Columns

Can Canada’s Failed Wireless Policy Be Saved?

This is wireless week in Canada with the CRTC unveiling its consumer wireless code on Monday and Industry Minister Christian Paradis scheduled to make an important wireless announcement on Tuesday morning in Ottawa. In anticipation of the focus on telecom issues, my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) assessed whether Canada’s failed wireless policy can be saved.

The column opened by noting that earlier this year, Industry Minister Christian Paradis released the Canadian government’s strategy to increase competition in the wireless sector. Acknowledging the challenges, Paradis promised to “continue to pay close attention to what is going on and to make sure that our policies reflect the fact that we want to achieve the goal of having more competition.”

June 3, 2013 — 8 comments — Columns

Canada’s Lack of Innovation an Emerging Crisis

The political world may have been focused last week on crises at the Senate and the Toronto mayor’s office, but a new report from the government’s Science, Technology and Innovation Council quietly pointed to a serious, emerging economic crisis. The STIC reported that Canada’s research and development performance is lagging behind the world’s leading economies, continuing a disturbing decade-long decline.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes the STIC report is the third produced since 2008, but the first to sound an unmistakable alarm on worrying trends that could have dire long-term consequences for the Canadian economy. Simply put, based on the latest data, Canada cannot be regarded as a serious player when it comes to innovation.

May 30, 2013 — 11 comments — Columns

Next on the Canadian Copyright Reform Agenda: Clean Up the Mess at the Copyright Board

With the latest phase of Canadian copyright reform now complete, the government may soon turn to the question of what comes next. Given last year’s major legislative overhaul and the landmark series of copyright decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada, significant substantive changes are unlikely to be on the agenda for the foreseeable future.

Instead, my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) argues that it is time for the government to set its sights on the Copyright Board of Canada, a relatively obscure regulatory body that sets the fees to be paid for the use of copyright works. The Board is largely unknown in public circles, but it has played a pivotal role in establishing the costs associated with private copying (including a one-time iPod levy), educational copying, and the use of music by Canadian broadcasters.

The litany of complaints about the Board has mounted in recent years: the public rarely participates in its activities due to high costs, it moves painfully slowly by only issuing a handful of decisions each year, and its rules encourage copyright collectives and users to establish extreme positions that make market-driven settlements more difficult.

Moreover, over the past ten months, the Supreme Court has ruled that its approach to fair dealing was unreasonable, the Board itself admitted to palpable error in a decision that resulted in a hugely inflated tariff, and it has ignored the will of Parliament in reshaping Canadian copyright law. The Board may keep a steady stream of lawyers and economists busy, but it is time to acknowledge that it is broken.

May 21, 2013 — 3 comments — Columns

Why Creators and Consumers Should Welcome the “Netflix Threat”

The examination of the proposed Bell acquisition of Astral Communications took place last week in Montreal with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission hearing from a wide range of supporters and opponents of a deal that only last year was rejected as contrary to the public interest.

As Bell and Astral sought to defend their plan, a familiar enemy emerged – Netflix. What does a U.S.-based Internet video service with roughly two million Canadian subscribers have to do with a mega-merger of Bell and Astral?

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that for the past few years, it has become standard operating procedure at CRTC hearings to ominously point to the Netflix threat. When Internet providers tried to defend usage based billing practices that led to expensive bills and some of the world’s most restrictive data caps, they pointed to the bandwidth threat posed by Netflix. When cultural groups sought to overturn years of CRTC policy that takes a hands-off approach to Internet regulation, they argued that Netflix was a threat that needed to be addressed. So when Bell and Astral seek to merge, they naturally raise the need to respond to Netflix.

May 16, 2013 — 8 comments — Columns

Canadian Government Establishes Two-Tier Approach for Trade Talks: Insiders and Everyone Else

As the future of the proposed Canada – European Union Trade Agreement becomes increasingly uncertain – the EU has been unwilling to compromise on the remaining contentious issues leaving the Canadian government with a deal that offers limited benefits and significant costs – the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) is likely to emerge as the government’s new top trade priority.

The TPP has rapidly become of the world’s most significant trade negotiations, with participants that include the United States, Australia, Mexico, Malaysia, New Zealand, Vietnam, Japan, and Canada. There is a veil of secrecy associated with the TPP, however, as participants are required to sign a confidentiality agreement as a condition of entry into the talks. Despite those efforts, there have been occasional leaks of draft text that indicate the deal could require major changes to Canadian rules on investment, intellectual property, cultural protection, procurement, and agriculture.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes the Canadian government has adopted several measures to guard against leaks by departmental officials. According to documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, a November 2012 email to government officials noted that their access to TPP texts was conditioned on “Secret” level clearance, an acknowledgement that all texts are watermarked and can be traced back to the source, and confirmation that no sharing within government is permitted without prior approval.

May 8, 2013 — 2 comments — Columns