I’m looking forward to forward looking from Canada’s newly elected minority government. It may be important to focus on the minority nature of the government.

In the interest of self-preservation, perhaps the minority Liberal government will continue to liberally embrace policies from the Conservative playbook. We saw some of that in Prime Minister Carney’s appropriation of such key Conservative plans for carbon tax relief and capital gains inclusion.

Unfortunately, I had trouble finding much forward looking in either of the Liberal or Conservative electoral platforms.

I’m not one to rely on what was promised in election platforms. Let’s face it, people will tend to say things during the heat of an electoral battle and then “wiggle” to adapt as the situation merits or unfolds. At least that is what a certain communications industry entrepreneur used to say.

What can we expect in the way of telecom policy over the next few years? It’s worth noting that TD Securities wrote a note last week with a title of “We See No Reason for a New Government to Focus on Telecom Regulation”.

Leveraging proprietary TD credit card data, plus widely available StatsCan information, we show that inflation in telecom costs for consumers is not a problem that should cause any concern for either political party that wins the Federal election on April 28. Canadian consumers already benefit from healthy competition and declining prices for equivalent wireless and internet services.

TD’s analysis of credit card data over the years 2022 through 2024 found that telecom spending has remained a constant 2.4% of total consumer spending in each of those years. TD said “In short, we have a robust competitive environment in the Canadian telecom industry, and we believe this leaves minimal risk that any new government will want to spend much time and effort on adjusting telecom policy to lower prices further.”

How would that analysis factor into a Conservative plan to “Launch an oligopoly review of key federally-regulated sectors to increase competition and lower costs for Canadians.” TD stated “To be clear, complimenting the telecom industry is rarely a popular political strategy; so some pre-election verbiage about standing up to help consumers should always be expected.” So, now that we are past the electioneering, can we expect more rational, informed approach to the telecom sector?

The Liberal platform really didn’t say much about telecom, beyond a plan to spend $1.5B this year and another $1.0B next year to “Invest in digital infrastructure for the economy of tomorrow.”

We will catalyze the construction and development of AI infrastructure including data storage facilities, computing capacity, high speed, safe and reliable communication networks, and digital supply chain solutions to improve efficiency and reduce costs for Canadians. This will include improving rural broadband and reliable cell service that connects communities.

The plan shows no spending beyond these first two years, even though the CRTC and the government share a 2030 target for finishing the job. I suspect this one to cost more and take longer than planned.

The Conservative plan talked about “Supporting remote-area internet connectivity so every Canadian has reliable access to news”, but there is no specific funding indicated for this initiative. Interestingly, the item appears under a heading of support for media freedom. That same heading includes “Introducing a Freedom of Speech Act to repeal Liberal censorship laws and restore Canadian news on Meta and other platforms.” This could result in significant shifts in CRTC headcounts and activities if the Online News Act and Online Streaming Act are repealed. At the same time, the Conservative platform called for its own version of the failed Online Harms Act, with “new laws for AI deepfakes of intimate images, modernized laws against online harassment, and stronger child protection online.” So, it looks like there would be support for some version of a new online harms bill.

What about other telecom or digital economy issues? The Liberal platform has a section on building the economy of the future, which focuses on investments in Artificial Intelligence, including $100M annually for an AI adoption tax credit for small and medium sized businesses.

Last summer, I wrote “Will Artificial Intelligence harm ‘real’ intelligence?” I have no doubt that there are some small and medium sized businesses that can benefit from investing in AI tools for their businesses. I suspect that many are looking forward and doing so without targeted government incentives. If so, we might question whether an AI adoption tax credit will accomplish much. I got nervous reading the platform promising to throw money toward AI, such as for data centres. To me, it came across as being bedazzled by the latest shiny object. I noticed that the Conservative plan called for chopping $2.275B from funding for Artificial Intelligence Initiatives.

I am interested in the Liberal’s promise of digital transformation in government.

Establishing a dedicated Office of Digital Transformation at the centre of government to proactively identify, implement, and scale technology solutions and eliminate duplicative and redundant red tape. This will enhance public service delivery for all Canadians and reduce barriers for businesses to operate in Canada, which will grow our economy. This is about fundamentally transforming how Canadians interact with their government, ensuring timely, accessible, and high-quality services that meet Canadians’ needs.

Enabling the Office of Digital Transformation to centralize innovative procurement and take a whole-of-government approach to service delivery improvement. This could mean using AI to address government service backlogs and improve service delivery times, so that Canadians get better services, faster.

However, the platform did not identify any funding for this new office. Will this department improve the ways we interact with government? Government departments like CRA still ask for faxes. Pharmacies still communicate with doctors by fax. As an aside, someone needs to help me understand why a doctor at a major hospital needs to write a barely legible prescription on a piece of paper that still must be presented to a pharmacy, even though the pharmacy has already received an image of the script using its app.

As I noted last week, the Conservatives proposed a crackdown on senior scams, with plans for fines of up to $5M for telecoms failing to implement the latest fraud detection / prevention technology. While this might have been a well intentioned plan, last week’s post explained why this may not be as effective as desired. Hopefully, constructive dialog among all stakeholders – government, telecoms, bankers, law enforcement, social services, and others – will lead to a better approach.

Not sure you can call me an optimist – I tend to be too grumpy for that title – but, I will continue to be looking forward.

Hopefully, the government will take that TD report to heart. I agree with TD. I see no reason for Canada’s new government to focus on telecom regulation.

In mid March, the FCC launched a deregulatory initiative In re: Delete, Delete, Delete (GN Docket No. 25-133).

The public notice says: “Specifically, we are seeking public input on identifying FCC rules for the purpose of alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens. We seek comment on deregulatory initiatives that would facilitate and encourage American firms’ investment in modernizing their networks, developing infrastructure, and offering innovative and advanced capabilities.”

I’m old enough to remember Prime Minister Harper launching a Red Tape Reduction Commission in 2011, promising to “identify options for lasting solutions to fix the regulatory system to prevent red tape “creep” over time.” How do you think that worked out for us in Canada?

On one hand, we have heard Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre promise when elected to cut two regulations for every new one, but he has also promised to add all sorts of new regulations for banks and phone companies to go after scammers who target seniors.

Don’t get me wrong. I fully endorse Canada looking to cut red tape. I agree that our regulatory burden is stifling investment, increasing costs that get passed through to consumers, and limiting degrees of freedom for innovative solutions. It goes far beyond regulations created by the CRTC. We have a lot of silly laws on the books – like the requirement for paper bills – enshrined in legislation enacted by Parliament. In 2014, the same Harper government that promised to cut red tape insisted that legislation was needed to provide paper bills, even as that same government was having difficulties creating a national digital strategy. No wonder!

As former TELUS CFO Robert McFarlane wrote, performative politics gets in the way of substantive value-added public policy. It is just too easy to target big corporations like telecom carriers.

It might be inspirational to look at some of the submissions to the FCC notice. An article in Light Reading has a look at what various carriers – large and small – suggested.

As readers may have noticed, I frequently cite submissions from the International Center for Law and Economics. ICLE’s submission urges “the Commission to take the “Delete, Delete, Delete” concept as far as possible, effectuating a streamlined FCC that retains only those functions undeniably critical to national interests that cannot be handled effectively by market forces or other government entities.” Its press release summarizes the submission with 5 “Significant Initiatives”, 13 “Straightforward Regulations to Eliminate or Streamline”, and 3 “Other Agency Actions to Terminate”. The complete 23-page submission covers broadcasting and telecom red-tape reduction.

ICLE says that its proposals will “increase competition, foster innovation, and improve consumer welfare.”

A recent article by Jack Mintz names smarter regulation as one of four “big bangs” to get Canada growing again. “Oppressive regulation has been the major stumbling block to investment in Canada.”

The Conservative promise to cut 25% of all federal government red tape within two years is a good one. It is somewhat of a déjà vu experience to read the promise to pass a law requiring two regulations be cut for every new one added and ensure $2 in administrative cost savings for every $1 added.

Federal regulatory requirements on businesses have ballooned to over 149,000—nearly 20,000 more since the Liberals took office. The burden is staggering: in total, government red tape costs businesses at least $51 billion annually, and that doesn’t even account for the damage caused by regulations that block major projects like pipelines, mines, and other critical projects. The result? Canada has bled $460 billion in investment—money that has fled south to the United States that should be creating jobs and powerful paycheques here in Canada.

They are right. Government red tape costs businesses billions and therefore costs consumers billions, as well. And, red tape blocks investment, including investment in digital infrastructure.

The initiative needs to start with a program like the US. Delete, delete, delete.

A month ago, in a post entitled “Foreign ownership restrictions in turbulent times”, I asked “In view of the current international trade tensions, what are your thoughts on foreign ownership restrictions in Canadian telecom?”

While there were a couple comments on that post, as well as a few emails, I noticed a relevant entry on Ted Woodhead’s blog post last week:

Last year, I proposed a review of the Canadian ownership and control regulations for telecommunications and broadcasting companies. I have revisited the view that a more liberal approach to those regulations could spur further investment and technology transfer than the currently more restrictive regime. I now would recommend that any future government tread carefully in revisiting the restrictions. No one, a year ago could have reasonably foreseen the chaos and upheaval that would be wrought by the bad actor activities of the United States. I do not believe for the foreseeable future that we can allow foreign control of these strategic industries and networks.

A year ago, who would have thought that “bad actor” would be an appropriate phrase to attach to the United States?

He goes on to recommend that whichever party leads the next government of Canada, it should ratchet up the broadband objective to 100/10 Mbps from its current target of universal access to 50/10 Mbps service, and place a priority on funding fibre to the home projects over other technologies.

I have no issue with increasing the target speeds for access, but I prefer to have technology neutrality in government funding programs. There are some communities that simply cannot be served by wireline facilities as I described in a recent post.

If the target broadband objective gets raised, do we need to place a priority on projects that deliver 100/10 to communities that are below 50/10, or do we put upgrades on a similar footing as those delivering initial broadband?

I have long said that “some broadband” is better than “no broadband”. This is why I continue support the use of wireless solutions as part of a broadband toolkit.

Ted notes that the Liberals and Conservatives are both pledging increased investment in infrastructure and both promise to reduce the regulatory red tape. This is promising, as long as the government recognizes that we are not yet done with making affordable digital connectivity available to every household.

Should government broadband subsidies consider the ownership structure of funding recipients?

Should funding be limited to Canadian owned and controlled entities?

Should the next Canadian government have a Minister of Communications?

The Minister of Communications used to be a stand-alone Cabinet position, under both Conservative and Liberal governments. The Department of Communications oversaw radio, television, and telephone communications in Canada, and supervised the CRTC, under the authority of the Department of Communications Act.

In 1993, spectrum management and telecom policy was moved into the Department of Industry; broadcasting and oversight of the CRTC went to the Department of Canadian Heritage.

A recent OpEd in the Toronto Star argues “Canada urgently needs to re-establish a critical portfolio for the digital age and appoint a federal minister of communications.”

The authors, Peter MacLeod (principal of MASS LBP) and Taylor Owen (associate professor in the School of Public Policy at McGill) say that we need, but are lacking “a dedicated advocate to safeguard the integrity” of the communications tools, networks and services upon which Canadians rely.

From 1969 to 1996, Canada had a minister of communications who oversaw radio, television and telecommunications, ensuring our airwaves weren’t dominated by foreign interests. Under cultural champions such as Pierre Juneau, Canada boldly regulated media content, creating space for Canadian stories and voices. The famous “CanCon” rules that Juneau pioneered secured airtime for domestic artists, launching a golden era of Canadian music and television. This proactive approach wasn’t accidental — it required vision, political will and strong leadership. Juneau’s legacy demonstrates that assertive communications policy is vital to our sovereignty.

But here is the rub. Pierre Juneau’s vision, political will and strong leadership were all demonstrated during his memorable term as CRTC Chair. His term as Minister of Communications was short-lived. He did not win a seat in a by-election so he stepped down less than 2 months after his appointment as Minister in 1975. These were the early days for the CRTC. Pierre Juneau was the chair of the Bureau of Broadcast Governors when it became the Canadian Radio and Television Commission in 1968. He was the CRTC’s first Chair. He left the CRTC to join Cabinet before the CRTC transitioned to include telecommunications in 1976.

For the past five and a half years, mandate letters for relevant cabinet ministers sought legislation that expand the CRTC’s responsibilities even further to include all kinds of online activities and content. The last Parliament passed the Online News Act and Online Steaming Act, but failed in its attempts to pass controversial Online Harms legislation.

Macleod and Owen observed:

When Parliament was prorogued, two critical bills — concerning elections security and online harms — failed to pass. These overdue bills were designed to strengthen protections against foreign interference, limit harmful online content and hold digital platforms accountable. Their absence leaves Canada vulnerable at precisely the moment it needs new tools to fight back.

Earlier this year, I asked “Is it time to modernize Canada’s outdated telecommunications rules?” That piece concluded, suggesting “Maybe it’s time to modernize the Acts for a fresh, holistic look at the legislation guiding the digital sector.”

Should the CRTC be responsible for these various online acts, or does Canada’s information and communications sector need the leadership of a strong (and elected) Minister of Communications? As I suggested in January, it would be appropriate to have a fresh, holistic review of how we govern and regulate the digital sector.

Nearly 4 years ago, I wrote Taming the World Wild Web, saying “It’s no longer a question of whether the World Wild Web can be tamed. The key question is how.”

I’m not convinced we’re currently on the right path.

In in my 2021 post, I included a reference to John Perry Barlow’s 30 year old screed, “A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace”. Barlow declared “the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear.”

I disagree.

I continue to struggle with the question of how, not if. Nearly two decades ago, long time followers will recall that I participated in filing the first application to the CRTC for authority to block certain websites because of death threats. There are more than 50 posts on this blog looking at online harms and related matters.

Last summer, in Online Platform Accountability, I wrote about an ICLE paper, “Who Moderates the Moderators?: A Law & Economics Approach to Holding Online Platforms Accountable Without Destroying the Internet”.

That piece came to mind while reading a recent article by David Newhoff. In “Too Big to Care: Should Online Platforms Remain Unconditionally Immunized by Section 230?”, Newhoff argues that online platforms, or interactive computer service providers (ICSPs) owe a duty of care to those of us who use their services. He says legislation should be aimed at creating (or restoring) an incentive for ICSPs to exercise such care.

He argues that Section 230 of the US Communications Act was intended to encourage ICSPs to act to mitigate harms arising from their platforms. Instead, courts have interpreted the immunity provided by Section 230 as applying whether or not the platform is applying good-faith efforts to block or screen online harms. Quoting George Washington University law professor Mary Anne Franks:

Put simply, a law cannot incentivize the rendering of aid if that law is interpreted to confer the same benefit upon those who render aid and those who do not. Interpreting Section 230 to shield online intermediaries from liability even when they are indifferent to or benefit from harm actively undermines Good Samaritan behavior and flouts the policy decision made by Congress.

When Parliament was prorogued in early January, some heavy handed Online Harms legislation died on the Order Paper, and now we are into a federal election. As I wrote in January, perhaps a new approach should be on the legislative agenda with new leadership coming into power.

It isn’t a question of whether the World Wild Web can be tamed. The key questions are how, and when.