The CRTC issued its decision denying the Globalive (WIND Mobile) request for a review of foreign ownership levels in TELUS. Given recent statements by TELUS, there is no longer a question of whether foreign shareholders have too high a level of ownership in the company.
The decision contains an interesting paragraph that raises questions in my mind. At paragraph 16, the CRTC states:
WIND Mobile failed to demonstrate that TELUS’s board of directors had any reason to question the information it received pursuant to the procedures set out in the Regulations. Further, the Commission is satisfied that TELUS’s mechanisms for ensuring its compliance are consistent with the provisions and requirements established in the Regulations.
The second sentence might have been sufficient to dismiss the application. In effect, it says that the CRTC had a look at how TELUS monitors its ownership levels and it is OK with those processes.
But the first sentence is troubling me. What evidentiary burden was WIND Mobile under in requesting the CRTC to launch an investigation? How would any party be in a position to demonstrate that a board of directors was questioning information it received?
In the previous paragraph, the CRTC stated:
The Commission notes that the Regulations establish the type of documentation required to demonstrate a shareholder’s Canadian status. They also establish that, before taking any additional action, the carrier’s board of directors must have information that causes it to believe the declarations it has received are incorrect.
So carriers have to provide a declaration that they are compliant, and the CRTC cites the Ownership and Control Regulations paragraph 16(4) where it sets out the filing requirements. Under Section 16(1), it appears that the CRTC has the ability to investigate on its own where there is a question of compliance.
Why didn’t the decision simply state that the CRTC did not find there was any doubt in its own mind about TELUS eligibility? Why would the burden fall on a third party to provide evidence of a debate around the Boardroom table?