Senate Sub-committee chair outlines plans for upcoming industry review

Canada's communications industries will have a chance to air their views on a variety of hot topics as the Senate Subcommittee on Communications prepares for a year-long review of the regulatory, cultural and consumer issues raised by competition and convergence (NL, April 25/00). Chairing the Transport and Communication' s sub-committee is Liberal Senator Marie-P. Poulin, who is now in her fifth year in the red chamber. Earlier this month, Poulin sat down with editor Paul Park to discuss the upcoming hearing, which will examine everything from Internet privacy and long distance contribution to cultural content and the role of federal agencies such as the CRTC. MP: The time line is three phases. Instead of coming out with a final report at the end, we'd rather follow the phases and do phase one, a short report with key recommendations in mid-September, then start on competition. Phase one as you probably saw is really looking at the whole privacy security issue and which leads us to e-business and which leads us also to public governance because the three are so linked together. NL: So where does the Senate hope to report taken beyond C-6 ? MP: Well C-6 will only come into effect on January 1 2001 and with any legislation we know that an extremely crucial part of the legislation is the regulation. So what we're hoping is to have some input into the regulation of C-6. NL: So more nitty-gritty than what's been laid down in the regulation? MP: We know the regulation is the implementation of the regulation. And the regulation has not been prepared yet. I even checked with the department. That's why our time frame is so tight. First of all we're on a shoestring budget, but number two we're also on very, very tight frame. So what we're doing is inviting different members of the industry to submit to us their paper so that they don't necessarily have to come to appear as a witness but they will all automatically be a witness with that proposal or their submission or their comments on our framework. NL: Why would this task be given to the Senate as opposed to the CRTC or Canadian Heritage? MP: One of the things the transport and communications committee felt as a full standing committee was that in the research that's been done about concerns of Canadian citizens is that concern number one is health right now, but concern number two and number three and number four are related to employment, which we touched about in Wired to Win, employment in the industry; safety and security, not in terms only of transport in terms also of communications and the new communications and the fact that the growth of the country is directly linked to employment and employment is directly linked to these new industries. So we felt that as the Senate we had a responsibility to look at public policy. Not only the large Canadian companies but also the new entrants in this new field feel that there's a level playing field that they wanted they are trying to influence the government in changing certain regulations, for instance regarding foreign ownership. One of the striking things about foreign ownership is that there are different schools of thought and it's a very sensitive issue and if you read the same paper the same day schools of thought come out really clearly and the Senate's responsibility is making sure that all the facts are on the table and that based on these facts we can come in with recommendations to public policy makers to make sure that we contribute to the growth of the country. NL: So do you feel that gives you more independence by the nature of the Senate? MP: Absolutely, absolutely. And not only more independence but also the fact that in the Senate you have a representation of the large number of professions that are active in the new media. It's bringing together the old medium, which is broadcasting, it's bringing together the telephony but it's also bringing the business aspects, the financial aspects, the marketing aspects, the security aspects, the public policy aspects. If you look at the Senate as an institution you will find Senators of experience who represent every one of those professions and who bring therefore a background of sometimes 30 years in that field. So it's a very valid contribution. Even though our membership of our subcommittee is only five members there are Senators that have expressed a desire to contribute and they're going to be at the hearing if they're free even though they're not members of the Senate subcommittee doing the study. They are allowed to do so in the Senate. In the Senate, as a Senator, you're can sit and participate in any standing committee or any Senate subcommittee or special committee even though you're not a member. NL: To whom do you give that advice? Specifically to the various constituencies? MP: I think first of all the public policy makers at this time. When we gave the advice in Wired to Win we gave it to quite a few. We were not giving it only to the public policy makers, we were giving it also to the private industry, to the public broadcaster, to the CRTC, to the schools. Our focus was much more wide spread whereas here we're really targeting public policy. If you look at the framework it's quite clear that we're targeting public policy. The third phase is looking at how well the roles and responsibilities of the different regulators whose decisions had an impact on the industry. I'm just wondering whether the regulators have enough wide spread wings to be able to take into account the different issues which are touching the new media, and when I say the new media I mean telephony as well. NL: When you talk about those wings, what do you mean specifically? MP: In terms of roles and responsibilities, knowing that each regulator is facilitated by an appropriate legislation. The legislation for broadcasting is totally different from the legislation for instance on copyright. Those are two independent legislations. Should we look at bringing those legislations together? At this time broadcasting is also separate from telecommunications. Is convergence creating a need to bring those legislations under the same umbrella, which means that it brings the agency under with wider powers? NL: When I was at the session where you announced this a couple of weeks ago, a lot of the telcos seemed very excited about you studying competition in long distance, particularly contribution. Do you think that's going to be a major focus of that phase? MP: The second phase, yes. NL: It's quite a quagmire. How do you expect to slog through, as you say you have a short time and a restricted budget? MP: The companies have already been invited to submit a paper. We feel through papers that are submitted to our clerk we'll already know where all the different companies are coming from. And there are definitely two schools of thought. Also I'm involving senior researchers who have recognized abilities in either public governance, fiscal matters, economic background, because I would like to also have plenty of learned Canadians who have studied this issue for quite a few years. NL: With the foreign ownership issue, obviously you have American companies with minority stakes now. Could it be likely that recommendations you come up with also end up having companies here like Deutsche telecom or NTT from Japan? MP: Its premature at this time. I wouldn't want to venture, and I don't think the members of the committee would want to prejudge the outcome before having had the opportunity to read the facts on the table. NL: Do you expect any resistance from any of the regulators regarding your terms? MP: The reaction that we've had up till now has been extremely favorable. If there has been resistance it hasn't been voiced to me or to the committee members. I'm hoping all the players will want to have input because it's such a time of change in our country. I get the feeling the players want to be part of the change. We know that we're sort of following the changes that have come about in technology but I think the players seem to say ‘yes we have to look at it, we have no more choice'. NL: How much will the subcommittee be employing the old and new media? Obviously we're not going to sit around weeks waiting for a Hansard to be printed on it. Would any of the sessions be broadcast or would stuff be available on the Internet? MP: I don't know if you noticed but the day that the framework became public, it was on the Internet. Does that answer your question ? So we'd better practice what we preach. Now we've asked to be broadcast also. The hearings are going to be panel hearings because we have so little time and also because we would like to hear not only what the different industry players are saying to us but we would like to hear what the industry players are saying to each other. So through a panel approach we thought it was a good opportunity. And because a panel approach with members of the committee and other Senators who will be there we feel it would be a fantastic opportunity for Canadians to know where the industry is going. So we've asked to be broadcast on CPAC but this is always a negotiation with CPAC. I know that our clerk is in communication with CPAC.In terms of having the blues on the Internet I now that Mrs. Piccinin is looking into it but I'm not sure if we'll be able to or not. We'd like to be part of it. There's a lot of public information the public would like to have access to. What we could do is stick a telephone line right in the middle and have a conference call. NL: People could e-mail their questions in. MP: Have an interactive session. Our major challenge is this is really done on a shoe string budget. If you're going to have for instance an interactive email site for a committee you need the staff to be able to receive. You know we always forget that but you need the bodies, you still need bodies even with the technology. And Mrs. Piccinin, who's our clerk, also clerks for another two other committees so her time is extremely busy also.

Senate Sub-committee chair outlines plans for upcoming industry review

News | 05/09/2000 4:00 am EDT

To keep reading, get a free trial.

Already a Subscriber?

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us