Telcos, municipalities at odds over federal cell tower policy

Proposed changes to the federal government’s cell tower rules have caused a rift between wireless providers and Canadian municipalities. Earlier this year, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) released a proposed update to the tower siting policy, which hasn’t been amended since 2007, and sought stakeholder feedback to shape the final regulations. Most of the changes, including requiring tower operators to display physical signs at proposed sites, lessening annual reporting requirements, and mandating companies to use an online portal to address public concerns, were uncontroversial among telcos, local radio clubs, and other groups. However, ISED’s suggested 45-day timeline for land use authorities (LUAs) to issue a final determination on proposed builds has prompted consternation amongst municipal officials across the country. Currently, Ottawa asks tower proponents to work with localities on a path forward, but retains a final decision-making authority, should the two parties reach an unresolvable impasse after 120 days. Under the new rules, cities and townships would have a strict 45-day period to indicate agreement or disagreement with the project proposal. If a solution is not found, it is incumbent on the municipal agency to notify ISED, which would then make the final decision. Additionally, if the local authority does not notify the federal government, the tower would be allowed to proceed as planned. The proposal isn’t sitting well with municipalities. “This timeline may not provide sufficient opportunity to complete a comprehensive municipal review, including internal circulation, technical review, and consideration of public comments, particularly for more complex proposals,” wrote the Town of Oakville, Ont., in its submission to ISED. “If ISED intends municipalities to continue representing local land-use interests, the concurrence timeframe should recognize the time required to complete a meaningful planning review rather than simply a procedural review.” The City of London, Ont., said the new policy could lead to “reduced or missed notifications and eliminate the collaborative problem-solving necessary for successful infrastructure installment.” Other parties, like the City of Kingston, Ont., and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), called for the window to be extended to 60 days. “FCM wishes to bring to ISED’s attention the fact that many municipalities have limited human resources available and, as a result, processing a file as important and potentially complex, in such a short timeframe, is not viable in most cases,” wrote the member organization, which represents more than 2,000 communities. “We also suggest that, in exceptional circumstances, the LUA be allowed to request the Department’s intervention to extend the response period.” Officials from Thunder Bay, Ont., Abbotsford, B.C., and Red Deer County, Alta., also expressed concerns over the 45-day proposal, though the sentiment was not universal among local leaders. In its comments, the City of Airdrie, Alta., said a 45-day window “seems reasonable,” while the City of Peterborough, Ont., described the change as “sufficient.” Most telecommunications companies approved of ISED’s update, with Bragg Communications Inc. (Eastlink), Cogeco Communications Inc., and Telus Corp. providing support. “This window strikes the right balance by aligning with typical municipal council meeting cycles – providing ample opportunity for deliberation within established LUA processes – while maintaining federal network deployment objectives,” read Telus’s submission. “TELUS has recent experience where LUAs have delayed or behaved in an obstructive manner, shying away from engagement where a site attracted undue political pushback. “A hard deadline with deemed concurrence removes the incentive for these kinds of delays and obstructions and ensures that the goals of the Connectivity Strategy are not undermined by local gatekeeping.” Other telcos, however, pushed for the timeline to be restricted even further, with BCE Inc.’s Bell Mobility and Rogers Communications Inc. calling for a 30-day timeline. “A 30-day period should… provide sufficient time for LUAs to complete their review and administrative processing, while improving the overall approval timeline for tower siting applications and facilitating the timely deployment of critical infrastructure,” wrote Bell. “We also strongly support strict adherence to this timeline, including deemed approval where an LUA does not raise an objection within the prescribed period.” Canada’s Big Three, consisting of Bell, Rogers, and Telus, operate nearly 40,000 cell towers between them. The Radio Advisory Board of Canada (RABC), whose comments were endorsed by Saskatchewan Telecommunications Holding Corp. (SaskTel), which operates more than 1,000 towers, described the 45-day proposal as “unnecessarily long.” “In practice, tower proponents typically engage in extensive preliminary communications with the applicable LUA long before the formal public notification process commences or applications are submitted to ISED,” said the RABC. “Because the LUA is already familiar with the proposal by the time formal concurrence is requested, a 30-calendar-day window provides ample time to complete the administrative step of issuing concurrence.” ISED published the proposed update in an effort to “reduce the regulatory burden” on wireless providers, broadcasters, and anyone else looking to build new towers. There is no clear timeline for when the government department will make a final decision. dlegree@thewirereport.ca

Telcos, municipalities at odds over federal cell tower policy

Regulatory |
By Davis Legree
|July 27, 2026

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Telcos, municipalities at odds over federal cell tower policy

Regulatory | By Davis Legree |July 27, 2026

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Bell, Telus push back on proposed public hearing into wireless fees

TekSavvy and co. ask CRTC to review and vary wholesale access rates

Q&A: Sheri Somerville can feel the CRTC shifting on competition

Related Stories

Poilievre sponsors petition to improve cell coverage in rural Canada

Ottawa changing cell tower regulations, asks for input on improving telecoms competition

CRTC commissioner references ‘Bud the Spud’ in Telus funding dissent

A look at what’s to come in 2026 for telecoms, broadcasting, digital policy

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Regulatory |
By Davis Legree
|July 27, 2026