Narrative Chronology of the Policy Process (3 pages)
The purposes of this assignment are:
To develop your capacity to find, interpret, and evaluate information and media policies
To gain an understanding of how policies are made
To know who makes them and who benefits from them.
To accomplish these goals select one of the following Canadian government policy documents and writing a report following the steps listed below.
Canadian Government Policy Documents
Information and Communication Policies
Canada. Parliament. House of Commons. Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. (2004, May). Interim Report on Copyright Reform (Links to an external site.). First Report. 37th Parliament, 3rd Session.
Canada. Parliament. House of Commons. Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. (2003, April). Opening Canadian Communications to the World (Links to an external site.). Third Report. 37th Parliament, 2nd Session.
Other Policies
Canada. Parliament. House of Commons. Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. (2005, March). Here We Go Again . . . Or The 2004 Fraser River Salmon Fishery (Links to an external site.). Second Report. 38th Parliament, 1st Session.
Canada. Parliament. House of Commons. Standing Committee on Health. (2004, April). Opening the Medicine Cabinet: First Report on Health Aspects of Prescription Drugs (Links to an external site.). 37th Parliament, 3rd Session..
Research and Composition
1. Narrative Chronology of the Policy Process (3 pages)
From contextual information in the document and appropriate primary (government web sites) and secondary (newspaper and magazine articles) sources, tell the story of how this policy has been developing over the past few years. Locate the document in the process. What led up to it, and what has followed? Trace the process back a few years and make it as current as you can. For each event or publication, note who sponsored or created it, what the mandate was, and, briefly, what the outcome was. Make sure you relate the events or documents to each other.
2. Stakeholder Profiles (6 pages)
Using appropriate policy documents, news databases, and web sites, locate as many stakeholders or interest groups as possible.
Group them into the following categories: government, industry, NGOs, and other (if necessary).
For each of government, NGO, and industry stakeholder groupings, prepare a report of about two pages on the grouping that outlines the position(s) that the group espouses on the policy issue. Why do they hold that position (i.e., what will they get if the policy goes their way?).
Describe generally who is in each grouping. Is there unanimity or a split? Why might this be the case?
Detail the group's interventions and/or participation in the policy process.
Use examples drawn from the group members.
Remember that you need to go beyond the submissions that these organizations made for the specific document of study.
Conclude with a statement of which sector you believe has been the most successful in the process or note if two sectors have joined together in opposition to the third.
3. International Comparison (2 pages)
Relate the document to a similar document from the EU, U.K., or U.S. Locate and identify this document. Who produced it and why? What is the context for this document? Briefly compare and contrast its concerns with those of the Canadian document.
4. Documentary Policy Discourse Analysis (2 pages)
Identify the problem the document seeks to address. (Look in the executive summary, introduction, and conclusion.) How is the problem framed? What is the solution it proposes?
Identify the cast of characters in the document. Who is/are causing the problem? Who will provide the solution? In other words, say who the heroes and villains are.
To the extent you can, relate the story being told in the document to the stakeholder profiles you assembled in Part 2. Which stakeholder grouping does the document most closely resemble? Why might that be?
Stylistic Considerations
Documenting Your Work
Start your references on a separate page.
Provide two lists of references using APA style. (See note below about citing government documents.)
The first list, Works Cited, should include every source summarized, paraphrased, or quoted.
The second list, Works Consulted, should include other sources consulted but not used directly in your research.
Sources on these pages must be in alphabetical order by author.
Pay particular attention to citing web sites.
APA is problematic in citing government documents. We suggest that you first learn the rules for citing government documents and then make the modifications required for APA style. There are several useful guides to citing government documents.
Queen's University Library. (2011, August). Brief guide to citing Canadian government documents and statistics (Links to an external site.).
Mount Allison University Library. (1997, December 1). Guide to citing Canadian government publications (Links to an external site.).
Formatting Notes
Double-space your work.
Use a 12-point font with one-inch margins all around.
Include a cover page.
Provide page numbers.
Do not write in point form.
Underline or italicize the names of all publications (newspapers, books, magazines).
Narrative Chronology of the Policy Process
The role of ICT in the promotion of the economy became realized by most of the industrialized nations, and they began using it to boost productivity in the countries in early years of 21st century. Growth that occurred in the ICT market was attributed to the telecommunications sector which is an industry where Canada was a world leader. There was a lot of capital that needed to be invested in the telecommunications sector so that it could be used in the expansion and innovation strategies that the government and the citizens could come up with. Gaining access to capital on the high-risk domestic markets was very difficult. The country, therefore, needed to work on the ways that would ensure that it was attracting the foreign capital so that they could get funds to be used in the expansion of the telecommunications industry in Canada (Charmaine, & Ann, 2007).
The government of Canada had put up various regulations and restrictions on foreign direct investment (FDI) which were also applicable to the common telecommunication carriers. The rules were intended to strike a balance between the issue of encouraging investment in the telecommunication sector and maintaining the sovereignty of the objectives of Canada as a country (Charles, 2006). There were so many arguments that were raised about the issue. Some people argued that the restrictions were limiting the telecommunication sector from gaining access to capital and also acted as a barrier to innovation and growth opportunities that would have moved the sector to another place.
As a way of responding to the concerns that were raised by a large number of people about the issue, the Minister of Industry in the year 2003, called for a review of the restrictions that mainly apply to the common telecommunications carriers. It was part of the efforts that were made by the federal government to open up new opportunities and environment to allow people to come up with various innovations that would help the economy of the country to move forward.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry Science and Technology took a study of the FDI restrictions which apply to the telecommunications sector in the country. It, therefore, prepared a report that is discussed below. The committee believed that the recommendations that were contained in the report would improve the investment opportunities that existed in the country and it would have provided opportunities for proper investment and environment for innovations to take place in the country so that the government could achieve its telecommunication goals.
The Report was drafted by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. The committee proceeded on to study the Foreign Restrictions that apply to the Telecommunication Common Carriers. The committee gave a recommendation that the Government of Canada should amend the Telecommunications Act so as to acquire a mandatory 5-year Review of the Act by the parliamentary committee. They also gave a recommendation that the Government of Canada should prepare the necessary legislative changes that would see the complete removal of all the existing Canadian ownership requirements that include the requirement of Canadian Control that applied to telecommunication barriers. The report made a recommendation that the government should ensure that the changes that were made to the Canadian ownership and control requirements that applied to the common telecommunications carriers are applied equally to all the broadcasting distribution undertakings CITATION Wal03 \l 1033 (Walt, April 2003). The government formed a special parliamentary committee reviewed the structure of governance of both the telecommunications and broadcasting sectors in Canada as a way of ensuring that there was technological convergence. The Review that they came up with would include the regulatory framework that would govern the telecommunication and broadcasting sectors in Canada. It also provided the approaches to be adopted by the federal government to facilitate broadband deployment in the rural and remote areas. It also provided a review of the federal departmental organization of the industry in Canada and its heritage. The role, jurisdiction and mandate of the Canadian Television and Radio Telecommunications was elaborated in a very clear way for the citizens to understand.
STAKEHOLDERS
Wireless Telecommunication Companies
The committee heard all the views from the common telecommunication carriers. They included the wireless companies, incumbent local exchange carriers and cable television companies. They recounted the difficulties that they were going through in their efforts of raising the investment capital under the current foreign ownership regime. The companies indicated that of all the six wireline telecommunications carriers in Canada by the year 2001, only AT and T Canada had met all the conditions of foreign ownership that were set by the government. GT group Telecom reported that they had reached the maximum allowable direct ownership limit according to the government regulations CITATION Wal03 \l 1033 (Walt, April 2003).
They also argued that the foreign ownership restrictions were becoming a constraint on their efforts of expanding their communication enterprises. The wireless telecommunication companies were not affiliated with the incumbent wireline company who were very emphatic that the foreign ownership restrictions that were put up by Canada were a great roadblock towards the realization of the investment plans that they had in mind. Other companies which had entered the field of telecommunications lately such as Microcell Telecommunications provided an argument that the foreign strategic investors were essential to the achievement of their investment plan given that they were very new in the field of telecommunication by that time. They would provide the necessary capital that they needed to open up new telecommunication enterprises. Also, they would have provided the necessary managerial experts who had the know-how on technology matters that would be transferred to the managerial manpower that they previously had. The Canadian Institutional Investment was very conditional about the issue of a strategic investor being present. Microcell claimed that Canada as a country lacks many of the strategic investors that will be able to meet the telecommunication needs and financial needs of the company. The telecommunication company also reported that on most of the occasions when they were pursuing the foreign strategic investors, Microcell would be turned away since they would only offer non-voting stock, something that the strategic investors have little interest in.
Rogers AT $ T wireless companies said the same issues that were said by Microcell. Rogers AT &T argued that they have been there for the past 20 years and they felt the impact of Canada’s foreign ownership restrictions were felt on the cost of their capital. They provided an argument that the removal of the foreign ownership restrictions would give them a chance to pursue a more aggressive deployment in the Third Generation Technologies otherwise referred to as 3G wireless technologies.
AT & T Canada and Call-Net had similar stories. The two wireless companies were in direct competition with the others, and the foreign ownership restrictions were greatly affecting them. They were one of the main roadblocks that they were facing in their efforts towards outdoing the well-established rivals.
The Government
In the year 1987, the government of Canada justified the imposition of foreign ownership restrictions on the telecommunications as a measure of ensuring that there is national sovereignty. By imposing foreign ownership restrictions, the government hoped that there would be security at all the levels and the social-economic wellbeing of the citizens of Canada. The telecommunications act performed an essential role in the maintenance of the sovereignty and identity of Canada. Telecommunications contribute to the well-being of the nation by enabling the people to build their commercial and networks upon which the country would develop and grow which is crucial in increasing and forming a knowledge-based economy.
The committee also acknowledged the commitment of the government of Canada in its objective of encouraging the use of FDI policy as a means of maintaining the modern telecommunication ad infrastructure services that are found in the various parts of the country. As a way of ensuring that the committee balances the two primary objectives of the government, the committee decided to evaluate the foreign ownership restrictions and the other available policy instruments by following the five main government policy options.
One of the policies is the status quo control policy. The policy is guided by the Telecommunications Act that stipulates that for one to operate in Canada, a telecommunications barrier must be owned by a Canadian and controlled by a Canadian. This is what is referred to as the status quo. It also meant that 80% of the total number of Board of Directors of the corporation must be of the Canadian origin. The second condition under the status quo stated that Canadians must beneficially own directly or indirectly not less than 80% of the total voting shares that are available CITATION Wal03 \l 1033 (Walt, April 2003). The corporation could not at all be controlled by persons who are not Canadians. On their side, the foreigners would not own more than 46.7 % of the total voting shares that the telecommunication company has in the common carrier. The voting shares discussed under this case must include the direct holdings and indirect holdings through a common holding company. The rule applied to the voting shares given that it is only the voting shares that permit control over most of the items of the company.
On their side, BCE Inc. proposed some variations on the status quo. It, therefore, gave the recommendation that the Government of Canada should consider reducing the current ownership f...