Regulatory accountability

Regulatory accountability was a common thread in a couple of documents that caught my eye over the past week.

Earlier this month, the Forum for Research and Policy in Communications (FRPC) issued a 171-page report, “The CRTC’s performance, 1969 – 2025: Analysis and recommendations” [pdf], with its review examining transparency, accountability and participation.

In addition, there was another important dissent by CRTC Commissioner Bram Abramson attached to a determination about relieving SaskTel of the obligation to deliver phone books to its subscribers.

In my view, the theme of regulatory accountability runs through both.

It has been 8 years since I looked at the CRTC reporting and delivering on its service standards. The regulator had set standards for itself back in 2011, and it used to regularly report on how well it adhered to those targets.

I love reading opposing viewpoints in decisions, and Commissioner Abramson is distinguishing himself as crafting well articulated, and somewhat entertaining dissenting opinions.

1. In 1909, when then-Governor-General the Earl Grey (of Grey Cup, though not tea, fame) and then-Premier Walter Scott laid the cornerstone of Sasktchewan’s Legislative Building, they inserted a time capsule. It remained nestled, and undisturbed, until the 2011 run-up to the legislative centenary. Among the items unearthed was a 1909 book listing government offices and their phone numbers.
2. The artifact was a century old and had been chosen to represent another era. But it held little mystery. Over the century that separated the capsule’s gifters from its recipients, generations had grown up using ever-thicker versions to look up neighbours, find a locksmith, block pucks, or see over a steering wheel. It was a phone book.

…

5. It is those regulated exchanges, where the phone directory obligation made its last stand, that today’s majority decision targets, and from which I dissent.
6. I do not do so out of nostalgia. Wherever mobile and broadband services, and the software-based applications that these enable, have displaced the landline—the need for a phone book has waned accordingly. But the regulated exchanges where this obligation persisted are predominantly rural and remote. They are precisely where wireline and wireless competition is lacking, and where landlines often remain critical.
7. Nor do I dissent because the majority’s approach is facially unreasonable. Through my own lens as an urban and heavy user of mobile and broadband services, it is hard to imagine why anyone would still need a phone book.
8. But we consult to hear the perspectives of others, not to echo our own. When we began the phone book’s final deregulatory push in a pair of decisions last year – both, like this one, majority decisions of the Commission’s Telecommunications Committee — I found that the majority had (a)mischaracterized the regulatory history it relies on, (b)misapprehended the extent to which the matter had been considered previously, and (c)failed to consult those affected. I also noted that (d)the expected wave of similar applications would call into question whether taking this ad hoc route, rather than consulting on an industry-wide approach, would even be more efficient.

This is just an excerpt from the dissent, which (at 15 paragraphs) was longer than the 9-paragraph decision itself. It is the dissent’s call for improving the consultative process that connects the two documents. FRPC devotes 4 of its 14 recommendations toward an objective of more meaningful public participation.

There is much more to be found in the FRPC report – and I will try to return to the report in a future blog post. At the very least, it should serve to stimulate discussion on how to improve overall regulatory accountability at the CRTC.

In the meantime, here are its 14 recommendations:

With respect to transparency in decision-making the CRTC should
1. publish minutes of the meetings of the Commission and its Committees, including copies of any CRTC or third-party presentations made at these meetings within one week of such meetings;
2. ensure that all of its decisions – by the Commission and by its Committees – are
   1. signed by the Commissioners who made the decisions (including those who dissented), and are
   2. published, if necessary, by providing abbreviated summaries of the facts and outcomes of its now-secret Letter;
3. ensure that its Committees or the Commission publish decisions for not publishing applications and for not permitting public comment on matters resulting in now-secret Letter Decisions;
4. improve the timeliness of its decision-making by publishing decisions concerning
   1. broadcasting, telecom and online news applications within 4 months of receiving the applications
   2. broadcasting, telecom and online news policies within 6 months of its initiating proceedings;
5. make its ADR services more efficient, more transparent and timelier;
6. with respect to the petitions to the Governor in Council of which the CRTC is or has been the subject,
   1. publish such petitions on a dedicated CRTC website page
   2. include on that page links to any orders in council resulting from the petitions or from Cabinet, and
   3. include on that page links to the CRTC’s response to such orders from Cabinet;
7. publish annual – or more frequent – statistical updates on the CRTC’s implementation of Parliament’s broadcasting and telecommunications policies.

With respect to accountability, the CRTC should
8. improve the timeliness of its decision-making by publishing decisions concerning
   1. broadcasting, telecom and online news applications within 4 months of receiving the applications
   2. broadcasting, telecom and online news policies within 6 months of its initiating proceedings;
9. make its ADR services more efficient, more transparent and timelier;
10. publish annual – or more frequent – statistical updates on the CRTC’s implementation of Parliament’s broadcasting and telecommunications policies based on valid and reliable measures of these policies.

With respect to participation by the public, the CRTC should
11. enable parties interested in its proceedings to sign up for updates to these proceedings, including additions to the public record or changes to the CRTC’s processes;
12. convene an annual meeting of interested parties to determine their needs for and respond to their questions about the data published by the CRTC;
13. invite and respond to proposals concerning the CRTC’s selection of measures of Parliament’s broadcasting and telecommunications policies; and
14. invite interested parties to comment every two years on the measures it uses to evaluate its performance with respect to Parliament’s broadcasting, telecommunications and online news statutes.