Bloomberg released news yesterday that Public Safety Canada has national security concerns about the liberalization of foreign ownership restrictions for telecommunications carriers in Canada.
According to a letter to Industry Canada dated February 25 obtained by Bloomberg:
The security and intelligence community is of the view that lessening or removing restrictions from the Telecommunications Act, without implementing mitigation measures, would pose a considerable risk to public safety and national security.
Without wanting to fully debate the merits of these concerns, the timing is interesting to examine. The letter predates the announcement of the liberalization by a few weeks, meaning Industry Canada was aware of these concerns but went ahead anyway.
Why?
What made Public Safety suddenly wake up to the possibility that foreign ownership liberalization may actually occur? The issue has been on the horizon for years. There have been countless public consultations, but “mitigation measures” were not previously raised as an item for public input. Why were the Public Safety Canada concerns not set out in the 700 MHz consultation or the previous consultations that looked at opening up the market? Specifically, in the June 2010 consultation, Industry Canada asked:
Are there potential unintended effects of increased foreign direct investment in the Canadian telecommunications sector? What are the potential benefits and risks of having more global players in the market?
Wasn’t this the time for Public Safety Canada to respond? Why did the organization fail to identify the kinds of concerns that gave rise to its secret memo obtained by Bloomberg? If liberalization of foreign ownership poses a “considerable risk to public safety and national security”, why did Public Safety Canada, the organization charged with responsibility for such matters, not speak up sooner?
Update: As the first comment indicates, the letter from Public Safety appears to have been sent during the comment phase for the 700 MHz consultation, so my comments regarding the timing of Public Safety’s comments were not appropriate.
Mark: The letter according to the Bloomberg report, was actually dated Feb, 2011 so it was a full year prior to the announcement, rather than a few weeks.
Chris.
Thanks Chris. It appears that the letter obtained by Bloomberg was sent coincidentally with the official submission by Public Safety that did, in fact, mention these concerns: