Thursday, December 13, 2007
Swimming upstream
The Harper Conservatives are a principled government. There are a number of instances that demonstrate a willingness to do what it believes is right, not just what is popular.
Whether you agree with those positions or not - such are signs of leadership. Clearly, there has been skillful political navigation at work, all the more notable, given the minority position of this government.
However, every few years we have political realities that come into play. In order to continue to be able to do the right thing, the party - any governing party - has to try to stay in power. As a result, populist polls become more of a factor in official pronouncements.
Perhaps this is why we have seen some anomalies in recent weeks from Industry Canada. Why did Minister Prentice pull back this week from introducing new copyright legislation, already put on the Order Paper? Why a sudden reversal from the free market approach of Minister Bernier in dealing with the rules for the spectrum auction?
One of the recommendations of the Telecom Policy Review Panel (TPRP) was to move the responsibilities for spectrum management out of Industry Canada. At the time, I thought this kind of reorganization should be a low priority. The political aspects of the recent spectrum decision, called into question in a column in Monday's Ottawa Citizen, makes one wonder if the same result would have been delivered had a politically independent body been charged with making the determination. Such decisions should be based on a long view, not political expediency.
A 2002 OECD report that reviewed Canada's regulatory reform observed the potential problems that could arise:
I think many Canadians - both individuals and business leaders - prefer predictable leadership. It is easier to plan that way. After all, we elect leaders to lead, not respond to the latest polls or the loudest bloggers - present company excluded, of course.
Update [December 20, 3:10 pm]
Terence Corcoran of the Financial Post has a commentary, The Telecom Trotskyites, that raises similar issues in today's paper.
Technorati Tags:
AWS, spectrum auction, copyright, Industry Canada
Whether you agree with those positions or not - such are signs of leadership. Clearly, there has been skillful political navigation at work, all the more notable, given the minority position of this government.
However, every few years we have political realities that come into play. In order to continue to be able to do the right thing, the party - any governing party - has to try to stay in power. As a result, populist polls become more of a factor in official pronouncements.
Perhaps this is why we have seen some anomalies in recent weeks from Industry Canada. Why did Minister Prentice pull back this week from introducing new copyright legislation, already put on the Order Paper? Why a sudden reversal from the free market approach of Minister Bernier in dealing with the rules for the spectrum auction?
One of the recommendations of the Telecom Policy Review Panel (TPRP) was to move the responsibilities for spectrum management out of Industry Canada. At the time, I thought this kind of reorganization should be a low priority. The political aspects of the recent spectrum decision, called into question in a column in Monday's Ottawa Citizen, makes one wonder if the same result would have been delivered had a politically independent body been charged with making the determination. Such decisions should be based on a long view, not political expediency.
A 2002 OECD report that reviewed Canada's regulatory reform observed the potential problems that could arise:
There is no evidence that the present structure has caused any conflict. Nevertheless in that wireless communications is increasing in importance a differentiation between policy and regulation, as is the case for the rest of the industry, would be preferable.This paragraph was cited in the report from the TPRP in developing its recommendation 5-10 to "provide more stability through open and transparent processes free from political pressure".
I think many Canadians - both individuals and business leaders - prefer predictable leadership. It is easier to plan that way. After all, we elect leaders to lead, not respond to the latest polls or the loudest bloggers - present company excluded, of course.
Update [December 20, 3:10 pm]
Terence Corcoran of the Financial Post has a commentary, The Telecom Trotskyites, that raises similar issues in today's paper.
Technorati Tags:
AWS, spectrum auction, copyright, Industry Canada
Posted by Mark Goldberg @ 12/13/2007 07:18:00 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Yes, Mark, we, the people, in our naivte, elect politicians and governments to lead. The problem is that the goal of politicians and governments, once elected, is to get re-elected in order to build up that generous pension and to continue in power. There's the rub, leadership often requires contentious decisions which tend to remain in the minds of the electorate. Contentious decisions often lead to an irritated electorate which is more likely to unseat politicians and governments than one that isn't constantly being agitated by government decisions. In the case of the wirelss spectrum auction rules, the fix was in - public opinion showed a high level of dissatisfaction with the current situation. The possibility of getting re-elected was higher if the government made a decision that reflected public opinion - hence the set-aside and mandatory tower sharing and roaming since they are seen as they best way to disrupt what was seen by the public as a very comfortable oligarchy.
Posted by 
: 6:41 PM, December 13, 2007
: 6:41 PM, December 13, 2007
Governments ought to lead but they also ought to reverse or at least pause to reconsider decisions, especially when those decisions are called into question by the public. This is a key difference between authoritarian states and democracies.
A blogger might have raised the alarm about the copyright bill, but the public outcry was significant enough that the government was right to put a hold on the proceeding to take a closer look at the concerns.
As regards, the previous comment about wireless spectrum, I understand the cynicism about re-election and public opinion. But the real issue of concern here is less that of public opinion about competition in the sector (which in a democracy is a legitimate factor in policy making) but rather about political meddling to serve corporate interests for political gain. I'm not sure there is a case of this in the AWS auction despite Videotron's intense lobbying for a set aside and the other policies that have been put into place.
A blogger might have raised the alarm about the copyright bill, but the public outcry was significant enough that the government was right to put a hold on the proceeding to take a closer look at the concerns.
As regards, the previous comment about wireless spectrum, I understand the cynicism about re-election and public opinion. But the real issue of concern here is less that of public opinion about competition in the sector (which in a democracy is a legitimate factor in policy making) but rather about political meddling to serve corporate interests for political gain. I'm not sure there is a case of this in the AWS auction despite Videotron's intense lobbying for a set aside and the other policies that have been put into place.
Posted by : 12:16 PM, December 17, 2007
: 12:16 PM, December 17, 2007
The most telling comment appears in Michael Geist's blog posting about the copyright legislation delay due to Facebook placing "unprecedented power into the hands of individuals". Unelected individuals.
Legislation doesn't just get introduced and passed in our democracy - even when there is a majority. It has multiple readings, gets reviewed by committee, amended, etc. In a minority, there is lots of opportunity to shape the bill. But it first has to be introduced.
What kind of society sees legislation get held hostage by 20,000 or 25,000 protestors?
Post a Comment
Legislation doesn't just get introduced and passed in our democracy - even when there is a majority. It has multiple readings, gets reviewed by committee, amended, etc. In a minority, there is lots of opportunity to shape the bill. But it first has to be introduced.
What kind of society sees legislation get held hostage by 20,000 or 25,000 protestors?
Posted by : 12:44 PM, December 17, 2007
: 12:44 PM, December 17, 2007 << Home
Syndicate
