In light of the pandemic, 93% of Canadians recognize scientists as being critical to our future well-being.

While nearly all (92%) Canadians agree that the world needs more people pursuing science, technology, engineering and math (STEM)-related careers, 87% also agree that it is important to increase diversity and inclusion in STEM fields. At the same time, 68% of Canadians acknowledged that under-represented minority groups often don’t receive access to STEM education.

These are just a few of the Canadian findings from 3M’s annual State of Science Index. For the past 4 years, 3M has conducted its global survey, through multi-country original research. Its “data explorer” tools enable examination of every question in the survey, allowing filtering of all responses by country, age, income and more.

There is cause for optimism: 85% of Canadians are hopeful 2021 will be a better year than 2020 because of science.

However, students indicated they would be more inspired to pursue STEM if they had a better understanding of the different career opportunities in science. The research also suggested students would be more inspired to pursue a career in science if the field was positioned as a “platform to make the world better.” The overwhelming majority (93%) of Canadians agree that investments in science make the country stronger. Seven out of eight Canadians say that they wish they knew more about science.

And the past year has helped reduce skepticism in science: compared to before the pandemic, Canadians are more likely to see science as important to their everyday lives.

Decades ago, when I worked at Bell Labs in New Jersey, we would have people visit inner city schools to talk about the cool things we were working on. Increased diversity means investing years to stimulate an interest among elementary school kids in entering STEM programs in high school and university. That demands partnerships between industry and governments and all levels of education.

Are we doing enough to develop the next generation of Canada’s science leaders?

You may have seen a campaign being led by various groups saying the CRTC made a big mistake developing its wholesale internet rates. It did. And in fact, the CRTC itself agrees that its wholesale rates decision had errors. That is why it corrected its mistake in May 2021.

The Commission’s 2019 Decision would have transferred hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of a handful of owners of resale-based internet service providers, without delivering meaningful measures to advance affordability or improve internet access for Canadians. The 2019 rates determination was flawed.

That is why the federal government made it very clear that the 2019 Decision could not stand, when Cabinet said the CRTC’s rates “may undermine investment in high-quality networks, particularly in rural and remote areas” and the retroactive payments “must be balanced so as not to stifle network investments”.

The CRTC’s May 2021 determination to reset the wholesale rates acknowledged the August 2020 statement from Cabinet (the Governor in Council). The Commission said “The Governor in Council also determined that exercising its authority under subsection 12(1) of the Act to vary or refer back the order to the Commission for reconsideration at that time would be premature, pending a decision from the Commission with respect to the review and vary applications.”

Of course, you would never know that from TekSavvy’s filing with the Federal Court of Appeal for Leave to Appeal the May 2021 decision. Of the petition to the Governor in Council, Teksavvy simply said “the petition was denied”, as though it was summarily dismissed: “the Governor in Council declined to vary, rescind, or refer it back.” TekSavvy failed to disclose to the Court the clear statements made by Cabinet that there were real concerns about the CRTC’s 2019 rates decision.

In fact, Cabinet’s “denial” of the petition led TekSavvy to publicly proclaim (in August 2020) “In a statement, the federal Cabinet effectively directed the CRTC to increase wholesale rates — above the rates independently set by the CRTC in 2019”. The headline on the press release read “Cabinet decision means higher prices, less competition for Internet services”. So much for telling the Court that “the petition was denied”.

Last summer’s clear statement from Cabinet may seem so long ago, but it should hardly have been a surprise to see the CRTC’s reversal of its 2019 decision. ISPs like TekSavvy had already raised consumer prices last August to accommodate the wholesale rate changes. The CRTC finalized those charges. Where is the “surprise”?

Disinformation is also being disbursed through active lobbying, somehow convincing rural members of parliament that increases to wholesale rates somehow “makes the growth of competition less likely in areas that require better service and even in those areas that are currently not serviced.”

Let’s be perfectly clear. The CRTC’s May 2021 decision improves the business case for rural broadband, meaning: (1) investment has been accelerated; (2) there is a lower requirement for broadband subsidies; and as a result, more households will get better service sooner.

Why is the CRTC Chair the singular target of corporate-sponsored venomous online attacks, OpEds, and social media campaigns?

Former CRTC Vice-chair and Acting Chair Michel Arpin reacted, saying: “The decision was unanimous, no dissent by a group of 9 members. A fair number of these members have a telecom background particularly the two vice chairs who are long time civil servants having spent a major part of their career in telecommunications. So stop accusing Ian Scott.”

Take a minute to unpack that statement. The CRTC’s May 2021 Decision, reversing the 2019 rates, was issued with no dissenting opinions. At the end of the day, under CRTC rules, the Chair only has one vote. So the May Decision represents the decision of the Commission, not just the Chair.

A comment on this blog last week from a former Director General at Industry Canada said:

Calling for the firing of the Chair because one is not happy with a decision is totally inappropriate. What is the point of having an independent regulator if that regulator could be fired whenever a disaffected party could convince the government to do so? Who would ever take the position of Chair with that spectre hanging over them? This would terribly influence decision-making in the worst possible way. Calling for the firing of the Chair does great insult to carefully crafted institutional arrangements and reflects badly on those who make such a call. As you mention there are more than adequate established means of seeking redress if one believes the regulator has erred. Populism has no place in the administration of fair regulation.

As I wrote last week, if you don’t agree with a CRTC decision, there are 3 channels of appeal available; a coup d’état is not one of them.

Populism has no place in the administration of fair regulation.

Writing in the Toronto Star recently about CBC’s decision to suspend comments for a month, Navneet Alang said “the social media era has upended some of our most cherished ideas around speech — and that guaranteeing someone a platform for their feedback isn’t just unnecessary, it’s actively harmful.”

His article includes themes that I have covered a number of times in the past, in such posts as “The fourth degree”, in which I reminded readers that comments are moderated on this platform.

Alang wrote:

At its ideal, the comment section under a story can correct mistakes, challenge assumptions, and give voice to what was not depicted or described.

That does indeed happen on Facebook sometimes, even today. But what you also get in those same comment boxes are wild conspiracy theories, baseless ravings, misogyny, racism, and other forms of hatred, both subtle and outright, and more. It is in short a toxic stew, one in which the beneficial aspects of comments come with considerable costs.

Uncivil discourse isn’t just found in comments sections of news articles. Recently, a Canadian university professor cancelled his Twitter account after he was called out for writing a number of antisemitic posts, although he was rewarded with a $2.5M grant by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, which apparently doesn’t care about unsocial behaviour by its recipients.

Last week, I observed that the discourse following the CRTC’s review of its error-filled 2019 wholesale rates decision has been over-the-top with inappropriate personal attacks, especially from anonymous accounts on Twitter. Since then, it seems to be getting worse, as these (often anonymous) commentators descend into old fashioned muck-raking which perversely accelerates the impression in the public’s mind that the CRTC lacks authority, integrity, and independence.

When such comments get amplified by official corporate blogs and Twitter accounts calling for the government to fire the Chair of the Commission, this serves to undermine the very concept of due process under the law. In Canada, if you don’t agree with a CRTC decision, there are 3 channels of appeal available; a coup d’état is not one of them.

Former CRTC vice-chair Michel Arpin wrote a reply to one of the attacks on the current CRTC chair, saying:

The decision was unanimous, no dissent by a group of 9 members. A fair number of these members have a telecom background particularly the two vice chairs who are long time civil servants having spent a major part of their career in telecommunications. So stop accusing Ian Scott.

As I wrote in April,

Confronted with inconvenient facts, apparently some people feel the need to resort to ad hominem attacks, rather than preserving the obscurity they so richly deserve.

I’m not offering a solution; I’m just finding there is some catharsis in venting.

Your comments are welcome.

When the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) reversed its own ill-conceived 2019 wholesale rates decision last month, the term “invest” shows up 56 times. “The Commission’s long-term objective in the wholesale HSA service market is to encourage competition and, in particular, facilities-based competition.”

And, when the federal Cabinet looked at that 2019 decision, it was also concerned about investment, warning:

On the basis of its review, the Governor in Council considers that the rates do not, in all instances, appropriately balance the policy objectives of the wholesale services framework and is concerned that these rates may undermine investment in high-quality networks, particularly in rural and remote areas.

Cabinet chose not to explicitly overturn the 2019 decision, saying “Given that the CRTC is already reviewing its decision, it is unnecessary to refer the decision back to the CRTC for reconsideration at this time.” But the message was clear in its August 2020 press release: “Canada’s future depends on connectivity”.

So, it should not have been a surprise that the Commission has continued nearly 30 years of support for facilities-based competition.

Since that May decision, there has been a steady stream of substantial investments announcements in major telecom infrastructure, for example:

• Bell: Bell’s biggest-ever network acceleration plan gets bigger with additional investment now up to $1.7 billion over the next 2 years;
• Rogers: When staying connected mattered most, Rogers enabled and enhanced connectivity to more than 1,000 communities across Canada, faster than at any time in company history;
• TELUS: TELUS unleashes Canada’s fastest Internet speeds and invests $2 billion to expand its fibre optic network in Calgary;
• SaskTel: SaskTel doubling its investment to bring advanced fibre optic broadband infrastructure to rural communities across Saskatchewan;
• among many, many more.

In its May 27, 2021 determination to vary its 2019 wholesale rates, the CRTC said “that making the interim rates final would further incent and foster investments and facilities-based competition.” Over the past month, Canada’s major facilities-based carriers have accelerated capital plans like never before.

The system is working.

Canada’s future depends on connectivity, and investment in connectivity is well underway.

Canada’s Parliamentary Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, better known as “INDU” has released its report “Affordability and Accessibility of Telecommunications Services in Canada: Encouraging Competition to (Finally) Bridge the Digital Divide” [pdf, 3.5 MB].

The 68 page report is largely unintelligible gibberish, representing a complete waste of time for our Parliamentarians, the witnesses and the parties who prepared representations before the Committee. Seven of those pages are completely blank, so a little better than 10% of the report is useful as scratch paper. Not all of the witnesses who appeared are acknowledged in the report, and the list of submissions by parties is incomplete.

I note that the report is not tagged as a preliminary draft. It should be. The release of this report, in this condition, should not be considered one of the prouder moments for the INDU Committee.

Recommendation 3 is indecipherable:

That the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission establish an affordability standard for telecommunications services across Canada after consulting with various stakeholders, taking into account an affordability standard for wholesale Internet rates ensuring equitable treatment of network owners and virtual operators in order to significantly reduce the cost of bandwidth among providers, thereby encouraging more competition and reducing the price of consumer packages, and that it issue its decision within a year.

What does it mean to establish an “affordability standard” that takes into account a wholesale affordability standard?

Recommendation number 4 is also a beauty:

That the Government of Canada increase service costs by 50 cents for Canadians who are willing and able to afford the incurred cost in order to come to the aid of neighbors that can not afford high prices.

Isn’t that what we usually consider to be the role of government social benefits?

Recommendations 5 and 6 show that the committee clearly didn’t understand how government has completely failed lower income households in developing affordable connectivity solutions.

Recommendation 5
That the Government of Canada create a benefit for large band services until the end of the pandemic for low-income Canadians, seniors or Canadians who have lost their jobs during the pandemic.

Recommendation 6
That the Government of Canada change some of the parameters for the Connecting Families program to improve accessibility by, for example:

• Changing the eligibility criteria and better targeting families to ensure all low-income households have access to it;
• Requiring service providers to participate in the program and funding them directly; and
• Promoting programs more strategically so that more low-income families are aware of them.

Repeat after me: “Connecting Families is a private sector initiative.” And, as I wrote in “The broadband divide’s little secret”, research has shown that low prices aren’t enough to get more people online.

Oh, can someone tell me what the heck are these “large band services” in Recommendation 5?

Recommendation 12 is just plain silly:

That the Government of Canada put in place a variety of means to support improved connectivity in rural and remote areas. For example, it could:

• Provide financial support to help build infrastructure for carriers or service providers who are in areas where it is not economically beneficial for them to build it on their own in order to help reach the objective of providing an appropriate level of service;
• Ensure or promote competition in areas where there is only a small number of providers by allowing resale, allowing access to third parties to then provide services using the facilities of the incumbent

The first part, subsidizing rural builds, is precisely what governments have been doing since what seems like the beginning of time. The second part says the government should allow competition? Hello? Competition is already allowed by the Government of Canada. The CRTC also allows competition. It just doesn’t mandate certain types of competition, although it does mandate others. There is a difference between allowing competition and mandating resale. How could this committee not know the difference?

The report is, or at least should be, an embarrassment to the members of the committee and the staff who supported it. If I marked this as an undergraduate paper, I would assign a failing grade. It’s really not surprising given the political theatrics that took place during meetings seeking evidence for the report. Perhaps the quality of such studies would benefit from INDU Committee actually listening to witnesses and reading submissions to learn about subject areas, rather than trying to score cheap political points through ‘gotcha’ style cross-examination.

As it stands, the report is unworthy of the seal of the House of Commons coat of arms that adorns its cover page. Given the subject matter, “Affordability and Accessibility of Telecommunications Services in Canada”, that’s especially disappointing.