Industry committee  The Broadcasting Act has a whole shopping list of objectives, but they basically boil down to two. It should be an overwhelmingly Canadian system offering Canadian content, and Canadians should have access to it both as viewers and as participants, i.e. as producers. Those are the overriding key objectives.

Industry committee  As we stated in our decision, there were a number of facts. All the money came from Orascom. This company owned approximately 80% of the equity. All of the technology was [Inaudible—-Editor]. It had a trademark. All the funding came from the same source. These factors led us to conclude that it was Orascom that had the control.

Industry committee  Exactly. We would have liked to avoid what did happen in this case, that is, that two different decisions were made.

Industry committee  When Globalive came before us, it stated at the time that it had received Industry Canada approval and wanted to obtain ours. It wanted to be interconnected with the other telephone companies. Of course, if a telecommunications company cannot have interconnection, then it is useless.

Industry committee  Well, you see, when people apply to be licensees, etc., they don't necessarily know whether they will succeed and what the final structure will be, so to pre-clear them is very difficult. That's why the government adopts the perfectly sensible approach of saying, “Here are the conditions, and if you're successful, you have to be Canadian controlled”.

Industry committee  In the wireless sector, when we had our hearings on new media, we pointed out that the existing exemption is complete and there's no way for us to intervene, even if there is discrimination or self-serving, which are the normal reservations we have when we exempt somebody, because of the sector's competitiveness: unless you do something, we will step in.

Industry committee  “Control in fact” is a well-known concept in law. There's ample jurisprudence on it. The leading case on this is a case involving Canadian Pacific Airlines. We used that law and jurisprudence and applied it to the facts of the Globalive carrier case. We came to the conclusion, which we set out in our decision after a lengthy hearing in open court with submissions from both sides, with tests for these factors, that for Globalive, in effect, Canadians did not have control of that corporation.

Industry committee  As I tried to make clear in our opening statement, we feel that convergence is here. To make a distinction between telecommunications and broadcasting is artificial. It doesn't make sense. As you know, you can watch any television program on the Internet or on cable. When you watch programs, some are interactive, and you can phone in or type and send e-mail messages that appear on the screen.

Industry committee  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will make a brief opening statement. We will then be happy to answer your questions. The committee is examining issues related to foreign ownership in the telecommunications sector. These issues have taken on greater importance with the arrival of convergence.

Industry committee  No. The overall policy for spam for electronic commerce, etc., clearly rests with the Department of Industry, and it's stated in the act.

Industry committee  It is the Department of Industry that usually goes to these fora. If an aspect is being discussed that is of particular relevance, let's say, to the CRTC, they might invite us to come and be part of their delegation, or we might ask to go with them, etc.

Industry committee  If my amendment were adopted, I would be talking to the FTC and saying that we have the same provisions and asking them to please investigate.

Industry committee  When the government announced this bill, it said exactly what you have just said, namely, that there would be a one-stop shop for receiving complaints and forwarding them to the responsible organization. As far as telephone complaints are concerned, we do have PhoneBusters. We could perhaps have some other organization, or PhoneBusters could be this one-stop shop for complaints.

Industry committee  Oh, absolutely. The word “arrangement” adds an element of flexibility, but I don't think it's sufficient for the reasons I just mentioned.

Industry committee  No. I don't want to specifically speak about YouTube or Google, but normally when you use a system, for whatever application you use, they send you an improved version. Let's say it's version 6.1. They ask you if you consent, yes or no, and underneath the “yes” are the terms of acceptance, which are usually two pages of fine print that nobody reads.