Telecom - Staff Letter addressed to Pamela Dinsmore (Rogers Communications Canada Inc.) and Stéphane Émard-Chabot (Sicotte Guibault)
Ottawa, 17 September 2024
Our reference: 8690-R28-202404201
BY EMAIL
Pamela Dinsmore
Vice-President, Regulatory-Cable
Rogers Communications Canada Inc.
350 Bloor Street East,
Toronto, ON M4W 1G9
pam.dinsmore@rci.rogers.com
Stéphane Émard-Chabot, Lawyer
Sicotte Guibault
5925 Jeanne D’Arc Blvd
Orleans, ON K1C 6V8
semard-chabot@sicotte.ca
Subject: Procedural Request relating to the Part 1 application filed by Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (Rogers) for reasonable terms of access to highways and other public places in the City of Ottawa (the City) – Request by the City for the disclosure of Rogers’ draft municipal access agreement (MAA) onto the public record of the proceeding
Dear Pamela Dinsmore and Stéphane Émard-Chabot:
Upon filing its Part 1 application on 29 July 2024, Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (Rogers) designated the terms of the draft municipal access agreement (MAA) between the Rogers and the City of Ottawa (the City), as well as the amendments proposed by Rogers, as confidential information pursuant to section 39 of the Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38, and Rules 31 and 32 of the CRTC Rules of Practice and Procedure, SOR/2010-277. An abridged version of the document intended to be made available to the public was duly filed. For clarity, the MAA remains in draft form, and no agreement has been reached to date.
In a letter dated 21 August 2024, the City requested, pursuant to Rule 33, that the Commission direct Rogers to disclose onto the public record of the above-referenced proceeding a copy of the draft municipal access agreement (MAA) between the parties. The City provides the following reasons for its request for disclosure:
- There is nothing proprietary about the terms of the MAA;
- The terms of the MAA do not affect Rogers’ private commercial interests or business model;
- The only financial aspects of the MAA relate to the recovery of causal costs; these calculations relate to the financial impacts on the City that are directly recoverable from a carrier. These calculations do not vary from one carrier to the next and are performed on a strict cost-recovery basis in accordance with the Commission’s direction and in compliance with principles of municipal law; and
- Some municipalities post copies of their MAAs on their website, in the interest of transparency.
In a letter dated 27 August 2024, Rogers objected to the City’s disclosure request, pursuant to Rule 33(3). Rogers raised the following points in its reply:
- The City’s MAA with various carriers are different, including with respect to relocation-cost compensation, which affect carriers’ costs and competitiveness — in these circumstances, the specific terms of the proposed MAA are confidential;
- Disclosure of these confidential terms would cause specific and direct harm to Rogers, which is not outweighed by any public interest in disclosure;
- The City is the proper respondent in this proceeding and has access to the full materials that have been designated as confidential by Rogers — there is therefore no basis for concluding that any intervenors in this proceeding require any further disclosure in order to participate effectively; and
- The City has not posted its own MAAs in place on its website, or even a general template for its MAAs.
Requests for disclosure of information designated as confidential are addressed in light of sections 38 and 39 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act) and sections 30 and following of the CRTC Rules of Practice and Procedure CRTC (the Rules). In evaluating a request, an assessment is made as to whether the information falls into a category of information that can be designated confidential pursuant to section 39 of the Act. An assessment is then made as to whether there is any specific direct harm likely to result from the disclosure of the information in question and whether any such harm outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
In making this assessment, a number of factors are taken into consideration, including the degree of competition and the importance of the information for the purpose of obtaining a fuller record. In order to conduct this assessment, staff requests that both Rogers and the City elaborate on the rationale behind their respective positions on the issue of whether Rogers should be directed to disclose on the record of the proceeding its draft MAA with the City. Rogers’ and the City’s submissions must also elaborate as to why and how the specific direct harm that would be likely to result from the draft MAA’s disclosure would or would not outweigh the public interest in its disclosure.
The deadline for Rogers, the City, and all other persons or parties to the proceeding interested in the confidentiality or disclosure of the information designated as confidential, to file their submissions (Answer to this RFI) is 24 September 2024. Any interested person or party may reply to another’s Answer to this RFI, if appropriate and as needed, by 4 October 2024.
Sincerely,
Original signed by Philippe Nadeau for
Michel Murray
Director, Dispute Resolution and Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications Sector
c.c.:
Rob MacLachlan, City of Ottawa, rob.maclachlan@ottawa.ca
Dale Stevenson, City of Ottawa, dale.stevenson@ottawa.ca
Joseph Langiano, City of Ottawa, joseph.langiano@ottawa.ca
Maurizio Artale, City of Mississauga, maurizio.artale@mississauga.ca
Yanick Boily, Québecor Média, regaffairs@quebecor.com
Kirsten Franz, City of Toronto, Kirsten.Franz@toronto.ca
Rudy Rab, CRTC, rudy.rab@crtc.gc.ca
- Date modified: