[Advisors] Now what?

Wed Oct 28 08:26:18 PDT 2015

I sent the PM designate the CAP PowerPoint on how it contributes to the GDP and his assistant answered right away and assured me it would be given to his planning team. That was a month or so ago but I hope they still have that.  It sure speaks to the importance of CaP.  I heard a commentator on CBC news talking about bringing back former programs that had been sunset.  A glimmer of hope?  The need for CAP has not diminished.

Bev

From: advisors-bounces at tc.ca [mailto:advisors-bounces at tc.ca] On Behalf Of Monique Chartrand
Sent: October 28, 2015 8:16 AM
To: Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net>
Cc: Garth Graham <garth.graham at telus.net>; advisors advisors <advisors at tc.ca>; brian.beaton at knet.ca
Subject: Re: [Advisors] Now what?

Bonjour,

I think we're doing Advocacy and not lobby.

We had the visit of Mr. Lawrence Hanson<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/lawrence-hanson/98/b64/7a1>, Assistant Deputy Minister Science and Innovation Sector, yesterday, he was once involved in the Employment Policy, Human Resources Development Canada with the internships program. I understood that this strategy has been designed to meet a need to take on challenges, "crises", economic. The jobs crisis angle, but above all community development may be an angle to position. Maybe it would be a good person to meet. He appreciated the Fab Lab and we are campaigning for a new CAP program for a Fab Lab program coast to coast.

Bonne journée,

Monique

Le 2015-10-28 à 10:06, Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>> a écrit :

I am watching this thread.  But I haven't responded.  Waiting for some info through my other activities about how one connects to incoming governments.

So far it looks like we should be preparing a document about who we are and why we matter in this sector, also briefly including the policy issues we are working on.

What I don't know yet is who we would be addressing this to.  Also, we don't want to come across as lobbyists -- how to maintain that balance.

It is still early days but let's keep this on our radar.

Marita

On 10/22/2015 4:57 PM, Brian Beaton wrote:

Great analysis Garth ... thanks for sharing this important information ... Some additional thoughts ...

* BCE and their fibre network appeal: It is interesting for me to see this appeal and THEIR "news" paper article. There is NO mention of the MILLIONS (probably BILLIONS) of public funding from governments subsidizing the construction of THEIR network. In the remote fibre build to reach the First Nations in northwestern Ontario, Bell got $64 MILLION from government. They left 5 remote First Nations off the fibre network when they claimed to "run out of money". That is just one of the MANY projects IC supported to pay these telcom corporations directly instead of giving the money to the communities so the project would get done the way the communities wanted to see them completed.

* CATA recommendation: You sure nailed that one about this corporate lobby group taking care of their members. Undermining the CRTC and their Basic Service Objectives (BSO) hearings by lobbying the Liberals at this point in time is another great example of just how corrupt these corporations and their lobby efforts are. Makes me wonder who is monitoring the CRA  and their love-in with the CPA to change the tax evasion legislation to legal corporate activities of moving $8 BILLION annually out of the country to avoid taxes (ie. the KPMG love-in with the conservatives).

* RE Open Media: If Open Media is claiming that Bell's appeal is a “cynical attempt to see if the new government will cave to requests that the previous government would have rejected” then they are out of touch with the lengths the conservatives and their corporate buddies went to take care of the major telecom providers with public subsidies, legislation, community disempowerment, etc. Hopefully this is a mis-communication on the reporter's part but I feel you did a good job of capturing what Open Media is really all about in terms of their crowdfunding efforts and reaching for issues that the public (those with money) will support ...

* RE: your message ... I would like to share it with the First Mile Connectivity Consortium and First Nations Innovation team (http://firstmile.ca) I am working with to address the CRTC BSO hearings along with other IC and CRTC interventions. Does this work for you? We are always looking for new partners interested in our efforts to ensure policies, programs and legislation is in the best interest of remote communities across the country. I would like to recommend that everyone consider writing letters to the Globe and Mail editor challenging these stories and these directions. I would also like to see letters going to IC and Trudeau countering these corporate directions ...

Thoughts??

Woliwon

Brian Beaton
Researcher, First Nations Innovation Project
Doctoral Candidate, Faculty of Education, Critical Studies, University of New Brunswick
Research Associate, Keewaytinook Okimakanak Research Institute
Settler ally of Indigenous peoples and future generations
Contact Details:
Snail Mail: Box 104, Station A, Unceded Wolastoqey Traditional Lands, Fredericton, NB, E3B 4Y2
T: 506-261-1344
E: brian.beaton at unb.ca<mailto:brian.beaton at unb.ca>
http://firstmile.ca

-----Original Message-----
From: Garth Graham [mailto:garth.graham at telus.net]
Sent: October-22-15 4:18 PM
To: Brian Beaton; advisors advisors
Subject: Re: [Advisors] Now what?

On Oct 21, 2015, at 6:37 PM, Brian Beaton<brian.beaton at knet.ca<mailto:brian.beaton at knet.ca>>  wrote:
 ... Are there any community-centric program people left at Industry Canada that anyone knows of? Or is everyone now only interested in finding private sector partners who claim they are the one can best take care of the communities for their programs and projects? Ie... is the public funding / subsidization of the private sector  the only game left at Industry Canada?

Good question, and I would assume “no” as a simple answer to the question of the existence of community-centric people.  However, looking to the future we shouldn’t assume “Industry Canada” continues to exit as federal department.  But, when a new Ministry does get structured, I think your other question, “is the public funding / subsidization of the private sector the only game left?” (without Industry Canada) still stands.

This morning’s Globe and Mail has two articles in the business section that telegraph how the new department’s take on public policy may get framed…..

1. BCE launches appeal of CRTC fibre networks ruling:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/bce-to-appeal-crtc-fibre-networks-ruling/article26901333/

“BCE Inc. is appealing a ruling from Canada’s telecom regulator to the federal cabinet, arguing the decision forcing it to give small Internet providers access to its highest-speed fibre broadband services will lead to lower investment. …. ‘The decision makes it unlikely that large-scale non-incumbent fibre-to-the-home networks will ever be built in Canada, or that many medium and most small towns and rural areas outside of Canada’s largest urban centres will see the benefits of competitive fibre broadband networks,’ BCE said in its petition.”

The prime carriers are already signaling they will build gigabit networks if left alone, and they will definitely not build if they have to carry independent ISPs. How the new government responds will go a long way to answering your second question.  But, as the article explains, if the policy response is to “balance” market forces then there’s no room in that for community-centric development strategies.

The article quotes OpenMedia calling the timing of Bell’s petition a “cynical attempt to see if the new government will cave to requests that the previous government would have rejected.”  Obviously OpenMedia is better prepared to leap rapidly into the policy abyss than TC.  Perhaps TC should be more open to OpenMedia than we have been, given that they occupy a similar policy space to our own, and given that they have reached out to us on occasion.  Speaking for myself, the good thing about OpenMedia is that they have proved a crowd-sourced model of funding policy advocacy can work, and the bad thing is that the model means you have to devote most of your time to crowd-sourcing.  I am not any good at that.

2. Tech alliance pushes for federal innovation ministry: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/tech-news/tech-alliance-pushes-for-federal-innovation-ministry/article26904576/

The other Tech policy advocate that’s fast out of the gate is the Canadian Advanced Technology Alliance (CATA).  “The recommendation from the Canadian Advanced Technology Alliance (CATA) includes dissolving Industry Canada and consolidating federal efforts around science, technology and business innovation under a single, senior minister. Such a scenario would dovetail with Justin Trudeau’s stated intention of appointing a federal cabinet on Nov. 4 that comprises a smaller number of ministers who are empowered to implement a transformational agenda.

CATA has enough Liberal connections to suggest that this is a reasonable prediction. But, of course, CATA’s game is exactly “subsidization of the private sector.”  That’s not very transformational.

 CATA’s head, John Reid states, ““You need a very clear leadership statement from the top, so we would expect a significant cabinet appointment.”  From TC’s perspective, community doesn’t come “from the top.”  Community is an example of an open complex adaptive system whose structural functions are distributed internally.  It’s neither bottom up nor top down, it’s distributed.  That means we are advocating a different take on innovation from CATA. We are advocating a kind of community development that connects communities to the means of socio-economic development in a digital economy and then gets out of their way.

I have always believed that the private sector’s self-serving approach to structured innovation is nuts.  The “new” only emerges and scales because someone says, “I can’t stand this any more,” and fixes it.  And usually the appearance of that someone is unexpected.  If you have a grassroots distributed approach to community development, the majority of actions to make things better will self-organize locally, leaving “The Top” with almost nothing to do.  But governance in Canada is not based on an understanding of distributed systems.

GG=

_______________________________________________
Advisors mailing list
Advisors at tc.ca<mailto:Advisors at tc.ca>
http://victoria.tc.ca/mailman/listinfo/advisors

_______________________________________________
Advisors mailing list
Advisors at tc.ca<mailto:Advisors at tc.ca>
http://victoria.tc.ca/mailman/listinfo/advisors

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://victoria.tc.ca/pipermail/advisors/attachments/20151028/20807834/attachment-0001.html>