In an article in the Globe and Mail, “Court case over harassment probe details deep rift between CRTC chairman, commissioner,” Christine Dobby describes positions that have emerged from documents filed in a legal action over workplace tensions at the CRTC, Canada’s broadcast and telecom regulator. Cartt.ca also has an article on the same subject: “Commission in turmoil. Court documents reveal deep schisms atop the CRTC“.
In such cases, there tend to be at least 3 sides to the story: the truth is somewhere between that which each side portrays.
Beyond voyeuristic curiousity, what should matter to Canadians is whether dysfunctional relationships at the Commission impact its ability to render the best possible decisions and lead the transition to a digital economy.
Over the past few years, the CRTC has actively solicited greater participation by individual Canadians in its regulatory processes. The communications industry regulator has been actively communicating with the public, engaging in a dialog in its Talk TV file, Message Relay Services, a review of the CCTS, and next year’s review of basic telecommunications services.
Commissioners are supposed to bring a range of viewpoints and experiences to the decision-making process, including their role as representatives of different regions.
As it seeks more open dialog with the public, one might have hoped for the CRTC to demonstrate greater collegiality in its decision making processes.
Shouldn’t Canadians have a right to expect a fully functioning regulator, drawing on the experience and regional diversity of its Commissioners, as it guides the implementation of our national digital strategy?