“I want you to ask the House again if this can pass. We usually agree to this quickly so we can move on to the debate.”

“Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I suspect that if you canvass the House, members will realize that normally this sort of thing carries very quickly so that we can start the Private Members’ Business hour of debate. Perhaps the person who said “no” did not quite realize that. Maybe you want to canvass the House one more time.”

“I want the House to pass this bill and send it to the Senate. Many people in rural areas still have no cell service, even when phone company maps say they do. This bill makes regulators check that coverage maps are accurate. It also updates our outdated wireless rules to match modern technology. Cell service is a basic need for safety and work, not a luxury.”

“moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. She said: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for allowing third reading of Bill C-268 to begin today. This bill addresses a very real problem. There are still many regions across Canada without cellphone coverage. The map may show that there is coverage and the telecommunications contract may include coverage obligations, but on the ground, people do not get a signal on their cellphone. It is this disconnect between what we see on paper and what people are actually experiencing that led me to introduce this bill. I began working on this issue during the election campaign, following a discussion with the mayor of Martinville, Michel‑Henri Goyette, who really opened my eyes to the cell service issues in his community. As is likely the case for all members who represent rural areas, I had experienced this problem myself. As I said when I introduced this bill, cell service is not a luxury. It is a matter of safety and economic development. It is a matter of fairness. Today, cellphones are a basic tool for working, communicating, getting around and calling for help, and yet there are still Canadians who have to leave their home and climb a hill or drive several kilometres just to make a call. That is unacceptable and needs to change. Bill C-268 does three main things. First, it requires the CRTC to establish a process to ensure the accuracy of mobile network coverage data, because before we can solve a problem, we must first know precisely where it exists. Second, it requires the Minister of Industry to maintain and update the Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada. This framework has not been updated since 2007, the era of flip phones. Today, we have 5G networks, connected vehicles and satellites that communicate directly with our cellphones. Public policy must keep pace with technological change. Third, the bill provides for a periodic review of the framework. The objective is not to predict what technology will look like in 15 or 20 years. No one can do that. The objective is to ensure that our policies can evolve alongside technology. I do want to highlight a positive development that has occurred since the spring. Issues related to cellular connectivity and network deployment have become much more prominent in the government’s work. That is great news. Budget 2026 recognizes that challenges regarding coverage and reliability persist, particularly in rural and remote communities. The budget includes measures to release more spectrum for 5G and private networks, support satellite services that can extend coverage in rural and remote areas, update spectrum transfer rules and modernize infrastructure. I am particularly pleased to see these measures because affordability is important. However, for me, the key issue is deployment. A cheaper plan does not do much if the telephone is not connected in the first place. Improving coverage requires proper rules, good spectrum management, reliable coverage data and investments. My bill is part of that process. I want to thank the researchers who helped shape the bill, Matthew McNally and Gregory Taylor. I also want to thank Michel‑Henri Goyette and the mayors in my riding who have continued to raise awareness of the realities on the ground and ensure that these issues are heard in Ottawa as much as they are now. Above all, I would like to thank my colleagues from all parties, because this bill is a good example of what we can accomplish when we focus on the problem rather than on our political differences. Cell connectivity is not a Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Bloc or Green issue. It is an issue that concerns everyone. When a firefighter is out of reach on a country road, the problem remains the same, regardless of political affiliation. When a farm operation loses its connection, the problem remains the same, regardless of political affiliation. When a family has to drive a few kilometres away to make a call, the problem remains the same, regardless of political affiliation. I am truly grateful for the support that the bill has received so far. For a private member’s bill introduced in March to have reached third reading by November is remarkably fast. Above all, it shows a willingness to work together. I hope that our collaboration will continue through to the end. If my colleagues wish to keep moving the bill forward and send it to the Senate, I already someone in the other place who is prepared to sponsor it. I sincerely thank Senator Réjean Aucoin, who told me that he would take up the bill if it reaches the Senate. I am very grateful to him for that. Our goal is not simply to pass a law. Our goal is that one day, folks everywhere, from Martinville, Quebec, to Chéticamp, Nova Scotia, to Whitehorse, Yukon, or any community in Canada, will be able to pick up their phones on a road where they used to lose the signal and see that the problem has finally been fixed. That is what I want, and that is why I am asking my colleagues to keep working together to move Bill C-268 forward.”

“I want this bill to pass. Businesses, farmers, and shippers need good cell service to work and grow. Improving coverage will help businesses succeed and create good jobs.”

“Mr. Speaker, cellular connectivity is essential to our economic development. Businesses need this connectivity to be able to operate. Sometimes technical issues prevent them from moving forward, getting new contracts and continuing to grow. Expanding cellular connectivity is one way to support the employability of people and the growth of businesses in the regions. I see it as an essential tool for economic development. Right now, some farmers cannot use new technologies. Shipping companies are struggling to communicate. By improving cellular connectivity, we will help businesses be more successful and create good jobs.”

“Can the member give some examples of how bad rural cellphone service hurts the economy?”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague from Compton—Stanstead for her strong advocacy on behalf of her constituency. She is incredible, and I have a great deal of respect for her. Can she give us some examples of the economic consequences of poor connectivity in rural areas, particularly when it comes to cellphone service?”

• 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 →
• Echo ×10

  A repeated line

  “I have a great deal of respect for my colleague.”

  Said 10 times by 8 members since April 24.

  Every time it was said →

“Poor cell service hurts local businesses, farms, and students who cannot do schoolwork from home. It is also dangerous. People cannot always call 911 after an accident, and firefighters sometimes cannot call for help. Along the border, 911 calls can connect to the United States by mistake, causing long delays.”

“Mr. Speaker, yes, there are significant economic impacts on businesses. While Internet access is steadily improving, cellular coverage remains a challenge. Transportation provides a clear example of the difficulties we face. The agricultural sector is also feeling the effects. Students may be unable to complete assignments remotely due to a lack of connectivity. This has economic consequences, and social ones as well. Telehealth is still not an option in certain regions. This is also a matter of public safety. There are firefighters who cannot call for backup. There are people on the road who cannot contact emergency services after an accident. This really does create dangerous situations. In our area, some people cannot call 911. Furthermore, as my riding borders the U.S., some residents pick up a signal from the United States. When they dial 911, their call is routed to a U.S. dispatch centre. It can take a very long time before they are transferred back to Canada. Public safety is of the utmost importance to me.”

“The government cares about internet and cell service in rural and remote areas, and making it affordable. The budget shows this. We will fix this by opening up more wireless spectrum for 5G networks and private networks, and by using satellites, which are the future.”

“Mr. Speaker, in my remarks, I did say that I was very pleased to see this mentioned in the budget. This proves that the government is very concerned about this issue. The budget mentions the issue of connectivity in rural and remote areas, as well as the affordability of telecommunications services. The proposed solutions that will be implemented are more spectrum for 5G networks and private networks, and satellite services. Satellites are the future.”

“I want the House to pass this bill to improve cell service in rural areas. Many parts of my riding have no cell service at all. This hurts the local economy and puts people in danger during emergencies. We also need to quickly update our rules so companies can use new satellite technologies to help connect these areas.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak on a subject of great importance in my constituency: cellular connectivity. This is an issue that worries me, just as it worries my colleague, the member for Compton—Stanstead, who is also a very strong advocate for the vitality of rural areas. In my riding, I lose signal when I am in Upper Madawaska. Then, if I move around a bit, the signal comes back. When I pass through Saint-Hilaire, I lose the connection again. It comes back again when I reach Edmundston. However, it is not so great in Saint-Basile anymore, even though it used to work a few years ago. If I keep going towards Rivière-Verte and Sainte-Anne, there are dead zones. The same happens if I go to the Restigouche area, whether I am in Balmoral, McKendrick, Glen Levit or Robinsonville, to name but a few places. My riding has very poor cellular connectivity. This is a top concern for my constituents, so it is a priority for me as well. It is very rare that I do not hear about this issue when I go home to my riding on the weekend. It is also a priority for local elected officials, including mayors and municipal councillors. I hear about this a lot. That is why I am pleased to co-sponsor my colleague’s bill, which calls for a review of Canada’s spectrum policy framework with a view to promoting the deployment of cellular connectivity in rural areas. I like to use all the platforms I have, including this speech in the House, to raise the issue of cellular connectivity in Ottawa. I am also fortunate to be the co-vice-chair of our party’s rural caucus, and this issue is top of mind for our group. Since I was elected, I have had multiple meetings with telecommunications companies, including service providers, as well as companies in the new technology sector. Some of them show great potential, particularly in low-earth orbit satellite technology. These technologies have the potential to be a real game changer in terms of connectivity. Yes, we have towers to serve areas that are more densely populated, but these satellite technologies would help bridge the gap in regions that are currently underserved. Coverage in these areas could be improved using these technologies. There is no question that further regulatory adjustments are needed to really take full advantage of the potential of these new technologies. As a member of Parliament, I urge members to act quickly on this issue, which I raise regularly. As we know, cell connectivity has enormous consequences. It impacts public safety. When cars break down in locations without service, it can cause problems. Just think of Highway 17 at night. Sometimes, it can be even more serious, when an accident happens and immediate emergency assistance is needed. It can even be a matter of life or death. Cell connectivity is an extremely serious issue, but the broader issue of economic development is another consideration. Businesses need reliable connections. That is what attracts them to a region. Consider workers, too. A lot of people work while they are on the road these days. As an MP, when I am driving around my riding, it is not unusual for my calls to drop, forcing me to wait a bit and then call the person back. This issue affects workplace productivity, because this is an inefficient way to work. It affects the regions’ ability to attract and retain residents too, because cell connectivity is not a luxury; it is an essential service that affects a person’s quality of life. As members also know, people now use their cellphones to access a wide range of services, whether health care, government services or banking, to name just a few. I would also say that this is a matter of fairness between regions. If we want to build Canada strong, we need strong rural communities, and reliable cellular coverage is essential. That is why I support Bill C-268, which calls for a review of the Canada’s spectrum policy framework. This is part of the solution. The other part is to emphasize the importance of acting quickly to establish a regulatory framework that supports the growth of satellite technologies in order to improve connectivity in rural and remote areas. This is an issue I have been working on and focusing on since my election to Ottawa, because I know that progress in this area will truly make a difference for the communities I represent, for my constituents, and for businesses in Madawaska—Restigouche. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the leadership of my colleague, the member for Compton—Stanstead, who is working tirelessly on the issue of cellular connectivity. She speaks about it regularly. She regularly addresses issues affecting rural areas. As the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, I always enjoy working with her because my riding and hers face many similar challenges, and I believe that by joining forces with other members from rural areas, we can successfully advance issues in Ottawa that are important to our communities. I would say that co-sponsoring this bill is another example of the strong collaboration that I hope will continue.”