The committee continued its study of Bill C-268, which concerns cellphone coverage data and spectrum policy, hearing from CRTC officials Sheehan Carter, Leila Wright and Rachelle Frenette, and from Andre Arbour of the Department of Industry.
Carter described the CRTC as an independent quasi-judicial tribunal and said its role under the bill is to collect accurate data from service providers about where services are available and share it with ISED. He cited complaints about dead zones and dropped calls in places such as Pincher Creek, Chelsea and Whitehorse, and said the CRTC had launched a consultation earlier in the year and acted the previous week with new requirements for more detailed and accurate coverage reporting, letting Canadians compare networks and flag where real-world experience does not match ISED's national broadband map.
Wright said the CRTC had helped allocate funding since 2019, improving service in more than 320 communities and along more than 650 kilometres of major roads, and that its wireless competition policy had brought competitors into nearly 100 new communities across seven provinces. She distinguished areas with a business case, where competitors can use large carriers' networks and then build out, from areas without one, served through a fund that is a small part of a larger multi-government effort, and said the last portion of coverage is the hardest to reach.
Frenette addressed northern access, saying the CRTC has policies specific to the Far North, including funds and regulations for companies serving those areas, to ensure service comparable to southern Canada. On the bill, she said the CRTC already has data-collection powers under the Telecommunications Act and is working toward the bill's objectives, giving it a head start, and that it reviews its policies regularly, so a two-year review cycle would pose no difficulty. She also distinguished network access from network reliability, saying the previous week's decision was meant to produce evidence on both.
Arbour, asked whether CRTC-administered funding could be transferred as was done for Internet connectivity, said the bill does not affect the CRTC fund and that ISED's universal broadband fund offers some flexibility, with no direct effect beyond benefits tied to more accurate data. He said transferring funding between the CRTC and another federal organization would be a big deal, given the CRTC's independence and the application of the Financial Administration Act, and agreed to provide a written answer.
Members pressed the witnesses on accountability. Groleau said coverage in Beauce is effectively absent and asked why the problem persists and who is responsible; Wright replied that the closer coverage gets to 100 per cent the harder the remaining gaps are, and pointed to the CRTC broadband fund and ISED's universal broadband fund. Gill argued that asking Canadians to report dead zones passes the CRTC's job to frustrated customers and asked who fixes a confirmed gap and what consequences follow; Carter said the CRTC's first role is collecting data and then working with carriers to find the source of problems, while Wright said the CRTC does not oversee spectrum and focuses on creating positive incentives to build. Gill said he did not feel he was getting transparency, and Carter said the CRTC will hold providers to account for the information they supply.
Ste-Marie asked about the bill's financial impact and timelines, the five-year versus two-year review cycle, whether Quebec could administer infrastructure funding as with Internet coverage, and how 99.5 per cent population coverage squares with persistent gaps; Wright said the $150-million fund comes from industry and cannot be transferred, Carter attributed the discrepancy to industry-supplied data that the new decision aims to standardize, and Frenette returned to the access-versus-reliability distinction.
The committee then turned to amendments. Groleau moved to shorten the review cycle to every two years, citing rapid technological change and the CRTC's failure to serve rural areas; Ste-Marie supported it, noting the CRTC had said a two-year cycle would be no problem, while Bardeesy opposed it as too onerous for the department, staff and companies and argued five years gives time to produce maps and let companies respond. Members indicated agreement, and the clause was carried with Ste-Marie voting in favour.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.