What was heard report

More than consultation events were organized by the department in over 65 countries, including nine high-level public events in five Canadian cities. More than 15, people and partners were engaged in the process, resulting in more than 10, written inputs. One of the challenges of such far-reaching consultations was collating all the information received, and crafting an accessible and transparent approach to summarize and facilitate the analysis of the large volume of input that was heard over the course of the Review.

The resulting What We Heard report was an open, transparent and innovative approach to this issue. It comprehensively communicated information using an interactive, dynamic and user-friendly web-based platform. Panel members travelled the country, meeting with interested parties and hearing from a diverse cross section of Canadians.

We wanted to hear a wide range of views on the need for legislative change, and we made a particular effort to hear from Indigenous communities and official language minority groups. The Panel members and I extend our sincere thanks to all interested parties who took the time to contribute their expertise and thoughts during our consultation process.

What follows in this report are the key themes that emerged from our open call for written submissions. The perspectives and recommendations provided to us will help inform and strengthen our work. We will now focus on completing our final report, with recommendations for legislative change, by January The Government has asked the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel to present recommendations on legislative changes that may be needed to maximize the benefits the digital age brings to citizens, creators, cultural stakeholders, the communications industry and the Canadian economy.

The Government also asked us to undertake consultations during the course of our Review with industry, creators and Canadians, including those from Indigenous communities and official language minority communities OLMCs. The document was organized under the following themes:. In response to the Call for Comments, we received 2, letters and written submissions from a wide variety of interested parties.

A list of submissions is provided in Annex B. To complement the written consultation process, Panel members met with Canadians from across the country to identify the critical issues they are facing and to gather thoughts and ideas to help address the complex issues on which we have been asked to make recommendations.

The organizations we met with were diverse and included industry, creators, Indigenous communities, OLMCs, public-interest groups, accessibility groups and others. A complete list is included in Annex C. The written submissions and in-person meetings reflected a great diversity of perspectives and concerns in matters related to broadcasting and telecommunications. The consultation process also yielded a number of concrete suggestions and areas for legislative amendments.

This report highlights the key themes and messages received in response to our Call for Comments. Throughout the report, we highlight areas of tension identified in our consultation process that have potential implications for legislative reform.

From the submissions received, we heard consensus from interested parties that affordable access to high-quality broadband networks, both wireline and wireless, is essential to Canadians' ability to participate in digital society. We have organized the submissions received into the following topics:. The submissions made it clear that an important objective of telecommunications regulation is to ensure that all Canadians have affordable access to high-quality networks now and in the future.

However, there was significant debate over how to achieve this goal. More particularly, there were differences of opinion on the proper policy foundation for economic regulation of telecommunications and on the statutory amendments that are necessary to achieve this objective. The parties differed on whether the telecommunications policy objectives should support competition between "facilities-based carriers"—those that build out and operate their own transmission facilities to provide services to customers—or whether the objectives should encourage competition based on services, with competitive providers being given access to the dominant carriers' networks.

Some parties submitted that supporting service-based competition by competitive providers, some of whom do not operate their own network facilities would likely reduce prices for consumers. Others took the position that supporting facilities-based competition promotes ongoing investments in advanced telecommunications networks and that promoting service-based competition would reduce incentives for carriers to continue to invest in their networks.

We heard differing views on the level of competition in telecommunications markets and the attendant impact on rivalry among service providers, diversity of service offerings, customer responsiveness and price levels for services in these markets. Some parties submitted that there is robust competition in Canada's telecommunications markets.

However, others submitted that telecommunications markets are highly concentrated, the level of effective competition is limited, and prices for telecommunications services in certain markets in Canada are too high. These differences informed the positions of parties on the appropriate focus of economic regulation of telecommunications. A number of parties noted that the current Telecommunications Act is based on a presumption of regulation of rates and service conditions, but that the level of competition in telecommunications markets has evolved to the point where this regulation is generally no longer appropriate.

Exceptions were made for a limited set of issues that could be subject to continued regulation, such as accessibility requirements, access to passive infrastructure, public safety and copyright piracy issues.

Some parties proposed a fundamental rewrite of the provisions of the Telecommunications Act dealing with economic regulation. In some cases, parties made specific reference to the Policy Direction issued to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission CRTC by the Governor-in-Council to "…rely on market forces to the maximum extent feasible…" when conducting its regulatory activities in furtherance of the Policy Objectives found in section 7 of that Act.

Parties suggested that the content of that Policy Direction be enshrined in the legislation itself. Others disagreed with the premise that reliance on the operation of market forces in telecommunications markets is sufficient to achieve Canada's policy objectives for telecommunications.

They suggested that economic regulation of certain telecommunications markets is needed. For example, some submitted that greater regulation of wholesale telecommunications markets is needed to support service-based competition. These same parties commented at length on the harmful effects on competition and on their own competitive positions arising from the current regulatory process and, in particular, from long delays in resolving disputes and finalizing regulatory determinations.

Interested parties highlighted particular challenges in obtaining access to broadband in rural and remote communities including Indigenous communities and pointed to the need for ongoing government intervention and collaboration with communities to ensure that all Canadians benefit from digital society. Parties generally agreed that there is insufficient incentive for private-sector players to make investments that will close the gap between service and price levels in urban centres and areas in the rest of Canada.

This is largely due to the lower population levels in these areas and the accompanying lower levels of return on investment that carriers receive. Additional challenges arise in remote regions, particularly in the North, due to climate and terrain. However, some parties suggested that these difficulties may soon be overcome through technological developments, including the deployment of low-earth orbit LEO satellites.

Most parties agreed that investments in infrastructure to provide broadband services to rural and remote regions will require continued subsidization. Several parties called on the Government to develop a National Broadband Strategy that would bring together the broadband support programs currently administered separately by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada ISED and the CRTC, and provide for ongoing, stable funding for broadband infrastructure.

Some communities told us they want to be partners in providing access to telecommunications services for their members. The submissions received highlighted municipalities' interest in ensuring the timely development of telecommunications services to meet their connectivity goals. A few municipalities, including some in rural areas, also want to act as telecommunications service providers for their residents.

Indigenous parties identified the lack of access to broadband infrastructure as a major issue for their communities. They expressed the desire to be involved in the development of broadband networks in their own communities not just as consumers of telecommunications services, but also as owners and operators of those services.

Indigenous participants also called for telecommunications services to be developed using a community-based approach rather than a consumer-centred model.

We also heard that it is important to enshrine Indigenous treaty and land rights in the legislation and ensure they are respected in the provision of services, and to provide support for Indigenous economic development, employment as well as training and skills development. We use the term "passive infrastructure" to mean structures that can support telecommunications facilities.

In many cases, such structures are owned by local authorities or by power, gas or water utilities. These structures include light poles, bridges, water towers and street furniture. Examples of street furniture include light standards, mail boxes and bus shelters. Participants submitted that the question of final authority over access to passive infrastructure is an evolving issue as telecommunications networks continue to develop.

Interested parties expressed differing views as to whether the legislation should be changed to facilitate greater access to passive infrastructure and differing opinions as to whether such changes would be constitutionally valid. Carriers and industry associations submitted that there is a need for greater regulation at the federal level over access to public rights-of-way and other passive infrastructure. These parties commented that delays in attaining rights-of-way or high prices for accessing structures will limit the development of advanced networks, thereby preventing Canadians from gaining the benefit of communications services that rely on those networks.

A number of parties submitted that the CRTC should have authority to manage this access, including the timely resolution of disputes between land use authorities and carriers.

Regarding wireless deployment, we heard that the deployment of next generation technologies, including 5G wireless networks, will require carriers to construct denser networks with considerably more points of connection than currently exist.

Densification will also require greater access to public rights-of-way. In addition, privately-held buildings may serve an important role in supporting network expansion.

However, municipalities and electrical associations submitted that they need continued control over passive infrastructure and rights-of-way, noting that they are responsible for balancing the needs of various users.

We heard that electrical associations and municipalities are open to working in collaboration with carriers to expand telecommunications networks. Municipalities noted that they have a long history of resolving the vast majority of infrastructure installations using a cooperative approach. They pointed specifically to the protocol established for the installation of antenna towers as an example of federal-municipal collaboration to govern telecommunications infrastructure.

Indigenous parties stated that they should control the installation of telecommunications networks on their lands, in keeping with their treaty and territorial rights. The development of advanced wireless networks relies on access to spectrum, which is managed by the Minister of Industry on behalf of Canadians. ISED is responsible for both the allocation of frequencies designating them for certain services and their assignment to specific individuals or entities. We heard it is imperative that the spectrum regulator provide timely access to spectrum as communications services continue to develop.

Many participants commented that assignment processes will need to be accelerated in future to keep pace with technological change. They also noted that the spectrum regulator will need to balance competing demands for assignment from, as examples, commercial services; public safety and first responders; and defense needs. These competing needs should accommodate satellite services, including the deployment of LEO satellites that may support the provision of broadband services in rural and remote areas.

A number of submissions advocated the introduction of a set of policy objectives into the spectrum management legislation to replace current provisions in the Radiocommunication Act that reference the Telecommunications Act. More specifically, many parties recommended that the legislation direct the spectrum regulator to rely on market forces when managing spectrum and that it should take care to minimize the administrative burden in its activities.

Several parties indicated that the spectrum regulator should allow for secondary-market trading and assignment of spectrum rights. We received a number of comments regarding who should regulate spectrum as well as the potential for combining the Radiocommunication Act with the Telecommunications Act.

These are discussed under Theme D. We heard that the importance of ensuring security of telecommunications is growing as more and more devices are becoming connected to the Internet.

In addition, critical infrastructure and systems are vulnerable to threats carried over telecommunications networks. For enquiries, please contact us. Report a problem on this page Please select all that apply: A link, button or video is not working. It has a spelling mistake. Information is missing. Information is outdated or wrong. I can't find what I'm looking for.

Other issue not in this list. Thank you for your help!