Speech
Notes for an address
by David Colville
Vice-Chairman, Canadian Radio-television
and Telecommunications Commission
before the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Industry
Ottawa, Ontario
December 4, 1997
(CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY)
On behalf of the Commission, I would like to express our appreciation for the
opportunity to appear before you today.
The Commission would like to express its full support for the provisions of
the Bill as currently proposed and, in particular, the amendments to the
Telecommunications Act relating to the Commission's powers and duties.
As you know, the Commission has over the past few years taken major steps to
open up the Canadian telecommunications market to competition, not simply for the
sake of competition, but because of the benefits that competition will bring to
Canadian consumers and the Canadian economy in general.
The entry into force of the GATS with respect to basic telecommunications will
mark the advent of a new and increasingly competitive environment for the
international telecommunications industry in Canada, with many new players
entering the game. The new licensing power proposed in this Bill would provide
the Commission with the tools it needs to ensure that the objectives of the
Telecommunications Act continue to be met in this new environment. In
particular, it would permit the Commission to ensure that foreign-owned players
are subject to the same competitively neutral rules as Canadian ones. Further, it
would permit the Commission to accomplish that task with a minimal amount of
interference in the market place. The licensing power proposed is a power to
license classes of services and service providers. This power is necessary to
replace more traditional tools that will no longer be effective with the end of
the Teleglobe monopoly on Canada-overseas facilities.
The provisions of the Bill also address the changing domestic environment. For
example, with the advent of competition, the telephone companies are no longer
the appropriate entities to administer numbering. This function is best performed
by a third party in a competitively neutral fashion, consistent with Canada's
GATS commitments. The industry itself is developing mechanisms to accomplish this
very end. However, under the existing legislation it has had to go about it in a
circuitous fashion. In particular, because the third parties who would administer
central office codes and number portability, which are essential for local
competition, are not Canadian carriers, the Commission does not have direct
jurisdiction over them. The functions they are performing are essential to the
maintenance of efficient and effective telecommunications in Canada. Therefore it
is important to clarify, as this Bill would, that the Commission has the
authority to ensure that these fundamental services are administered in the
public interest, to the benefit of all Canadians.
I'll now turn to Paragraph 46.1(1)(b), which would empower the Commission to
administer certain other activities as prescribed by the Governor in Council.
Just as it proved necessary to establish a competitively neutral mechanism for
numbering resources and a fund to support continued access to basic telephone
service, so it will likely prove necessary, in this rapidly evolving environment,
to establish similar mechanisms for other matters.
As you know, this year the Commission issued an historic decision,
establishing a framework for competition in the provision of local telephone
service in Canada. This evolution in the marketplace has called for the
restructuring of the way in which some telecommunications services have been
provided to date.
For example, there are directory databases used to produce telephone
directories and provide directory assistance service. Historically, it has been
the telephone companies that have developed and maintained those databases. With
the advent of local competition, it may be necessary to rethink this approach.
Some parties are already exploring the potential for creating a national
directory database.
As a second example, the telephone companies currently maintain a database for
screening numbers used to deter fraudulent use of the telephone network. It may
well be that a national database would be a more efficient mechanism for
providing such services all carriers. It may be that these databases should not
be controlled or administered by any single service provider. The fact that a
telephone company may no longer be administering these services does not make it
less important that the Commission be able to ensure that such essential services
are provided in a way that best promotes the interests of Canadians.
9-1-1 is a possible third example. In the future, with many competitors in the
local market, there may be a need for central administration to ensure universal,
reliable access to this crucial emergency service.
As I hope my remarks have shown, in the future there will likely be other
functions that will require an approach similar to that proposed for the
administration of numbering resources and the central fund, that is one involving
a competitively neutral third party administrator subject to oversight by the
Commission.
The intention here is to provide for less micro-regulation by the Commission.
Rather, where necessary, certain activities could be performed by a third party
in a competitively neutral fashion, subject only to the general oversight of the
Commission.
The provision is not overly broad. It clearly specifies that the activities
must relate to the provision of telecommunications services by Canadian carriers.
With respect to proposed section 46.6, which deals with the fund, I note that
this industry fund will perform two basic and important functions. First, it will
provide support so that rates for basic local telephone service remain
affordable. Second, it will provide incentives for carriers to provide reliable,
high quality local service in rural and remote areas. With the advent of local
competition, it is appropriate that the subsidies which flow from some
telecommunications services or service providers to the providers of basic local
telephone service be administered by a neutral third party rather than by the
incumbent telephone companies.
Finally, I would like to note clause 22, which would amend the Teleglobe
Canada Reorganization and Divestiture Act relating to Teleglobe's agreements
with foreign carriers. This provision will ensure continuity by providing that
Teleglobe is not required to obtain prior Commission approval for those
agreements already in place when the Bill comes into effect. It would not,
however, preclude the Commission from reviewing any such agreement should the
need arise.
These are all the initial comments I wanted to make this morning. I will be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
- 30 -
Contact: CRTC Communications Branch, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N2
Tel.: (819) 997-5427, TDD: (819) 994-0423, Fax: (819) 994-0218
This document is available in alternative format upon request.
Date Modified: 1997-12-04 |
