DOCSLIB.ORG

TELUS Corporation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
TELUS Corporation An a lysis March 16, 2021 TELUS Corporation T-CA CAD 26.22 Peer Group Industry Group: Integrated Telecommunications BCE Inc (BCE-CA) Services Rogers Communications Inc. (RCI.B-CA) 52 Week Range: CAD 18.55 - CAD 27.54 Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ-US) Market Cap: CAD 33850.02 Mil. AT&T Inc. (T-US) TeraGo Inc. (TGO-CA) Data as of Last Available Filing Shaw Communications Inc (SJR.B-CA) Annual: 2020-12-31 Orange SA (ADR) (ORAN-US) Quebecor, Inc. (QBR.B-CA) Semi Annual: N/A Cogeco Communications Inc (CCA-CA) Quarterly: 2020-12-31 CGI Inc (GIB.A-CA) TELUS Corporation (T-CA) TELUS Corporation :T-CA: Earnings Analysis: Q4, 2020 By the Numbers TELUS Corporation reports financial results for the quarter ended December 31, 2020. We analyze the earnings along side the following peers of TELUS Corporation - BCE Inc, Rogers Communications Inc., Verizon Communications Inc., AT&T Inc., TeraGo Inc., Shaw Communications Inc, Orange SA (ADR), Quebecor, Inc., Cogeco Communications Inc and CGI Inc (BCE-CA, RCI.B-CA, VZ-US, T-US, TGO-CA, SJR.B-CA, ORAN-US, QBR.B-CA, CCA-CA and GIB.A-CA) that have also reported for this period. Highlights • Summary numbers: Revenues of CAD 4061 million, Net Earnings of CAD 271 million. • Gross margins widened from 56.64% to 57.97% compared to the same period last year, operating (EBITDA) margins now 32.90% from 35.76%. • Year-on-year change in operating cash flow of 24.61% is about the same as the change in earnings, likely no significant movement in accruals or reserves. • Narrowing of operating margins contributed to decline in earnings. The table below shows the preliminary results and recent trends for key metrics such as revenues and net income growth: CapitalCube 2021. All Rights Reserved TELUS Corporation | Analysis | March 16, 2021 1 2020-12-31 2020-09-30 2020-06-30 2020-03-31 2019-12-31 Relevant Numbers (Quarterly) Revenues (mil) 4061 3961 3656 3663 3826 Revenue Growth (%YOY) 6.14 7.43 1.92 4.99 3.04 Earnings (mil) 271 321 315 353 379 Earnings Growth (%YOY) -28.5 -27.05 -39.42 -19.22 2.99 Net Margin (%) 6.67 8.1 8.62 9.64 9.91 EPS 0.2 0.24 0.23 0.28 0.3 Return on Equity (%) 2.24 2.65 2.54 3.03 3.56 Return on Assets (%) 2.56 3.15 3.1 3.57 4.06 Access our Ratings and Scores for TELUS Corporation Market Share Versus Profits Revenues History Earnings History 5k 400 4 0 6 1 3 2 1 3 8 2 6 3 9 6 1 3 7 9 3 1 5 3 6 6 3 3 6 5 6 3 5 3 2 6 0 .9 1 2 5 1 .9 1 2 7 1 2.5k 200 1 6 9 .1 0 0 2019-12-31 2020-03-31 2020-06-30 2020-09-30 2020-12-31 2019-12-31 2020-03-31 2020-06-30 2020-09-30 2020-12-31 T-CA Peer Median T-CA Peer Median www.capitalcube.com www.capitalcube.com T-CA's change in revenue this period compared to the same period last year of 6.14% is almost the same as its change in earnings, and is about average among the announced results thus far in its peer group, suggesting that T-CA is holding onto its market share. Also, for comparison purposes, revenues changed by 2.52% and earnings by -15.58% compared to the immediate last period. CapitalCube 2021. All Rights Reserved TELUS Corporation | Analysis | March 16, 2021 2 Revenues Growth Versus Earnings Growth 400 Earnings Focus Leader 200 CCA-CA QBR.B-CA TGO-CA RCI.B-CA BCE-CA VZ-US ORAN-US 0 T-CA -200 Earnings Growth (%) -400 T-US -600 Laggard Revenues Focus -800 -10 -7.5 -5 -2.5 0 2.5 5 7.5 Revenue Growth (%) Sym bol Peer Median Peer Median www.capitalcube.com Earnings Growth Analysis The company's earnings declined year-on-year largely because of the increases in operating costs. Its operating margins (EBITDA margins) went from 35.76% to 32.90%. This decline in earnings would have been worse except for the fact that the company showed improvement in gross margins, from 56.64% to 57.97%. For comparison, gross margins were 59.76% and EBITDA margins 35.09% in the immediate last period. CapitalCube 2021. All Rights Reserved TELUS Corporation | Analysis | March 16, 2021 3 Gross Margin Versus EBITDA Margin 70 Commodity; Low Cost Differentiated; Low Cost 60 CCA-CA 50 QBR.B-CA RCI.B-CA 40 BCE-CA T-CA 30 TGO-CA GIB.A-CA 20 10 EBITDA Margin (%) ORAN-US 0 T-US -10 Commodity; High Cost Differentiated; High Cost -20 -30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Gross Margin (%) Sym bol Peer Median Peer Median www.capitalcube.com Gross Margin Trend Companies sometimes sacrifice improvements in revenues and margins in order to extend friendlier terms to customers and vendors. Capital Cube probes for such activity by comparing the changes in gross margins with any changes in working capital. If the gross margins improved without a worsening of working capital, it is possible that the company's performance is a result of truly delivering in the marketplace and not simply an accounting prop-up using the balance sheet. Gross Margin History Working Capital Days History 75 0 6 2 .7 6 6 1 .6 2 5 6 .6 4 5 9 .7 6 5 7 .9 7 -9 .5 7 -1 3 .1 1 -1 2 .6 7 50 -1 7 .5 8 -1 1 .9 6 -2 1 .8 1 -20 -1 8 .7 1 25 -2 1 .7 6 -2 6 .6 6 -2 7 .1 7 0 -40 2019-12-31 2020-03-31 2020-06-30 2020-09-30 2020-12-31 2019-12-31 2020-03-31 2020-06-30 2020-09-30 2020-12-31 T-CA Peer Median T-CA Peer Median www.capitalcube.com www.capitalcube.com CapitalCube 2021. All Rights Reserved TELUS Corporation | Analysis | March 16, 2021 4 T-CA's improvement in gross margin has been accompanied by an improvement in its balance sheet as well. This suggests that gross margin improvements are likely from operating decisions and not accounting gimmicks. Its working capital days are now -27.17 days compared to -26.66 days for the same period last year. Gross Margin Versus Working Capital Days 60 Cash Starved Customer Financed 40 GIB.A-CA VZ-US CCA-CA 20 RCI.B-CA 0 QBR.B-CA SJR.B-CA T-US -20 T-CA BCE-CA Working Capital Days -40 TGO-CA -60 Supplier Financed Cash Rich -80 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Gross Margin (%) Sym bol Peer Median Peer Median www.capitalcube.com Cash Versus Earnings - Sustainable Performance? It is important to examine a company's cash versus earnings numbers to gauge whether its performance is sustainable. T-CA's change in operating cash flow of 24.61% compared to the same period last year is about the same as its change in earnings this period. Additionally, this change in operating cash flow is about average among its peer group. This suggests that the company did not use accruals or reserves to manage earnings this period, and that, all else being equal, the earnings number is sustainable. CapitalCube 2021. All Rights Reserved TELUS Corporation | Analysis | March 16, 2021 5 Operating Cash Flow Growth Versus Earnings Growth 400 Likely Non-cash Earnings Cash Flow based Earnings 200 GIB.A-CA CCA-CA TGO-CA BCE-CA SJR.B-CA VZ-US 0 T-CA -200 Earnings Growth (%) -400 T-US -600 Low Cash Flow Base Likely Undeclared Earnings -800 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 Operating Cash Flow Growth (%) Sym bol Peer Median Peer Median www.capitalcube.com Margins The company's decline in earnings has been influenced by the following factors: (1) Decline in operating margins (EBIT margins) from 18.03% to 13.47% and (2) one-time items that contributed to a decrease in pretax margins from 13.46% to 8.79% CapitalCube 2021. All Rights Reserved TELUS Corporation | Analysis | March 16, 2021 6 EBIT Margin Versus PreTax Margin 50 One-time Favorables Operation driven Earnings 40 30 CCA-CA QBR.B-CA 20 BCE-CA T-CA 10 ORAN-US 0 -10 PreTax Margin (%) TGO-CA -20 -30 T-US -40 Low Earnings Base One-time Unfavorables -50 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 EBIT Margin (%) Sym bol Peer Median Peer Median www.capitalcube.com EBIT Margin History PreTax Margin History 30 20 1 5 .7 2 1 5 .3 6 2 0 .8 8 2 0 .0 4 1 3 .4 6 1 3 .4 3 1 8 .6 7 20 1 8 .0 3 1 7 .3 4 1 1 .8 2 1 5 .5 8 1 0 .8 6 1 3 .4 7 10 8 .7 9 10 0 0 2019-12-31 2020-03-31 2020-06-30 2020-09-30 2020-12-31 2019-12-31 2020-03-31 2020-06-30 2020-09-30 2020-12-31 T-CA Peer Median T-CA Peer Median www.capitalcube.com www.capitalcube.com Access our Ratings and Scores for TELUS Corporation ESG Performance CapitalCube 2021. All Rights Reserved TELUS Corporation | Analysis | March 16, 2021 7 Investors are more conscientious about investing in companies with good Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) practices.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Teksavvy Solutions Inc. Consultation on the Technical and Policy
    TekSavvy Solutions Inc. Reply Comments in Consultation on the Technical and Policy Framework for the 3650-4200 MHz Band and Changes to the Frequency Allocation of the 3500-3650 MHz Band Canada Gazette, Part I, August 2020, Notice No. SLPB-002-20 November 30, 2020 TekSavvy Solutions Inc. Reply Comments to Consultation SLPB-002-20 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Introduction ____________________________________________________________ 1 B. Arguments for option 1 and against option 2 _________________________________ 1 a. Contiguity ______________________________________________________________ 1 b. Availability of ecosystem in the 3900: impacts on viability_________________________ 3 c. Moratorium ____________________________________________________________ 4 d. Arguments for Improvements to Option 1 _____________________________________ 4 C. 3800 MHz Auction _______________________________________________________ 5 a. Value _________________________________________________________________ 5 b. Procompetitive Measures _________________________________________________ 5 c. Tier 4 and 5 Licensing Area ________________________________________________ 6 TekSavvy Solutions Inc. Page 1 of 6 Reply Comments to Consultation SLPB-002-20 A. INTRODUCTION 1. TekSavvy Solutions Inc. (“TekSavvy”) is submitting its reply comments on ISED’s “Consultation on the Technical and Policy Framework for the 3650-4200 MHz Band and Changes to the Frequency Allocation of the 3500-3650 MHz Band”. 2. TekSavvy reasserts its position in favour of Option 1 in that Consultation document, and its strong opposition to Option 2, as expressed in its original submission. TekSavvy rejects Option 2 as disastrous both for WBS service providers’ ongoing viability and availability of broadband service to rural subscribers. 3. TekSavvy supports Option 1, wherein WBS Licensees would be allowed to continue to operate in the band of 3650 to 3700 MHz indefinitely as the only option that enables continued investment in rural broadband networks and continued improvement of broadband services to rural subscribers.
    [Show full text]
  • Cologix Torix Case Study
    Internet Exchange Case Study The Toronto Internet Exchange (TorIX) is the largest IX in Canada with more than 175 peering participants benefiting from lower network costs & faster speeds The non-profit Toronto Internet Exchange (TorIX) is a multi-connection point enabling members to use one hardwired connection to exchange traffic with 175+ members on the exchange. With peering participants swapping traffic with one another through direct connections, TorIX reduces transit times for local data exchange and cuts the significant costs of Internet bandwidth. The success of TorIX is underlined by its tremendous growth, exceeding 145 Gbps as one of the largest IXs in the world. TorIX is in Cologix’s data centre at 151 Front Street, Toronto’s carrier hotel and the country’s largest telecommunications hub in the heart of Toronto. TorIX members define their own routing protocols to dictate their traffic flow, experiencing faster speeds with their data packets crossing fewer hops between the point of origin and destination. Additionally, by keeping traffic local, Canadian data avoids international networks, easing concerns related to privacy and security. Above: In Dec. 2014, TorIX traffic peaked above 140 Gbps, with average traffic hovering around 90 Gbps. Beginning Today Launched in July 1996 Direct TorIX on-ramp in Cologix’s151 Front Street Ethernet-based, layer 2 connectivity data centre in Toronto TorIX-owned switches capable of handling Second largest independent IX in North America ample traffic Operated by telecom industry volunteers IPv4 & IPv6 address provided to each peering Surpassed 145 Gbps with 175+ peering member to use on the IX participants, including the Canadian Broke the 61 Gbps mark in Jan.
    [Show full text]
  • BCE Inc. 2015 Annual Report
    Leading the way in communications BCE INC. 2015 ANNUAL REPORT for 135 years BELL LEADERSHIP AND INNOVATION PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE OUR GOAL For Bell to be recognized by customers as Canada’s leading communications company OUR STRATEGIC IMPERATIVES Invest in broadband networks and services 11 Accelerate wireless 12 Leverage wireline momentum 14 Expand media leadership 16 Improve customer service 18 Achieve a competitive cost structure 20 Bell is leading Canada’s broadband communications revolution, investing more than any other communications company in the fibre networks that carry advanced services, in the products and content that make the most of the power of those networks, and in the customer service that makes all of it accessible. Through the rigorous execution of our 6 Strategic Imperatives, we gained further ground in the marketplace and delivered financial results that enable us to continue to invest in growth services that now account for 81% of revenue. Financial and operational highlights 4 Letters to shareholders 6 Strategic imperatives 11 Community investment 22 Bell archives 24 Management’s discussion and analysis (MD&A) 28 Reports on internal control 112 Consolidated financial statements 116 Notes to consolidated financial statements 120 2 We have re-energized one of Canada’s most respected brands, transforming Bell into a competitive force in every communications segment. Achieving all our financial targets for 2015, we strengthened our financial position and continued to create value for shareholders. DELIVERING INCREASED
    [Show full text]
  • Morning News Call Canada
    MORNING NEWS CALL Powered by Re uters Canada Edition Monday, April 26, 2021 TOP NEWS • Frustrated Canada presses White House to keep Great Lakes oil pipeline open Canada is pushing on several diplomatic fronts against the U.S. state of Michigan's efforts to close a cross-border oil pipeline, the second such dispute since Joe Biden became U.S. president in January, complicating the governments' efforts to work together to lower carbon emissions. • Shippers push for CP Railway to win bidding war for Kansas City Southern North America's freight rail customers, from grain shippers to logistics companies, are pushing for Canadian Pacific Railway to win a bidding war for Kansas City Southern over rival Canadian National Railway, eyeing stronger competition and swifter service. • Moderna vaccine to be reviewed for WHO emergency listing on April 30 - WHO spokesman Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine will be reviewed on April 30 by technical experts for possible WHO emergency-use listing, a World Health Organization spokesman told Reuters. • Health Canada finds Astrazeneca COVID-19 vaccines from Baltimore plant safe, of high quality Canada's health department said on Sunday the 1.5 million doses of the Astrazeneca COVID-19 vaccine imported from Emergent BioSolutions' Baltimore facility were safe and met quality specifications. • Canadian government to intervene to end potential Montreal port strike The Canadian government will intervene to end a potential strike at the country's second-largest port, the labour minister said on Sunday, as the clock ticked down to a walkout by Montreal dockworkers. BEFORE THE BELL Canada's main stock index futures fell, weighed by a drop in oil prices, as investors awaited a first-quarter earnings update from Canadian National Railway later in the day.
    [Show full text]
  • Bell V. Cogeco: Unfair Competition – the “Best Internet Experience” Results in an Unfavorable Judicial Experience
    Bell v. Cogeco: Unfair competition – the “best Internet experience” results in an unfavorable judicial experience October 28, 2016 Author Alain Y. Dussault Partner, Lawyer Partner, and Trademark Agent In the field of telecommunications, it is not uncommon to see competing Internet service providers engage in advertising war campaigns in order to attract new customers, particularly in this highly competitive market due to the small number of competitors. Competitors are prepared to do anything to attract consumers, perhaps even making their offered products and services appear more attractive than they are. It is in this context that the Superior Court of Ontario issued, in Bell Canada v. Cogeco Cable Canada, 2016 ONSC 6044 1, September 20, 2016, an interlocutory injunction against Cogeco Cable Canada, in order to cease any use of the advertising phrase “the best Internet experience in your neighborhood ” in its advertisements, on the grounds of false and misleading representations. Facts and background of the case Bell Canada (hereinafter “Bell”) and Cogeco Cable Canada (hereinafter “Cogeco”) are two competing Internet providers in Ontario. However, Bell and Cogeco do not use the same technology to provide their services to consumers. Specifically, Cogeco uses “Hybrid fiber coaxial cable” technology (Cable / HFC), while Bell uses “Digital subscriber lines” (DSL) technology. In addition to DSL, Bell also uses “Fiber to the home” (FTTH) through the entire province of Ontario while Cogeco offers this technology only in new residential neighborhoods. In August 2016, Cogeco announced its new brand identity as part of its advertising campaign for the Copyright (c) Lavery, de Billy, S.E.N.C.R.L.
    [Show full text]
  • Court File No. CV-16-11257-00CL ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT of JUSTICE COMMERCIAL LIST
    Court File No. CV-16-11257-00CL ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL LIST IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES’ CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, AS AMENDED AND IN THE MATTER OF A PLAN OF COMPROMISE OR ARRANGEMENT OF PT HOLDCO, INC., PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CANADA, INC., PTUS, INC., PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., AND LINGO, INC. (Applicants) APPROVAL AND VESTING ORDER SERVICE LIST GENERAL STIKEMAN ELLIOTT LLP Samantha Horn 5300 Commerce Court West Tel: (416) 869- 5636 199 Bay Street Email: [email protected] Toronto, ON M5L 1B9 Maria Konyukhova Tel: (416) 869-5230 Email: [email protected] Kathryn Esaw Tel: (416) 869-6820 Email: [email protected] Vlad Calina Tel: (416) 869-5202 Lawyers for the Applicants Email: [email protected] FTI CONSULTING CANADA INC. Nigel D. Meakin TD Waterhouse Tower Tel: (416) 649-8100 79 Wellington Street, Suite 2010 Fax: (416) 649-8101 Toronto, ON M5K 1G8 Email: [email protected] Steven Bissell Tel: (416) 649-8100 Fax: (416) 649-8101 Email: [email protected] Kamran Hamidi Tel: (416) 649-8100 Fax: (416) 649-8101 Monitor Email: [email protected] 2 BLAKE, CASSELS & GRAYDON LLP Linc Rogers 199 Bay Street Tel: (416) 863-4168 Suite 4000, Commerce Court West Fax: (416) 863-2653 Toronto, ON M5L 1A9 Email: [email protected] Aryo Shalviri Tel: (416) 863- 2962 Fax: (416) 863-2653 Lawyers for the Monitor Email: [email protected] DAVIES WARD PHILLIPS VINEBERG LLP Natasha MacParland 155 Wellington Street West Tel: (416) 863 5567 Toronto, ON M5V 3J7 Fax: (416) 863 0871 Email: [email protected] Lawyers for the Bank of Montreal, as Administrative Agent for the Syndicate FOGLER, RUBINOFF LLP Gregg Azeff 77 King Street West Tel: (416) 365-3716 Suite 3000, P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of Canada
    Court File No. 34231 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY WAY OF A REFERENCE TO THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 18.3(1) AND 28(2) OF THE FEDERAL COURTS ACT, R.S.C. 1985, C.F-7 B E T W E E N: COGECO CABLE INC. Appellant - and - BELL MEDIA INC. (FORMERLY CTV GLOBEMEDIA INC.), CANWEST TELEVISION LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, NEWFOUNDLAND BROADCASTING CO. LTD., V INTERACTIONS INC. AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondents A N D B E T W E E N: ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS INC. and TELUS COMMUNICATIONS Appellants - and - BELL MEDIA INC. (FORMERLY CTV GLOBEMEDIA INC.), CANWEST TELEVISION LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, NEWFOUNDLAND BROADCASTING CO. LTD., V INTERACTIONS INC. AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondents A N D B E T W E E N: SHAW COMMUNICATIONS INC. Appellant - and - BELL MEDIA INC. (FORMERLY CTV GLOBEMEDIA INC.), CANWEST TELEVISION LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, NEWFOUNDLAND BROADCASTING CO. LTD., V INTERACTIONS INC. AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondents - and - THE CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (CRTC) Intervener FACTUM OF THE APPELLANT COGECO CABLE INC. (Pursuant to Rules 35 and 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada) McCarthy Tétrault LLP Cavanagh Williams Conway Baxter LLP Suite 5300, Toronto-Dominion Bank Tower Suite 401 Toronto, ON M5K 1E6 1111 Prince of Wales Drive Ottawa, ON K2C 3T2 Neil Finkelstein Steven G. Mason Colin S. Baxter Daniel G.C. Glover Tel: (613) 780-2011 Tel: (416) 601-8200 Fax: (613) 569-8668 Fax: (416) 868-0673 Ottawa Agent for the Appellant Solicitors for the Appellant Cogeco Cable Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementation of Universal Network-Level Blocking of Calls with Blatantly Illegitimate Caller Identification
    Compliance and Enforcement and Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2018-484 PDF version References: 2017-405 and 2017-405-1 Ottawa, 19 December 2018 Public record: 1011-NOC2017-0405 Implementation of universal network-level blocking of calls with blatantly illegitimate caller identification The Commission mandates that universal network-level call blocking where the caller identification purports to originate from telephone numbers that do not conform to established numbering plans is to be implemented by Canadian carriers and other telecommunications service providers (TSPs) that provide voice telecommunications services within 12 months of the date of this decision. This mandate will not apply to those Canadian carriers and other TSPs providing voice telecommunications services that implement call filtering solutions within the time frame prescribed for the implementation of universal network-level call blocking. The Commission also sets out its findings for mitigation, notification, disclosure, redress, and monitoring approaches related to the implementation of universal network-level call blocking. Introduction Compliance and Enforcement and Telecom Regulatory Policy 2016-442 1. In Compliance and Enforcement and Telecom Regulatory Policy 2016-442, the Commission set out its findings on technical solutions that Canadians could use to protect themselves from unwanted unsolicited and illegitimate telecommunications. In particular, the Commission concluded that • universal network-level call blocking is the most effective and efficient solution to manage nuisance calls in cases where it is possible to accurately identify blatantly illegitimate caller identification (caller ID) spoofing;1 and 1 A spoofed number can appear as a string of digits, such as 000-000-0000, a random number, or the number of a company, person, or government entity.
    [Show full text]
  • Reply Comments of Cogeco Cable Inc FINAL 6 April 2011
    April 6, 2011 BY E-MAIL and REGULAR MAIL Manager, Mobile Technology and Services DGEPS Industry Canada 300 Slater Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C8 e-mail: [email protected] Reply Comments Re : Consultation on a Policy and Technical Framework for the 700 MHz Band and Aspects Related to Commercial Mobile Spectrum SMSE-018-10 ____________________________________________________________________ Dear Sir/Madam: Cogeco Cable Inc. (“Cogeco”) is pleased to submit the attached reply comments in response to Canada Gazette Notice, Part 1, SMSE-018-10. We thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and remain available to answer any questions you may have regarding our submission. Yours very truly, Cogeco Cable Inc. ___________________________ Vice-President, Corporate Affairs YM/lde encl. 1 Cogeco Cable Inc . 5 Place Ville Marie Suite 1700 Montréal, Québec Tel : 514·764·4700 H3B 0B3 Fax : 514·874·0776 Canada Gazette Notice No. SMSE-018-10 Consultation on a Policy and Technical Framework for the 700 MHz Band and Aspects Related to Commercial Mobile Spectrum Published in the Canada Gazette , Part 1 dated 30 November 2010 Reply Comments of Cogeco Cable Inc. 6 April 2011 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 2 Comments ................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Need of Additional Mobile Spectrum ................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Investigation Into Possible Freight Rail Service Issues in the Vancouver Area, Pursuant to Subsection 116(1.11) of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C
    Agency File No. 19-00189 CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY IN THE MATTER OF: Investigation into possible freight rail service issues in the Vancouver area, pursuant to subsection 116(1.11) of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C. 1996, c.10, as amended BETWEEN: CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY - and – CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY AUTHORITIES TO THE RESPONSE ON BEHALF OF CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY 1500, 410 22nd Street East Saskatoon SK S7K 5T6 Lawyer in charge of file: Douglas C. Hodson, Q.C. Phone: (306) 975-7101 Fax: (306) 975-7145 Email: [email protected] LIST OF AUTHORITIES Case Authorities Tab 2747-3174 Québec Inc. c. Québec (Régie des permis d'alcool), [1996] 3 SCR 919 ................................... A A.L. Patchett & Sons Ltd. v Pacific Great Eastern Railway, [1959] SCR 271 .............................................. B Arsenault v Treasury Board (Department of National Defence), 2016 FCA 179 .......................................... C Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), 1999 SCC 699 .................................................... D Bell Canada v 7262591 Canada Ltd., 2018 FCA 174 ................................................................................... E Canadian Cable Television Assn. v American College Sports Collective of Canada Inc., [1991] 3 FC 626 (FCA) ................................................................................................................................................ F Canadian National Railway v Viterra Inc., 2017 FCA 6 ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Brian Lipson Brian Lipson Is an Associate in the Transportation and Associate Logistics Group
    Brian Lipson Brian Lipson is an associate in the Transportation and Associate Logistics group. His practice focuses on mergers & Québec City acquisitions, commercial agreements, regulatory [email protected] compliance, and licencing in the areas of road, rail, maritime t. +1 418-521-3037 and air transportation and in warehousing and supply chain. Brian has provided advice in respect of numerous Canadian and cross-border purchase and sale agreements, reorganizations, and investments. He provides licensing advice in respect of cross-border transportation in the rail and road modes. He offers contractual solutions and advice on liability and risk exposure to warehousemen and storers, Brian Lipson to rail carriers and owners of rail rolling stock, to motor Associate carriers and brokers of freight, to shippers, to governments Québec City and municipalities and to providers of public transportation, [email protected] including in the areas of autonomous trucks and Remotely t. +1 418-521-3037 Piloted Aircraft Systems (drones). Brian also has extensive experience with licensing and permitting requirements for motor vehicle dealers throughout Canada, including Bar Admission obtaining licences from the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Québec 2014 Council (OMVIC) and other similar regulators in the context of cross-border acquisitions and expansions. Law School Université Laval Brian also assists the firm’s clients in preventing, handling Practices and contesting moving and other violations under federal Mergers & Acquisitions and provincial laws and regulations, regularly representing White Collar Defence and motor carriers and their drivers before courts in Quebec and Investigations ensuring their representation before courts throughout Transportation and Logistics Canada. He provides advice in respect of proceedings Industries before the Canadian Transportation Agency in connection Automotive with accessibility to transport and various applications and Infrastructure disputes related to rail transportation.
    [Show full text]
  • BCE 2020 Annual Report
    IN TWENTY-TWENTY WE WERE AT THE OF CONNECTIONS WHEN IT MATTERED MOST. ANNUAL REPORT 2020 Advancing how Canadians connect with each other and the world OUR FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE Stepping up in a year like no other As the Bell team kept Canada connected in a challenging 2020, we built marketplace momentum with world-class network, service and content innovations for our customers while delivering sustainable dividend growth for our shareholders. 2020 financial performance Revenue * (3.8%) Adjusted EBITDA (1) * (4.0%) Capital intensity 18.4% Adjusted EPS (1) $3.02 Free cash flow (1) * (10.4%) * Compared to 2019 6.1 % +307% Dividend yield Total shareholder in 2020 (2) return 2009–2020 (3) +5.1 % +140% Increase in dividend Increase in dividend per common share per common share for 2021 2009–2021 (1) Adjusted EBITDA, adjusted EPS and free cash floware non-GAAP financial measures and do not have any standardized meaning under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Therefore, they are unlikely to be comparable to similar measures presented by other issuers. For a full description of these measures, see section 10.2, Non-GAAP financial measures and key performance indicators (KPIs) on pp. 115 to 117 of the MD&A. (2) Annualized dividend per BCE common share divided by BCE’s share price at the end of the year. (3) The change in BCE’s common share price for a specified period plus BCE common share dividends reinvested, divided by BCE’s common share price at the beginning of the period. 2 | BCE INC. 2020 AnnuAL REPORT OUR PURPOSE Bell’s goal and Strategic Imperatives Our goal is to advance how Canadians connect with each other and the world, and the Bell team is executing a clear strategy that leverages our strengths and highlights the opportunities of the broadband economy for our company and all our stakeholders.
    [Show full text]