CRTC says public proceeding on new powers to levy fines not ‘appropriate’

A public proceeding regarding new CRTC powers to impose monetary penalties on telecommunications companies would “not be appropriate,” given “the fact that further guidance will be provided in the coming weeks,” the commission said in a letter to Telus Corp. Telus had asked the CRTC in a Jan. 26 submission to initiate a public proceeding regarding the regulator’s new power to levy fines, which it gained through last year’s budget bill. Telus said the CRTC should take a “systemic” approach to the new monetary penalty regime rather than a case-by-case, “ad hoc” one. Under the new rules, a company that violates CRTC rules could face a penalty of up to $10 million for a first offence and $15 million for every subsequent offence, while the penalties for an individual are $25,000 for the first violation and $50,000 for following offences. In its reply to Telus, the CRTC noted that when the bill received royal assent in December, the commission had indicated it would give more information “in the coming weeks on how and when the CRTC intends to use this new power.” The CRTC did not respond to questions from The Wire Report asking for more details about its plans or a more specific timeline. In its submission, Telus had said that, prior to the budget bill, the CRTC only had the ability to impose monetary penalties when enforcing its unsolicited telecommunications rules, while the new regime is “all encompassing” and functions as a “general enforcement mechanism” for both the Telecommunications Act and CRTC decisions and regulations. As a result, Telus requested “that the Commission initiate a proceeding to establish a comprehensive, public, and transparent approach to compliance and enforcement, including necessary changes to practices and institutional arrangements that are required so that all stakeholders are aware of how the administration of these new powers will operate.” It said stakeholders, including telecom companies, consumers and citizens, would benefit from such guidance “given the reach of this framework, its novelty, and the many areas of uncertainty raises.” The submission added that telecom companies will need to adjust to the new regime, and that they “need to be able to compete, invest and innovate against a backdrop of clearly articulated obligations and fairly-enforced rules,” and added that a public proceeding is “a good place to start.” A public consultation, it said, would both educate consumers and help telecoms design programs for compliance. Telus said the consultation should consider issues like whether the enforcement branch should be separate from other divisions of the CRTC, when oral hearings will be granted, as compared to written submissions, and how penalties fit in with other tools used by the CRTC, such as warning letters. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) said in a Feb. 2 letter to the CRTC that it supported Telus’ request, and that it is the interest of all parties that the CRTC have “as wide and informed a view as possible as to how and when to use its enforcement powers in a fair and efficient manner.” Referring to “recent gains” in consumer protection in the telecom space, such as the CRTC’s wireless code and the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services, PIAC added that the CRTC’s new powers “should be carefully, efficiently and effectively integrated into the CRTC’s regulatory, compliance and enforcement operations in order to enhance these gains and not to destabilize them.” Saskatchewan Telecommunications Holding Corp. also sent a letter to the CRTC agreeing with Telus, writing that the CRTC’s new powers have “created a significant uncertainty in the telecommunications environment.” Telecoms “will need to know where they stand relative to this new framework as they begin to make or market new products and deliver services,” it said. In an appearance at a House of Commons committee last fall, Lynne Fancy, who works in spectrum policy at Industry Canada, said monetary penalties provide a tool in between education and persuasion, and the “heavy hammer” of revoking a licence. Denis Carmel, director of media relations at the CRTC, said in a phone interview at the time that the new powers provide a “disincentive” for those violating CRTC rules. — With reporting by Anja Karadeglija at akarad@thewirereport.ca and editing by Derek Abma at dabma@thewirereport.ca

CRTC says public proceeding on new powers to levy fines not ‘appropriate’

News | February 4, 2015

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

CRTC says public proceeding on new powers to levy fines not ‘appropriate’

News | February 4, 2015

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

NDP critic calls for Rogers to reverse price hikes or be blocked from federal contracts

Rogers, Cogeco, Quebecor challenge ILECs at CRTC hearings

Cogeco defends infrastructure upgrade amid TekSavvy dispute

Cogeco MVNO operations still a ways away

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us