regulation

Friday March 19, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday March 19, 2021

A big deal threatens bigger cellphone fees

There are two things you can bet on when it comes to this week’s $20.4-billion bid by Rogers Communications to snap up rival Shaw Communications.

First, the deal would be very good for both of these telecommunications giants, and not least members of the Shaw family who would personally pocket $920 million in cash for their troubles.

Second, the current takeover plan threatens to be very bad for Canadian consumers, and that probably means people like you. 

Think your monthly cellphone fees are sky-high today? They could blast into the stratosphere if this deal goes through as is. Because if one of Canada’s four biggest telecom companies is bought up by one of the others, there will be even less of the competition so urgently needed to keep some kind of a lid on prices. 

Let’s hope Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is watching this one closely. Let’s hope even more that he’s ready to stand up for the interests of ordinary Canadians. The fact is, cellphone users in this country are already saddled with some of the most bloated cellular fees in the industrialized world. On average, Canadians spend 20 per cent more than Americans and an eye-watering 120 per cent more than Australians for cellphone plans that offer comparable service.

Canada’s “Big 3” telecom companies — Rogers, Telus and Bell — defend the high prices as the cost of providing a first-rate service in a vast land, though the U.S. and Australia are also pretty big places where bills are a lot lower than here. It’s also worth noting that a review by Canada’s Competition Bureau found that those Big 3 telecom companies, however they excuse their pricing, were racking up far stronger profits than their Group-of-Seven or Australian counterparts.

One of the problems industry analysts consistently point to is the lack of competition for providing wireless services in Canada. Today, Rogers, Telus and Bell control nearly 90 per cent of the market. If Rogers is allowed to gobble up Shaw, the Big 3’s market share will rise to 95 per cent. 

Federal government after federal government has agreed more, not less, competition is what this sector needs. And they were all correct. Freedom Mobile, which was started by Shaw in 2016, has been credited with driving wireless plan prices down to at least some degree in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.

So what happens if big-fish Rogers swallows up smaller-fish Shaw and takes over not just Shaw’s cable and internet operations in western Canada but its Freedom mobile business? Rogers has tried to silence concerns about its takeover plans by promising not to raise cellphone fees for three years. However sincere that offer is, it would do nothing to stop a whopping fee hike on Day 1 of Year 4.

While Trudeau knows that telecommunications companies need to earn enough money to underwrite expensive investments in internet and wireless networks, he and his party declared they would lower cellphone fees by 25 per cent by the end of 2021.

Given that both the Competition Bureau and the Canadians Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission will now take a year or more to review this deal, Trudeau has time to think this one out carefully. But at the end of the day he should be willing to intervene strongly on behalf of consumers. One option among many would be to approve the deal — if Rogers agrees to sell Shaw’s Freedom Mobile business to a company such as Cogeco, which is interested in expanding into the cellphone business.

Such a deal between Rogers and Shaw might not be as big. Almost certainly, neither would the cellphone bills be in this country. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial) 

 

Friday November 13, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday November 13, 2020

Don’t give free rein to Ontario’s developers

Doug Ford is moving quickly but quietly to give Ontario’s developers the upper hand over Ontario’s environment.

November 22, 2019

For proof of this ominous change, check out how Premier Ford’s provincial government is stripping away the powers of Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities when it comes to approving new development in many of the province’s most vital natural areas.

Since mid-20th century, conservation authorities have been responsible not only for controlling floods but for protecting and restoring the land, water and natural habitats in this province. They’ve done a superb job, too, even if many developers consider them nothing more than red tape that slows or stops a money-making venture.

But in defiance of this long-held mandate, the Progressive Conservatives last week unveiled legislation that would curtail the conservation authorities’ ability to act as environmental guardians. And as if it was hoping the public wouldn’t notice what it was doing, the government slipped its proposals into its fat, omnibus budget bill.

The public, however, should take notice. What we’re witnessing is a direct threat to responsible environmental and land-use planning.

The new legislation would end the conservation authorities’ role in offering an informed response to development applications and how those applications might impact sensitive natural environments. More power to decide the fate of a proposed development, however controversial, would be handed to the provincial Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.

If, where it still had jurisdiction, a conservation authority refused to issue a permit or imposed conditions for a development, a disgruntled developer could appeal directly to the natural resources minister or the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. Until now, someone appealing a permit denial would have to go directly to the local conservation authority’s executive.

December 11, 2018

What the Ford government is doing is politicizing environmental and land-use planning. At the very least, its proposed changes to the Conservation Authorities Act raise the possibility a developer with a friend in government could one day win approval for a project over well-founded, local opposition.

This shouldn’t happen but the government intends to go even further. The province doesn’t want watershed management and conservation to remain core conservation authority programs, for which municipalities would have to pay. Instead, they would become voluntary programs a municipality could choose to support — or not. 

The Ford government seems to have a grudge against conservation authorities. Last year, it slashed its funding for the authorities by 50 per cent while telling them flood control must become their core mandate. Those shrunken budgets have made it harder for conservation authorities to plant trees, restore forests, and prevent soil erosion and water pollution, all jobs that make for a healthier environment.

May 3, 2018

If the new legislation passes, Ontario’s river valleys, flood plains, wetlands, Great Lakes shorelines — indeed, its water supplies — would be vulnerable to degradation in even more ways. It is also worth noting that the same government is increasingly resorting to ministerial zoning orders which allow it to permit development while bypassing the municipal planning process, environmental assessments and meaningful public consultation.

If Ford truly believes the current process for approving development is too cumbersome, he could streamline the rules, perhaps even imposing tighter deadlines for municipal governments and conservation authorities to respond to a project proposal.

But the interests of the economy, development and money have to be balanced with the interests of our environment. And where they can’t, the interests of the environment should prevail. Ontario should, as the song says, be “a place to grow.” But it should be place to grow for healthy environments, not just developers’ bank accounts. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial) 

Tuesday July 16, 2019

July 17, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday July 16, 2019

New air passenger protections kick in today

Airline passengers have new rights starting today, as rules from the Canada Transportation Agency that have prompted backlash from industry and consumer advocates kick in.

January 8, 2016

The Air Passenger Protection Regulations require airlines to meet certain obligations, including clear communication to passengers about their rights and timely updates for delays or cancellations. Passengers will also be compensated up to $2,400 if they’re bumped from a flight.

In addition, passengers are now entitled to a certain standard of treatment when stuck on the tarmac. People will be allowed to leave the plane in certain situations if the delays exceed three hours — though that’s twice the time the Senate committee that studied the rules recommended.

Time spent on the tarmac became a huge point of contention when two planes were stranded for up to six hours on the tarmac at the Ottawa airport in 2017 due to bad weather. The passengers were kept on board with no air conditioning, food or water.

Air Transat was fined after the CTA found the airline broke its agreement with passengers. Transportation Minister Marc Garneau used the example to illustrate why the new bill of rights — then in the Senate — should be a priority.

April 23, 2014

Lost baggage procedures have also been updated to allow for compensation of up to $2,100. There are also clearer policies for transporting musical instruments.

The regulations will apply to all flights to, from and within Canada, including connecting flights. Large airlines, those that have serviced two million passengers or more in the last two years, will have a slightly different regulatory regime than smaller airlines in some cases.

Smaller airlines, for example, will have to pay less compensation for delays or cancellations that are within the airline’s control but are not related to safety issues.

April 3, 2014

Two advocates are also challenging the tarmac delay rules, saying they violate the charter rights of some Canadians with disabilities who may not be able to sit for extended periods.

Bob Brown, a disability rights advocate who is quadriplegic, says the rules reduce the distance he can travel by air without putting his health at risk by up to 2,000 kilometres. The case is currently before the Federal Court of Appeal.

These are only some of the changes coming in. Starting in December, airlines will also have to adhere to standards about flight disruptions and seating passengers with children. Compensation for cancelled flights and delays are part of phase two of the rollout. (CBC) 

 

Tuesday December 11, 2018

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday December 11, 2018

Environmentalists fear provincial changes mean Greenbelt is open for development

Environmentalists and critics are accusing Premier Doug Ford of breaking a promise to protect the two-million-acre Greenbelt from development with changes they say endanger wildlife and drinking water, setting Ontario’s environmental protections back 40 years.

May 3, 2018

The Progressive Conservative government’s proposed changes to the planning act will undermine the province’s anti-sprawl smart growth plan, the Greenbelt Act, the Great Lakes and Lake Simcoe Protection acts and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, said Environmental Defence executive director Tim Gray.

The changes were announced Thursday as part of Bill 66, the Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act.

It would allow municipalities to obtain provincial approval to use a new open-for-business zoning bylaw that would bypass some of the existing development requirements. The bylaw would only be available if the municipality could prove a development would create 50 jobs for places with populations under 250,000 or 100 jobs in larger municipalities. Of eight Ontario municipalities with more than 250,000 people, five are in the Toronto region.

“The aim is to have all provincial approvals in place within one year so qualifying businesses can begin construction,” said an emailed statement from a spokesperson of Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Steve Clark.

March 9, 2005

Conditions would remain on the building, material and other design elements of the employment projects but municipalities would not be required to provide advance notice of the bylaw’s adoption.

The new tool is the kind of opening environmentalists have feared since Doug Ford was caught on video during the election campaign telling developers he would open up the Greenbelt if he became premier. He walked back the remarks after the video was released.

“There is no longer any rational approach to land designation so all areas that we’ve carefully considered being worthy of protection no longer have that protection. Anyone with a property just has to convince Queen’s Park to give them an exemption and (that’s) all it (needs) to go forward for development,” Gray said.

While the bill is driven by job creation, retail and residential components can be part of the projects which qualify for the bylaw’s use, he said. (Source: Toronto Star) 

 

Thursday April 12, 2018

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday April 12, 2018

Zuckerberg: regulation of social media firms is ‘inevitable’

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg told a House oversight panel Wednesday that he believes it is “inevitable” there will be regulation of the social media industry and also disclosed to lawmakers that his own data was included in the personal information sold to malicious third parties.

March 27, 2018

“The internet is growing in importance around the world in people’s lives and I think that it is inevitable that there will need to be some regulation,” Zuckerberg said during testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “So my position is not that there should be no regulation but I also think that you have to be careful about regulation you put in place.”

Larger, more dominant companies like Facebook have the resources to comply with government regulation, he said, but “that might be more difficult for a smaller startup to comply with.”

Lawmakers in both parties have floated possible regulation of Facebook and other tech companies amid privacy scandals and Russian intervention on the platform. It’s not clear what that regulation would look like and Zuckerberg didn’t offer any specifics.

March 21, 2018

Zuckerberg was answering a question from Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., when he informed lawmakers about his personal data, a reference to the Cambridge Analytica scandal that has rocked his company over the past several weeks.

His remarks came as he opened the second day of a congressional inquisition in the wake of the worst privacy debacle in his company’s history. A day earlier Zuckerberg batted away often-aggressive questioning from senators who accused him of failing to protect the personal information of millions of Americans from Russians intent on upsetting the U.S. Election.

The stakes are high for both Zuckerberg and his company. Facebook has been reeling from its worst-ever privacy failure following revelations last month that the political data-mining firm Cambridge Analytica, which was affiliated with Trump’s 2016 campaign, improperly scooped up data on about 87 million users. Zuckerberg has been on an apology tour for most of the past two weeks, culminating in his congressional appearances this week.

But what comes next is unclear. (Source: Chicago Tribune) 

Published in the Hamilton Spectator

SaveSave