OTTAWA – This new guy is definitely different from the last one.
Exactly five years ago, then-new chair Jean-Pierre Blais used Ottawa’s IIC Canada conference to set out his plan for the Commission under his leadership. None could understand at the time how his “consumers, creators and citizens” vision would break apart industry assumptions, challenge business as usual, increase consumer involvement with the Regulator – and foster unprecedented levels of acrimony between the chair and industry – and between the chair and some of the CRTC staff and commissioners. A lot of that pain was fueled by challenging policy shifts – but some also by the former chair’s personal style.
Scott, however, stated at the top of his speech to the International Institute of Communications Canadian chapter on Tuesday (pictured) that he had no particular big reveal coming the way some hoped. “You are perhaps looking for a grand vision statement, a tip of the cap that we are pro-this, or opposed-to-that. I’m sorry to disappoint you. You won’t find that here today,” he said.
“Over the next five years, the CRTC will commit to ensuring that we regulate in the public interest and maximize participation in our proceedings using innovative digital tools and social media, and best practices from other regulators.
“That’s perhaps not the glorious pronouncement some of you were hoping for. But I hope you nonetheless recognize that the importance of this commitment is in no way diminished by its lack of shine. As a regulator… our role is to balance many competing ideas and approaches while consistently fulfilling our statutory mandates, and we will uphold that public duty to the best of our abilities.”
In an interview with Cartt.ca after his speech, we asked about his style. Knowing he wouldn’t comment on his predecessor, we tried a parallel noting that some NFL coaches like to fight some battles with players and other teams publicly and in the media (kind of like former Buffalo Bills coach Rex Ryan) while others do not (such as the famously opaque Bill Belichick of the New England Patriots). He didn’t bite.
“As a chair and commissioner, I am just one of a number of commissioners who make decisions,” he explained, “so, I prefer not to use ‘I’ as much in speeches. I prefer to use ‘we’ and I prefer to approach my colleagues with that voice.
“I have approached this role, emphasizing collegiality, respect, both for staff and my colleagues, and for stakeholders, for those appearing in front of us,” he added. (Ed note: Don’t expect any “yachts and helicopters” quotes.)
However, after listening to and re-reading Scott’s keynote, there may actually be a grand vision there: It is to serve the public interest, without being in the public eye all the time. To revert back to its quasi-judicial roots and make sober, sound decisions, without the public brickbats and forth in the consumer media.
“The more things change, the more they stay the same.” – Ian Scott
Scott outlined some of the lengthy to-do list the Commission has in front of it during his address and turned the clock back to the 1970s to explain what the Regulator under him might be all about. Back then, the industry was regulated by the Canadian Transport Commission – which had long applied principles of network neutrality to trains. Carriers, the CNs and CPs of the world, couldn’t discriminate against cargo based on its owner or its destination.
Sound familiar? This is a basic tenet which has carried through to present day ISP network neutrality. “The more things change, the more they stay the same,” said Scott.
The differences between railways and telecom are stark, however, as there are cultural and social implications when it comes to regulations applied to the industries the CRTC oversees – something the Commission recognized when it was handed the telecom files by the federal government in 1976.
“The principle of ‘just and reasonable’ rates, we said (in 1976), ‘is neither narrow nor a static concept. As our society has evolved, the idea of what is just and reasonable has also changed… Indeed, the Commission views this principle in the widest possible terms, and considers itself obliged to continually review the level and structure of carrier rates to ensure that telecommunications services are fully responsive to the public interest’,” said Scott.
“Those who study the history of Canada’s telecommunications industry consider this statement to be a regulatory apex. The idea that a more flexible, more inclusive approach to regulation beyond simply ‘just and reasonable rates’ would be adopted by this newly expanded regulatory body was a clear signal to Canadians that the CRTC would consider other criteria—social as well as economic—in arriving at decisions that created the greatest public good.”
That meant the introduction and nurturing of transparent, public hearings – proceedings that encourage maximum participation from as many Canadian consumers, groups, academics, associations and businesses. “Now considered routine, this approach was seen as innovative, dynamic and inclusive in the 1970s,” he added.
Thanks to the development of myriad modern communications devices and platforms available to us now, participating in these processes is easier than it’s ever been. “My predecessor, Jean-Pierre Blais, deserves credit for bringing the CRTC into the digital age and delivering the ideas and opinions of everyday Canadians into our hearing rooms in real time,” said Scott in the speech.
“The short answer is they get the weight they merit.” – Scott
However, regulating “in the public interest” can not be well captured in a Facebook post, YouTube video or tweet. Responding to Canadians needs and balancing public policy so that consumers can get the best at a good price while companies can get a decent return on investment can be difficult.
So, which gets more weight then, the 10,000 submissions clicked in by consumers, or the several dozen reasoned, researched submissions filed by corporations, consumer groups and others?
“The short answer is they get the weight they merit,” said Scott in our interview. “It’s an interesting challenge, but you assess it the way you would anyone else. If you get 10,000 form letters, clearly someone went to the trouble to organize a campaign, they have a point and a reason and we look at it… I wouldn’t necessarily go ‘there are 10,014 voices who all say that’ – not if it says the same thing and it’s clearly a campaign.
“I think as an adjudicator and as an individual, I have to come to terms with it and at the end of the day, it’s probably no different than deciding how much you listen to Rogers and how much you listen to PIAC and how much do you listen to the average Canadian,” he added.
What will hearten some in the industry, however, is that Scott made sure to note in his speech business interests matter, too.
“Companies are prepared to satisfy Canadians’ demands for world-leading content and technology, but they want to earn reasonable returns on their investments at the same time. In 2016, Canada’s communications businesses spent more than $11.6 billion on upgrading their networks to provide high-quality services to Canadians. It is entirely fair of them to expect returns on those investments.”
“It’s not always appropriate to lean on one side of the fence or another: in the interest of corporations; or in defence of what the average Canadian needs or wants. The public interest is much more dynamic than that.” – Scott
So, the grand vision we see from Scott this week seems a return to a balanced CRTC which isn’t a focus of conflict and news headlines. Some in the industry have already responded publicly. Ted Woodhead, SVP federal government and regulatory affairs at Telus tweeted Tuesday: “Finally some regulatory humility and a refreshing quasi-judicial disposition,” while former CRTC vice-chair telecom Peter Menzies added on Twitter: “This is good news. Regulators should be no better known than a hockey referee.”
“When any regulator, the CRTC included, performs its work in the name of the public interest, it must balance various points of view, some of which obviously conflict,” added Scott in his speech. “It’s not always appropriate to lean on one side of the fence or another: in the interest of corporations; or in defence of what the average Canadian needs or wants. The public interest is much more dynamic than that.
“The job before us as Commissioners is to weigh what at times can be contrasting ideas. On the one hand, business has its own interests to present and defend. It must answer to its shareholders and maximize returns on investment. Which is entirely appropriate. It is not business’s duty to always promote the public interest.
“On the other hand, businesses are but one group of stakeholders. They alone cannot control the market.”
