Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-242, An Act to amend the Radiocommunication Act.

I would like to thank our colleague Senator Dennis Patterson for introducing this bill, which I hope will finally help motivate the government to take action on this important issue.

Senator Patterson’s bill proposes to create a legal disincentive for companies in order to encourage them not to disconnect Canadian communities, notably rural communities, from broadband infrastructure. In my view, this bill would finally ensure what many have been advising for a long time: namely, for the government to apply a “use it or lose it” approach to the allocation and development of spectrum. If we can finally achieve that, the bill would help ensure that spectrum allocation benefits rural parts of our country.

The problem, as Senator Patterson articulated in his speech, is that too many communities in this country, particularly rural communities, lack connectivity to broadband. For telecommunications companies to deliver wireless services like cell services or wireless broadband, they require sufficient spectrum to deliver high-quality wireless services.

As Senator Patterson stated, limitations on the availability of spectrum might affect the big telcos, but it also affected small businesses that are present in so many rural communities. In our increasingly digital world, these businesses require access to spectrum to stay competitive, and this is certain to become more critical in the years and decades ahead as we advance toward 5G and beyond.

Given that many innovative businesses can now effectively be located anywhere in Canada, we cannot afford to leave major parts of our country without an effective broadband infrastructure. The problem, as expressed by Senator Patterson, is that rural Canada is not well positioned for the implementation of 5G.

A large part of the problem is that we are faced with spectrum squatting. The government is responsible for auctioning off spectrum, and by doing so, it raises money for the federal government. The money raised is significant. Canada’s last auction of 3,500-megahertz spectrum generated a record $8.9 billion, with the country’s three dominant telecom companies accounting for more than 80% of the amount raised.

What are those funds being used for? Were the entire $9 billion to be allocated toward improving connectivity, could we address many or all of the problems related to ensuring equitable connectivity in Canada? Almost certainly.

However, we are likely to be disappointed were we to attempt to track how those funds are being allocated. I fear that this revenue is simply regarded as a cash cow to fuel ever more unaccountable spending by an unaccountable government.

There is also no evidence that much of the funds being taken in by government through spectrum auctions are being used to improve connectivity for Canadians.

And what of the importance, when it comes to public policy, of holding the buyers of spectrum to account?

The problem is that there is little incentive for many of the spectrum buyers to use it within a meaningful time frame. The reality is, as Senator Patterson pointed out, that less than 20% of rural spectrum is utilized by regional carriers. Companies either do not have the resources to deploy it or they decide, for strategic reasons, not to do so.

Senator Patterson is quite right in arguing that we require a policy environment where this spectrum squatting, as he has called it, is no longer permitted. In that context, we need to also consider what the implications of this spectrum squatting are for our most vulnerable communities.

As a recent Policy Options article by James Hobart and Cindy Woodhouse explained, “Many Indigenous communities in remote areas are digitally disconnected . . . .”

The United States government recently decided to give American Indigenous communities in rural areas priority access to unused and unassigned spectrum. Should Canada follow suit? Reflecting on this question, we need to consider the harsh reality that only 37% of rural and 24% of Indigenous communities have access to high-speed internet. We know that the lack of connectivity exacerbates socioeconomic inequities, including business opportunities, employment, education and physical and mental health.

If we are being honest about true reconciliation efforts for Indigenous peoples, this inequality must be addressed, and the government must take active measures to close these serious gaps for our most vulnerable communities. Addressing this inequality gap was a policy proposal in the Conservative Party election platform last year. The platform stated:

As technology continues to advance, the infrastructure of the future — broadband and 5G — will be increasingly critical to job creation.

The platform proposed to:

Build digital infrastructure to connect all of Canada to High-Speed Internet by 2025 . . . .

Accelerate the plan to get rural broadband built.

Speed up the spectrum auction process to get more spectrum into use and apply “use it or lose it” provisions to ensure that spectrum (particularly in rural areas) is actually developed . . . .

The current government has also made a commitment to the “use it or lose it” approach, and that commitment is incorporated in Minister Champagne’s mandate letter, which specifically directs the minister to:

Accelerate broadband delivery by implementing a “use it or lose it” approach to require those that have purchased rights to build broadband to meet broadband access milestones or risk losing their spectrum rights.

So we have widespread agreement that this should be done, yet we are simply not moving fast enough, and the gap is growing ever larger. We should be under no doubt that, due to the current government’s delays, Canada now has considerable catching up to do. According to University of Ottawa Professor Michael Geist, Canada is at the low end of countries when measured by mobile broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants, ranking well below the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average and ahead of only six other OECD countries. Canada also lags behind most OECD countries as measured by mobile data usage per broadband subscription.

(1630)

In contrast, 5G is already being rolled out in countries like Korea and Japan to name two. Japan has officially committed itself to the efficient and effective use of spectrum allocation to meet the needs of “Society 5.0” and beyond. Korea is already working ahead to 6G considerations, with government and universities engaged in planning and the study of applications for end users.

Canada’s sluggish approach will have major implications for Canada’s global competitiveness. Spectrum is a critical resource in the economy of today and of the future. In an article entitled “Governing Connectivity: How is Spectrum Policy Impacting the Lives of Canadians?” recently written in Policy Magazine by Helaina Gaspard, Alanna Sharman and Tianna Tischbein of the University of Ottawa, the authors noted that:

Spectrum has a direct or indirect role in most areas of industrial development and economic activity. From connectivity to medicine to transport and shipping, spectrum policy — the policies shaping how spectrum is allocated to different users and uses — has implications for economies and people.

As we develop this resource to make our country more competitive, we must ensure that the opportunity is available to Canadians in all parts of our country, including in rural and more remote areas. If we fail to do so, it will impact not only our economic competitiveness but also the government’s own ability to ensure effective online services in order to meet ministerial mandates. This is already evident in the health sector.

The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, CAMH, for example, has found that a growing number of Canadians seeking mental health services have been unable to receive them.

According to the Indigenous Services Canada website, mental health providers “. . . must be enrolled with Express Scripts Canada . . .” an online health management tool:

As more and more services go online, Inuit and remote First Nations will not be able to access those critical, life-saving services. To exacerbate that, a survey released by the Canadian Institute for Health Information suggests that in 2019 through to 2020:

. . . half of Canadians waited for up to 1 month for ongoing counselling services in the community while 1 in 10 waited more than 4 months.

This critical lack of internet service must be addressed for the well-being of Canada’s remote communities. As the article written by Helaina Gaspard, Alanna Sharman and Tianna Tischbein pointed out:

If Canada wants to change outcomes in connectivity, it should start with consideration of how spectrum policy links to instruments and incentives (including subsidies) for deployment.

The authors further explained that:

How spectrum is allocated should then be about more than revenue generation alone, but about achieving the intended outcomes of spectrum, e.g., connectivity for all.

This is obviously vital for many of our social and health services, but it is also critical for all other areas of our economy. And it is crucial for our rural and remote areas.

I would argue that in the new economy that is being created because of the global pandemic, where Canadians are, and will be, working from home more than ever before, this is now crystal clear. This, then, is where Senator Patterson’s bill is very useful in establishing a legal framework for the policy outcome that the government claims it wants.

Specifically, Senator Patterson’s bill would do two things. First, it would clarify the minister’s powers to ensure the minister takes away licences when companies refuse to connect at least 50% of Canadians in a given licence area. Second, it would permit Canadians to sue companies that underinvest in connectivity.

As Senator Patterson noted, while the minister already technically has the power to take licences away from companies for underperformance, this principle would now be set out in law. The law would give the minister the explicit mandate to withdraw licences when it becomes clear that the company that bought the spectrum has no intention of using it.

For the company that fails in its responsibilities, there would then be an opportunity for a community or First Nation to seek compensation for that failure to address the loss in connectivity. With that, I believe it is vital that this legal and policy environment be put in place to impact the next spectrum auction which is scheduled for next year.

There are undoubtedly many dimensions to this proposed solution that need to be fully explored, and we should undertake to doing that during committee study. Sending this bill to committee should be our focus to light a fire on this issue.

Therefore, honourable senators, I hope that you will agree to supporting Bill S-242 at second reading. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Dean, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]