Clement’s words under scrutiny at Federal Court

OTTAWA--Industry Minister Tony Clement’s words are under scrutiny at the Federal Court—literally. Public Mobile Inc., which has challenged the federal government’s decision to overturn a CRTC ruling on Globalive Communications Corp., has filed an exhaustive list of Clement’s public statements before and after the government’s decision. On Jan. 8, Public Mobile filed a legal challenge of the government’s decision to overturn a CRTC decision that, on the basis of foreign ownership restrictions, had denied new wireless entrant Globalive access to the Canadian market. As part of the court proceeding, Ann Marshall, a law clerk at firm Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP, has filed a series of exhibits on behalf of Public Mobile, all of them containing news articles with statements attributed to Clement. The news reports show Clement repeatedly stating a desire to encourage competition in the Canadian wireless sector and explaining that the government did not bend the foreign ownership rules. Public Mobile argues that the government’s decision, issued Dec. 11, 2009, effectively changed the foreign ownership restrictions, and that the new wireless entrant was unfairly denied access to foreign capital. The company is asking the government to rescind its decision or clarify the foreign ownership rules. The Wire Report provides a selection of Clement’s public comments below, now filed with the Federal Court. Industry Minister Tony Clement’s statements filed with the Federal Court “We are examining the CRTC decision very closely, and certainly we are still very much in favour of more competition in the telecom space for Canadian consumers … That’s why we opened up these contacts to other new entrants.” --CBC.ca News, “Clement to review CRTC ruling on Globalive,” Oct. 30, 2009 “Let me just say we believe in competition in the telecom industry … So that remains our policy, and as to the specifics of that CRTC decision, obviously we’re going to be reviewing it and we’ll come to some conclusions in due course.” --The Canadian Press, “Clement to review CRTC decision on Globalive,” Oct. 30, 2009 ‘‘Our goal has always been greater competition in the telecommunications industry … This is, and should be, a subjective test, and so it is possible two branches of government could reasonably come to two different conclusions.” --Bloomberg News, “Globalive to start service as Canada Reverses ruling,” Dec. 11, 2009 “The government has decided to vary Telecom Decision CRTC 2009-678 … so that Globalive can begin operating in Canada without delay … Our goal has always been greater competition in the telecommunications industry, which leads to lower prices, better services and more choice for consumers and business.” --National Post, “Wind mobile takes off,” Dec. 11, 2009 “The decision to vary the CRTC Globalive decision, let me emphasize, was based on the legal facts and not on the government's position that there needs to be more competition in the marketplace … That said, I firmly believe, that Globalive entry into the market, to provide near-national service, will enhance competition for the benefit of Canadian consumers. A competitive marketplace assists consumers by giving more choice, at better prices and higher quality.” “I think it sends a signal to the world that we are a place where the rule of law triumphs, where you can have two branches of government that can reasonably differ on an interpretation of the facts of a particular case but that there can be a resolution of this and that the government has the ability to resolve this issue … All we have done is, we believe, interpreted the law in the appropriate and proper, correct way, that Globalive, when you look at the facts on the ground, Globalive meets those Canadian ownership and control requirements … This variance is effective immediately, allowing Globalive to enter the market without delay.” --The Globe and Mail, “Ottawa allows Globalive slice of wireless pie,” Dec. 11, 2009 “We have concluded through normal review that Globalive meets the Canadian ownership and control requirements … We are satisfied that in this particular case board of directors cannot be controlled by the foreign investor.” “‘Let me emphasize—this variance is specific to the facts of this case and is based on the application of Canadian ownership and control requirements to these particular facts. The government is not removing, reducing, bending or creating an exception to in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries.” --Financial Post, “Globalive’s entry boon for consumers: Clement,” Dec. 11, 2009 “This government made a decision a couple of years ago that we wanted more competition in the wireless space, that this was important for consumers, it was important for our economy … So the momentous decision wasn't the Globalive decision. The momentous decision was the decision we made a couple of years ago to set aside spectrum for auction to new entrants, rather than the current incumbents.” “This was a case where reasonable minds could differ. They looked at a set of facts and came to one conclusion; we looked at the facts and came to a different conclusion. That's all this was. So the CRTC still has a job to do, we still have a job to do in terms of the development of proper public policy, and the proper public policy in this area is more competition, more choice, better rates for consumers.” --Canwest News Service, “Wireless competition behind CRTC overruling,” Jan. 4, 2010 kfournier@thewirereport.ca

Clement’s words under scrutiny at Federal Court

News | February 23, 2010

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us