Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for this opportunity to provide COGECO Cable's views on the telecommunications policy direction to the CRTC.
Over and above the points covered by my fellow cable panel members today, I'm going to leave you with a few basic thoughts that you and the government will hopefully take into consideration.
First, this policy direction can neither supercede the provisions of the existing Telecommunications Act nor replace the need to reform Canadian telecommunications legislation, as contemplated in the report of the expert panel. Since a new bill on telecom is expected to be tabled soon, the purpose of this policy should be to provide focus and clarity within the four corners of the law as it now stands and only until the law is effectively changed by Parliament. So in legal as well as in practical terms, we all remain subject to the forbearance regime under section 34 of the existing Telecommunications Act until the law is changed, and that includes the government.
The TPRP's version of the proposed text of a policy direction indeed contained an explicit reference to that existing provision of the act, in connection with economic regulation of telecommunications services. The actual policy direction should as well.
Second, a key concept underlying the TPRP Report on economic regulation or deregulation of telecommunications services is the concept of significant market power (SMP). It is a fundamental concept of competition law around the world, whether in telecoms or in any other industry sector. When SMP is found to be present in a relevant market, economic regulation may need to be extended or reinstated. The TPRP' s version of the proposed text of a policy direction contained an explicit reference to that concept in connection with economic regulation of telecommunications services. The actual policy direction should as well.
Third, the establishment of an ex post regulatory regime as the new default regulatory framework for telecommunications requires credible and efficient enforcement in situations of anti-competitive behaviour. The TPRP Report contains a full chapter on this critical requirement. At this juncture, in markets where incumbent telephone companies are found to have SMP, ex ante economic regulation is the only credible and efficient deterrent to anti-competitive behaviour, and there is no credible replacement solution at hand.
Fourth, and finally, while the TPRP report advocates the use of policy directions by the government to the CRTC, it also clearly advocates getting rid of cabinet review of individual CRTC telecommunications decisions. The TPRP report points out that we are alone in the western world with the concurrent availability and use of those two powers under our domestic telecom law. It is fundamentally important to have an independent expert tribunal, rather than politicians, rule on specific files based on detailed evidence and proper procedural safeguards. With the issuance of a policy direction under section 8 of the act, the government should commit to refrain from interfering with specific decisions of the CRTC or its successors henceforth.
Thank you very much.