I don't get the impression that they're defying the government. They were asked to review the temporary decision from 2023 so as not to impede network investment (I would guess at Bell's behest; the same old network investment argument). In the meantime, the final decision had been introduced, which included the five-year no-competitors provision. How is that in defiance of the government? They didn't revise the temporary decision, but the incumbents are able to keep new deployments all to themselves for five years (unless they decide otherwise on their own); that's already a significant concession.
Furthermore, the rates, as they are now set, are still terrible, and strongly favour the incumbents.