Telecom - Staff Letter addressed to the Distribution List
Ottawa, 9 July 2024
Our reference: 8633-G110-202402809
BY E-MAIL
To: Distribution list
Subject: Applications regarding collect calls originating from Ontario correctional facilities - requests for disclosure
In a letter dated 3 June 2024, Commission staff sent requests for information (RFIs) to Bell Canada (Bell) and His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario (Ontario) concerning long distance calling in Ontario correctional facilities.
Bell filed its RFI responses on 10 June 2024 and designated certain information as confidential.Footnote1 It filed an abridged version for the public record.
Bell reasoned that the information should remain confidential because it pertains to disaggregated cost and revenue information. Release of this information would provide existing and potential competitors with competitively sensitive information that would not otherwise be available to them and would enable them to develop more effective business strategies. Bell argued that because another provider has won the OTMS contract, this demonstrates the competitive nature of the information.
Requests for Disclosure
In separate letters dated 17 June 2024, both Goldblatt Partners (Goldblatt) and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) filed requests for Bell to disclose i) annual revenues received from 2013-2021 when it operated the Offender Telephone Management System (OTMS) and ii) the commission percentage paid to Ontario during the contract.
Goldblatt argued that the information is not competitively sensitive as it is stale and historical and relates to a contract that was first won over a decade ago. It submitted that the annual revenues are aggregated information from an expired contract and Bell has not identified any specific direct harm that it would incur from its disclosure. Goldblatt further argued that there is no business sensitivity related to Ontario’s commission and that its existence and minimum amount are already known publicly.
PIAC argued that the public interest in disclosure outweighs any claimed private interest of Bell or Ontario and that it is the public’s right to know how much Canada’s largest telecommunications company and largest province agreed to charge an essential service to a vulnerable set of ratepayers.
Both Goldblatt and PIAC argued that the open court principle applies and its application to this proceeding supports disclosure.
Reply to Requests for Disclosure
In its reply letter dated 20 June 2024, Bell submitted that annual revenue information and the percentage it paid to Ontario as a commission clearly fall within the type of information that can be designated as confidential under section 39 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act).
It argued that the fact that the information is relatively old does not mean that it is no longer confidential since the information could potentially be used by its competitors to gain an unfair advantage over Bell. For example, a competitor could use the information to design a similar rate offer in response to a new call for a contract in the future and could base its own proposed rating or commission structure on historical information used by Bell in its own bid for the OTMS.
Bell also argued that this information is irrelevant to a determination of whether long-distance rates were provided in accordance with Bell’s inmate service tariff or whether these rates were forborne.
Confidentiality Process
Pursuant to section 39(4)(a) of the Act, the Commission may disclose information designated as confidential or require its disclosure if it determines, after considering any representations from interested persons, that disclosure is in the public interest.
To ensure confidentiality matters are dealt with expeditiously and Commission resources are expended efficiently, the Commission has adopted a two-step process. The first step is that Commission staff reviews the parties’ confidentiality submissions and issues a non-binding determination on what information should be refiled on the public record or remain confidential. Most disclosure requests are completed at this step.
If a party does not agree with Commission staff’s determination or a party that is requested to disclose information does not do so in accordance with Commission staff’s instructions, that party or any other interested person may engage the second step and request a binding Commission determination on the same confidentiality record. The Commission makes this determination through a Commission letter signed by the Secretary General. As with any Commission determination, such a determination is enforceable or reviewable pursuant to the Act.
Commission Staff Determination
Commission staff is of the view that the revenue data and commission percentage is information that can be designated as confidential under section 39 of the Act – this information is financial in nature and would typically be treated in a confidential manner by Bell.
In this case, Commission staff’s view is the potential harm to Bell from disclosure would be minimal. The revenue data is historical in nature and relates to an expired contract between Bell and a provincial government. Furthermore, it is public knowledge that Ontario took a commission and what the minimum percentage of that commission was. It is unclear how disclosure of historical revenues from a 10-year-old contract and the percentage paid to Ontario as a commission over that time could result in a material financial loss for Bell, given that a new service provider has already replaced Bell to run the OTMS with significantly lower rates. Any future contracts would likely be benchmarked against these rates and not the preceding contract or Bell’s unsuccessful bid.
In contrast, there is a significant public interest in disclosing or requiring disclosure of the information. Commission staff considers that the information is, in fact, relevant to the matters before the Commission. The Commission is required by section 47 of the Act to exercise its powers and perform its duties with a view to implementing the policy objectives of the Act and any Policy Directions issued by the Governor in Council. As such, even when the question before the Commission may appear to be a narrow legal one, broader policy concerns (such as the state of telecommunications services in correctional facilities in Canada) are relevant to those determinations. In this case, the open court principle ensures that where there is a strong public interest in information being disclosed, Canadians will be able to obtain this information and gain a better understanding of what occurred.
As such, Commission staff considers that any potential harm that would result from disclosure of this information is outweighed by the public interest in disclosure and requests that Bell disclose, on the public record by 16 July 2024, the information it filed in confidence in response to question 101 of Commission staff’s 3 June 2024 letter. Specifically, Bell is requested to disclose its annual revenues from operating the OTMS from 2013-2021 and the percentage it paid to Ontario as a commission.
Sincerely,
Original signed by
Philippe Kent
Director, Telecommunications Services Policy
Telecommunications Sector
c.c.:
Jeremy Lendvay, CRTC, 819-997-4946, jeremy.lendvay@crtc.gc.ca
Ethan Townsend, CRTC, 873-355-6698, ethan.townsend@crtc.gc.ca
Attachment (1) Distribution list
Distribution List:
Bell Canada (Bell), bell.regulatory@bell.ca
TELUS Communications Inc. (TELUS), regulatory.affairs@telus.com
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), piac@piac.ca; jlawford@piac.ca
Commission for Complaints for Telecom-Television Services (CCTS), janet.lo@ccts-cprst.ca
His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario (Ontario), jennifer.boyczuk2@ontario.ca; susan.keenan@ontario.ca
- Date modified: