Scribd Logo
Carica

Benvenuto in Scribd!

  • CRTC On Quebec Law 74

    Caricato da

    Mark Goldberg
    204 visualizzazioni6 pagine
    CRTC issues preliminary view of Bill 74

    Titolo originale

    CRTC on Quebec Law 74

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formati disponibili

    PDF o leggi online da Scribd

    Hai trovato utile questo documento?

    Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

    Segnala questo documento
    CRTC issues preliminary view of Bill 74

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato PDF o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    204 visualizzazioni6 pagine

    CRTC On Quebec Law 74

    Caricato da

    Mark Goldberg
    CRTC issues preliminary view of Bill 74

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato PDF o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    di 6
    Canadian Radio tbision and Cons dela racusion et dos “alecormrunieatore Commission tédcommuniatons canacionnes September 1, 2016 By Email & Facsimile RIC Telecom File Num 8663-P8-201607186 ‘To: Distribution List; Attoreys General Re: Application by Public Interest Advocacy Centre regarding section 12 of An Act respecting mainly tne implementation of certain provisions ofthe Budget Speech of 26 ‘March 2015,1.Q. 2016, .7 (Bill 74)—Call for comments on the Commission's preliminary views related to (1) suspension of the application, and (2) interpretation of section 36 of the Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, ¢. 38 By application dated 8 July 2016, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PLAC) requested thatthe ‘Commission provide certain declaratory and other relief regarding section 12 of Bill 74, relying ‘on arguments that challenged the eonstitutionality of section 12, (On 27 July 2016, the Canacian Wireless Telocommunications Association filed an application with the Superior Court of Québec, challenging section 12 of Bill 74 on constitutional grounds. (On 5 August 2016, Commission staff issued a eter suspending all deadlines related to PLAC’ application, subject to further procedural guidance from the Commission. ‘The purpose of tis letter isto seek comment from interested persons on the Commission's preliminary views regarding the issues set out below. The Commission intends to carefully consider all submissions filed in response to tis eter before pronouncing on these issues. Suspension of PLAC’s application ‘The relief PIAC is seeking nits application is integrally connected tothe constitutionality of seetion 12 of Bill 74. This is a matter now squarely before the Superior Court of Québec. The issue thus arises as to whether the Commission ought to suspend consideration of PIAC's application, ‘There are circumstances in which iis appropriate that a court and the Commission be seized of the same subject matter. Hewever, the Commission is of the preliminary view that, inthe particular circumstances of this eas, it would be appropriate to suspend consideration of PIAC’s pplication while the constutional issues are before the cours, given the significance ofthe constitutional issues with respect to the relief sought and the fat that the Superior Court of Québec isa court of inherent jurisdiction Canada Interested persons may filecomments on this preliminary view within 15 davs of the present letter. As the applicant, PIAC may file comments that include a reply to any comments fled by interested persons within S days of the filing date for interested persons 2. ‘The Commission’sinterpretation of section 36 of the Telecommunications Act Irrespective of whether PIAC’s application is suspended, it would be useful forthe Commission to address the legal issue asto whether section 36 ofthe Telecommunications Act (the Act) applies to the blocking of end-users’ access to specific websites on the Internet. Among other things, this would provide greater clarity and certainty as to whether Canadian carrees are prohibited from blocking access to specifie websites inthe absence of Commission approval, and could be of assistance in the particular circumstances of any future applications seeking reliet under section 36 Section 36 ofthe Act states Except where the Commission approves otherwise, a Canaan earier shall not control the content or influence the meaning or purpose of telecommunications carted by it forthe public. The Commission is exclusively responsible for the administration ofthis provision and will, remain so, regardless of any finding with respect to the constitutionality of section 12 of Bill 74 ‘Farther, a matter of law; the Act binds Her Majesty, both in right of Canada and in right of any provinee.! ‘The Commission has previously provided some guidance with respect to section 36. In Telecom ‘Regulatory Poliey 2009-657" the Commission reviewed the Internet trafic management practices (ITMPs) of Intemet service providers. In that decision, the Commission found that an TIMP that led to the blocking f the delivery of conten oan end-user would engage section 36 ‘of the Act and, consequently, would requite the prior approval ofthe Commission in order to be implemented, ‘The Commission also found that such an application would only be granted where it would farther the telecommunicatons policy objectives set out in section 7 of the Act. At the time, the ‘Commission considered tht this would requite exceptional circumstances, "See: seton 3 ofthe Ac. 2 Review ofthe Internet rae management practices of Itret service providers, elem Regulatory Policy 200.687, 21 Oster 2009, ‘Consistent withthe above, the Commission is of the preliminary view that the Act prohibits the ‘locking by Canadian cariers of access by end-users to specific websites on the Internet, ‘whether or not this blocking isthe result of an ITMP. Consequently, any such blocking is ‘unlawful without prior Coramission approval, which would only be given where it would further the telocommunications policy objectives. Accordingly, compliance with other legal or juridical equitements—whether municipal, provincial, or foreign —does notin and of itself justify the blocking of specific websites by Canadian carriers in the absence of Commission approval under the Act. Interested persons may file comments on tis preliminary view within 15 days ofthe present leter. Yours sincerely, Danielle May-Cuconato Secretary General ‘Adam Balkovec, CRTC, adam, balkoves@erte.gs.ca Laurie Ventura, CRTC, laurie. ventura @ere.ge.ca Geoff White, PIAC, awhits@piac.ca Attorneys General (by facsimile)? Attomey General of Canad, 613-954-1920 ‘Attorney General of Alberts, 780-425-0307 ‘Attorney General of British Columbia, 250-356.9154 ‘Atiomey General of Manitoba, 204-945-0053 “Attorney General of New Prinewik, S06-85%.4775 Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador, 709-729-2129 ‘Attorney General of Northwest Teeitories, 867-873-0234 ‘Attorney General of Nova Scotia, 902-424-4556 ‘Attorney General of Nunavut, 867-975-5128 ‘Attorney General of Ontario, 416-326-4015 > Cenain atone general have wovided notice that they do aot ind to parisipas inthe proceeding inated by IAC appietion. These oles are aalable oa the public record ofthat proceeding accessible dhyoush he Commission's website two ce ca under “Publ Proceedings” or by sing the ie rumber povided above Attorney General of Prince Edward Island, 902-368-4910 ‘Attorney General of Queber, 514-873-7074 ‘Attorney General of Saskatchewan, 306-787-9111 ‘Attorney General of Yukon, 867-667-5790 Distribution List (by email): jtin@295, sales @acanae com; regulatory(adistributeLes; ioel@aci.cas jeff @auracom.com; info@axess com; sedric tardifiaxion.ca; sbrousseaw@b2b2c.ca; info@ibeaveesnsfi. coms belLfegulatons@bell ca; sales@logix.ca; ‘Stephane arseneau@iccap.cuop; ‘maGeintek com; sumerLasien.tc

    Potrebbero piacerti anche