Media Coverage
Public Mobile has been in the news a few times recently.
Here’s what we have been up to.
Ottawa refuses to release Globalive decision documents
Public Mobile Inc., which intends to launch cellphone service later this year, is seeking clarity on the rules surrounding foreign ownership of Canadian telecom companies
Globe & Mail, Iain Marlow. February 8, 2010
The federal government has refused to release documents that may reveal how it came to its controversial decision on Globalive Wireless Management Corp., court filings show.
That decision, which came in an Order in Council dated Dec. 10, 2009, is now the subject of a request for judicial review by one of Globalive Wireless's competitors.
Public Mobile Inc., which intends to launch cellphone service later this year, has asked the Federal Court to provide clarity on a move many feel altered Canada's strictly regulated telecommunications industry by permitting some form of foreign ownership.
Alek Krstajic, Public Mobile's chief executive officer, has been vocal about wanting more foreign financial backing for the company.
Its legal manoeuvring, he has said, is not aimed at shutting down Globalive.
Public Mobile, however, is seeking clarity on the rules surrounding foreign ownership of Canadian telecommunications companies.
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission had ruled in October that Globalive was controlled "in fact" by a transnational Egyptian telco that operates cellphone companies in Italy and Greece, as well as Pakistan, Bangladesh and North Korea.
In December, Industry Minister Tony Clement overturned the CRTC rejection, permitting Globalive to launch Wind Mobile, its cellphone service provider.
Public Mobile requested that the Privy Council Office file with the Federal Court documents related to cabinet's decision on the Globalive matter.
In a letter addressed to the court, the Privy Council's assistant clerk wrote that, "all documents submitted to the Governor in Council are confidential documents of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and therefore cannot be disclosed."
Public Mobile's vice-president of legal and regulatory affairs, Bob Boron, said the refusal to release documents seems questionable in light of Mr. Clement's public statements about how cabinet's decision was based purely on the "facts of this case," as the official government release put it. Many critics, mostly Globalive's competitors, such as Rogers Communications Inc. and Telus Corp., have said the cabinet's stance permits de facto foreign ownership of Canadian telecom companies.
"It's very peculiar," Mr. Boron said. "If it's a facts-based decision, why wouldn't they be okay with filing the record of that decision with the court?"
Mr. Clement's press secretary declined to comment on the ongoing legal proceedings, as did the office of the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General, which referred questions to the Department of Justice. A department spokesperson would only say courts have traditionally upheld government requests for confidentiality.
Under the Canada Evidence Act, the Privy Council is allowed to claim confidence on any memorandums or recommendations submitted to cabinet; any backgrounders, analyses or policy options used for the discussions; and any records of what ministers actually said during meetings.
"It's not totally surprising, these types of contentious issues tend to lend themselves to claims of cabinet privilege and secrecy," said Michael Hennessy, Telus Corp.'s senior vice-president for regulatory and government affairs.
Mr. Hennessy argues that a court examination of the cabinet's Globalive decision could be made without the documents. "I can understand Public Mobile's frustration, but at the end of the day the simple interpretation of the law is probably going to be more compelling than what cabinet actually discussed."
Globalive's chairman, Anthony Lacavera, has long maintained it is impossible to compete against Canada's telecom incumbents without foreign backing. Mr. Lacavera pointed to Public Mobile's large foreign investment, which comes mainly from two U.S. equity investment firms, and said he wondered whether his rival was reconsidering its business strategy in the wake of Wind's launch.
"We're moving forward," Mr. Lacavera said. "Instead of looking at us, why not get out there and offer Canadians another choice. And then the market will be more competitive and everybody's going to win. Let the best business plan and the best management team win, in the marketplace."