemployment is up. The government has ignored our questions about this.”

“Mr. Speaker, this is legislation we are supportive of, and we are looking forward to further discussion. I did want to take this opportunity, though, and it relates to spectrum, the opportunities people are going to have and how people see their future, to ask the member to comment on the jobs report that came out today, because we have not heard from any member of the government on the jobs report. We repeatedly asked about it in question period, but heard no response on it. The 50,000 jobs lost in the private sector and a big increase in youth unemployment are the results we are seeing. The government, understandably, I think, does not want to talk about it, but can the member share any reaction to what we saw released from Statistics Canada today?”

“I support this bill because phone companies are lying about having good cell service in rural areas. People in my riding cannot even call 911 in an emergency. This bill will make coverage maps accurate, but the government's budget still does nothing to fix our service.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for bringing forward this bill and for her remarks. Coming from a rural riding, I know all the dead spots when I am driving, so I know when I am going to hang up before the call simply drops. That is on the highway. When a combine light is on fire and someone cannot call 911, that is a real problem. I have communities that I can stand in the middle of and not be able to make a phone call whatsoever. It is absurd. The telecom companies’ maps say that we have perfect coverage, and they are lying. It is a complete facade. In the last budget that was tabled yesterday, I scanned through to find out what more could be done. I think this legislation is an important step to provide transparency in the mapping. In the budget itself, though, I saw nothing substantial that is going to lead to actual improvements in wireless coverage for my communities.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 39 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“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.”

“Conservatives support this bill because better cell and internet service helps people find work in rural areas. But the government's economic plan is failing. The country lost 50,000 private sector jobs last month, unemployment is rising, and three in ten Canadians cannot afford basic needs. The government ignores these numbers and rejects our plans to create jobs, build homes, and support families.”

“Mr. Speaker, I look forward to sharing a few thoughts on Bill C-268. I do think it is important to begin by discussing the context, in terms of the economic situation of our country. This bill includes an aspiration about opportunities that can be associated with rural connectivity. As members know, we are supportive of that. The broader context, when it comes to opportunity for Canadians, is a challenging one. Yesterday, the government announced its budget. A budget is primarily about the government making the case for the things that it wants to do and the impact that it proposes will result from its policy. It is an exposition of the government’s proposals, ideas and plans. On the other hand, today, we received the jobs report, which is a report card, an assessment based on realities in the real world of what is actually happening in the economy, and gives us a real picture of whether or not the government’s plans are working. The contrast between yesterday’s message and today’s reality is quite striking. Yesterday, the government talked about all the jobs it was going to create. Today, we heard the results. Here they are. More than 50,000 private sector jobs were lost in the last month alone. Those are the realities, not hypotheses about the future. We saw an increase in youth unemployment from 13% to 13.7%, and an increase in the overall unemployment rate from 6.5% to 6.7%. The unemployment rate for 55-plus went up as well. There were increases across different demographics in the unemployment rate, increasing the unemployment rate overall. Underneath that, we see some other data points that I think are important to dwell on. Number one, it is getting harder for unemployed people to find a job. The statistics track job-finding rates. Fewer than one in five unemployed Canadians found a job in the last month. It is getting harder for people who are out of work to find a job. Also, the Statistics Canada report today looked at financial insecurity in households. Three out of 10 Canadians are living in a financially insecure household. That is a household where people are struggling to pay for their basic needs. We have a situation where people are working hard and yet there is an increase in that financial insecurity. Adding to that is the reality that Canadians are working longer hours, which is also in the jobs report. Canadians are less likely to be working at all. If they are working, they are working longer hours and yet they are seeing higher levels of financial insecurity. If they are unemployed, they are having a harder time than ever before of finding jobs. Now, these are the realities in our economy. First of all, we asked about the jobs report in question period, and the government consistently refused to respond or even mention the jobs report. The Liberals want to talk about the budget. We are happy to debate the provisions of the budget, but they do not want to acknowledge the existence of the jobs report, which is the report card, the results of their policies. The jobs report shows the government is failing. The Liberals do not even want to acknowledge or talk about it, and yet we have all of these numbers that demonstrate problems. These numbers demonstrate that it is harder to find a job than ever before, that more Canadians are unemployed than in the past, that it is particularly hard for young people to start out in life and access opportunities, and that those who are working are working longer and are more likely to be dealing with financial insecurity. These are the realities that I think demonstrate that the government’s approach is not as sunny as it would like to pretend it is. Moreover, when we highlight these problems, the Liberals say, “Stop talking things down. We should be optimistic. Why are you saying negative things?” I think it is important that we speak truth and look at realities. A young person who edits their credit card statement before they give it to their parents is not doing themselves or anyone else any good. The goal of looking frankly at these realities is to try to promote concrete action to address them so that we can solve the problems our country is facing. We want to solve these problems. We want to identify problems and then propose constructive solutions to them. The government putting its head in the sand, pretending that problems do not exist and pretending that things are sunnier than they are is not going to lead to solutions to the problems. Let us look at the jobs report. Let us talk about the frank problems it demonstrates in terms of it being harder to find a job, harder to get ahead and harder to make ends meet even for those who are working. Let us talk about those problems and then let us talk about concrete solutions. In the lead-up to the budget, Conservatives proposed detailed, concrete solutions. A year ago, we presented a jobs plan that focused on unleashing the economy, fixing immigration, fixing training and building homes where the jobs are. There were concrete proposals associated with all of those areas of recommendation. We have not seen action from the government on any of our proposals. In fact, in many cases, it has moved in the opposite direction. We also presented five different substantial constructive proposals to support families, like working to integrate work and family life, reforms to parental leave and changes to CPP to ensure that parents are not penalized for being with their kids later on in their retirement years. These are no- or low-cost proposals that would make life substantially better for Canadians, in one case protecting families impacted by the death of a parent. It was a proposal that cost less than a $1 million a year. The Liberals are zero for five on implementing these constructive ideas. One would think they would have seen the constructive proposals coming from the opposition on jobs and families and said, “Let us put some of them in the budget. Maybe it will be harder for the opposition to criticize the budget if we take some of their good ideas and put them in there.” However, it is oh for four on taking ideas from the jobs plan, and oh for five on taking ideas from our proposals to support families. We see today the result of their unwillingness to listen to the constructive ideas that have come forward in the House. The result is a continuing worsening situation when it comes to jobs and financial security for families. When it comes to the issue of jobs and connectivity, which the bill deals with, in rural and remote communities, addressing connectivity gaps can contribute to opportunities for people to have employment. One of the areas we are working on regarding jobs and opportunities in remote areas is to promote the construction of housing where the jobs are. We see high levels of unemployment in certain regions, which often but not always are bigger cities, and then there are labour force needs in other places. We want to support Canadians taking Canadian jobs, and that includes having an ability to take jobs where they are. One of the barriers that can contribute to making it harder for people to relocate for jobs and opportunity is the availability of housing. We have introduced as part of our plan a significant incentive around workforce housing construction, making it easier to build homes where the jobs are and for people to choose to locate near where jobs are. Connectivity is part of that. It is one thing that allows opportunities to grow in remote areas and makes it easier for people to make a choice to locate in a different area in order to get jobs and opportunity. Conservatives have been supportive of the bill. We have been constructive in the process. We have contributed to the work that needs to happen in the area of promoting connectivity, work that I think the government has been way behind on. Sadly, this is existing within an overall picture in which jobs are down and the government is failing. The Liberals want us to ignore their failure and feel sunny and happy about their hopes for the future. We need to look squarely at the realities and challenges and do the work necessary to address these problems. That should include implementing the constructive solutions that we have put forward as part of our jobs plan and our plan for work and family life.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Relevance 9 of 100

  Only 9% of this speech directly addressed the bill under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I support this bill. Our wireless rules are outdated, and people in rural areas still cannot even make phone calls in the middle of town.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for bringing forward this bill. Hearing her speech, I imagine our ridings share some similarities insofar as the rural nature of them. I think this bill would make a difference, and that is why Conservatives supported it at second reading. I intend to also support it today. In fact, I brought up this bill while standing in a community with residents who were asking me why they could not make a phone call right where we were standing in the middle of town. I think this is a step. Again, I was reviewing the budget from yesterday, and I see references to things like increasing spectrum availability and having it at an auction. Now, that sort of promise is positive, although it has no associated timeline with it, which is, of course, worrisome. Going back to when we started developing this spectrum policy, it was the very earliest days of iPhones. Things have changed so immensely in technology and the way we live our lives. Let me outline some differences. I might be driving home today here in Ottawa, and my phone call might drop. It will be annoying for a brief second, but I will hit redial, my call will be answered, and I will pick up where I left off in my conversation, versus when I am driving down—”

“I support this bill. Phone companies say their coverage maps are complete, but rural areas have huge dead zones. People in the country pay the same prices as people in cities, but they get worse service. That puts people in danger when they cannot call for help in an emergency.”

“Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, there is good service in the big cities, and that is the key difference. We can stand in this place and make a phone call, but when I am driving down the highway heading from my home in Portage down to Winkler, I know exactly where the dead spots are. When I am on the phone, I will say, “Okay, I have to let you go. I am going to lose you here.” That is not identified on the map. It is one thing to lose a phone call and have to pick it up a couple of minutes later or 10 kilometres later, which is worse than dropping a phone call in a city. Where it really matters is when someone’s home in a rural area has no coverage. They can buy a booster for a bit of coverage right within their own home. Another example is of someone driving a combine during harvest and, heaven forbid, there is a fire, which does happen. They try to call emergency services, hoping they might be able to get there in time to save their $1-million piece of equipment, but find that they have no service. Someone could have an invader on their property in the middle of the night in a rural area, and they hope to call emergency responders, but they leave their house and have no service. It is one thing to be annoyed in a city when we do not have the ability to make a phone call. It is another thing to have legitimate safety concerns on farms and across rural landscapes across this country. It is unfair. We pay the same prices as anybody else buying their plans from any of these big telecom companies, and we get, at best, half the service. In many locations, people simply more or less live without service. I can think of Elm Creek, Miami or Somerset. Standing in town feels like we are living in a third world country, yet when I pull up the maps, the coverage is perfect.”

“I support this bill, but it is only a small first step. Phone companies claim their coverage is great, but rural areas still have dead zones, dropped calls, and worse service. People pay high bills for bad connections, which hurts our local businesses. This bill forces companies to show real coverage maps, and we should pass it quickly. I also want the Senate to review this every two years instead of five, and the government must do more to actually fix rural service.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will outline them. For one company, it is perfectly green with a couple of spots. For the other one, it is perfectly blue. The coverage is perfect, if I go online. That is not reality. It is not reality for thousands of my constituents. It is not reality for, I assume, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Canadians across this country. Yes, the bill is a positive step. Forcing transparency upon these companies, to show the actual network service they are providing to their very highly paying customers, is the absolute minimum step we can take. I do applaud the member for bringing this forward, but I think it is time to look beyond this. Let us fix this problem. There were efforts by Conservatives on the bill in committee to try to hasten the pace of the review from five years down to two years. I wish it had been adopted, and I hope the Senate might consider such a change to make sure there are updates to this proposal, to make sure these big telecom companies are following the letter of the law, should this plan to implement transparency actually come to light. The other factor, with respect to our rural communities, is that we are thriving for many reasons, in many places, in many ways thanks to the entrepreneurial spirit of our people. We have so many businesses that are driving our rural economy, and more importantly Canada’s, that are reliant on travel between smaller communities, whether in agriculture, manufacturing or anything else. We are yet again at another competitive disadvantage, from the business lens, when they do not have good enough service. I recognize that if this problem were easy to fix, some government would have fixed it by now. We live in a nation where competition is something we have long dreamed of yet have never been able to achieve, frankly, in just about any of our major sectors, and particularly the telecoms, so taking this small step to make transparency emerge with the big actors here would be of value. It is frustrating that when I go close to the border, I lose service from my Canadian provider, yet an American tower will pick me up, and I will join a roaming charge service to be part of a U.S. network. Why on earth would we allow an overlapping signal to come from the United States and allow our big telecoms to not be providing service to our border communities? These are some of our most important communities in terms of trade, and in my case agriculture, that are living with a U.S. signal as their main provider. This country needs to do better. We may not think of this sort of infrastructure as infrastructure, but it is vital infrastructure that is lagging, with tremendous disparity based on where people live. When I go back to the map, just outside of my riding in Oak Bluff, just in the corner, there is good service. In Winnipeg, there is wonderful service. I understand that many people live in our big communities, but to charge the amounts we get charged as Canadian users of these technologies, particularly the ones who are receiving some of the poorest service we could imagine, is outrageous. Anybody who has ever travelled internationally knows there are some countries we might not expect would have unbelievable cell phone coverage, but they do. It is remarkable that people can travel across so many places in this great nation and lose signal so many times. The Liberal government has focused time and time again on fibre and access into homes, and that is important, but in my view, the wireless networks and the shortages and lacks of coverage across so many regions are more important. This is an urgent issue. It is an urgent issue for our business community, for our families and for the safety of the people we are sent here to represent. In the budget, there are nods to this being a problem. There is a section titled “Increasing competition in the telecommunications sector”. That is a great idea, but when I read through some of the offerings of the Liberal government, I see plans to make plans, to make promises to maybe do something. We have suffered with Liberal government inaction on this policy file for 11 years. Not a single person in my riding would say their cell phone connectivity has gotten better. In fact, many of them tell me it has gotten worse. I think of the tower near Carman that was removed, which had everybody in the region wondering, “What happened? I used to get service here. Where did it go?” The consultation process among these companies with the people who live, work and play across our rural landscapes is abysmal. While they simultaneously manage to say that they are enhancing services, what happens on the ground is really all that matters. I would love every map in this country from our big telecom companies to be 100% accurate. I hope that by passing this legislation, we will force upon them the level of transparency required to come closer to achieving that. I recognize that it is difficult and is something that these companies surely do not want to do, but Canadians have a right to know that they are not getting the service they are paying a significant amount for, often $100 or more a month. It is not good enough. I hope we can pass this legislation expeditiously and, more importantly, take steps to solve the true problems of service reaching cellphones across my riding and across this country.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. Rural northern areas like my riding do not have the cell service they were promised. That hurts our economy and makes people unsafe, especially on Highway 16. We need to hold telecom companies accountable for real coverage.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to get up on behalf of Skeena—Bulkley Valley to talk about Bill C-268, which is long overdue, decades overdue. The last review was done in, I think, 2017. That aside, we are talking about connectivity. We are talking about cellphone coverage. That is what we are really talking about. The north, in my riding, has been underserved for years, with broken promises. We are also talking about safety. I agree with that. I have heard all the speeches, but in one instance, we are talking about Highway 16, which has been referred to as the Highway of Tears, where a lot of aboriginal women go missing. The promise back then was to have 100% connectivity from Prince Rupert to Prince George. We are not even close. We have not even reached 50% of that connectivity promise. This is not just about safety. It is about building Canada strong. In this case, I would urge the government to take a lesson from this side of the House. I know it does not like to, but it really should, because the north, especially regions like my riding, actually drives the economy of Canada, yet it does not get the services it requires to be a full, functioning, healthy economy. Connectivity has a lot to do with that. Look at the Stewart port. It has billions of dollars of potential. The Liberals mention it when they need a photo op, but does it have good connectivity? No. Has it asked for that? Yes. Has it asked for highway upgrades? Yes, it has. The Tahltan first nation was here just yesterday asking about connectivity so they will not have to subscribe to Starlink, a U.S. company, to provide them cell service. They also want infrastructure promises. The government has to get away from getting on the coattails of projects that already have their own momentum and look at different regions that can provide billions of dollars in investment to kick-start our economy after a 10-year period of stagnation. The golden triangle in Tahltan territory needs connectivity and highway infrastructure. In Burns Lake, we need connectivity. We can contribute more than what we already see in the papers in places like Stewart, Tahltan, Burns Lake and even Kitimat, and especially along the Highway of Tears. That was promised decades ago. In this instance, we have to hold these big telecom companies in Canada accountable and make them do as they say and say as they do, not the other way around. This legislation is long overdue. I really urge this House to vote in favour of it going forward.”

• Echo ×5

  A repeated line

  “This is about building Canada strong.”

  Said 5 times by 5 members since September 21.

  Every time it was said →