Telus says CRTC didn’t need to rush in DND case, seeks leave to appeal

Telus Corp. says the CRTC made critical errors in rendering two decisions related to the Bell Canada versus Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC) contract dispute and is seeking leave to appeal the two decisions to the Federal Court of Appeal. The company launched its leave application last month. Ted Woodhead, VP of telecom policy and regulatory matters at Telus, says the commission should have slowed the process down and taken a measured approach to the dispute rather than rushing to a solution. “It strikes me, from what I can see, that they really didn’t concern themselves too much with any of the evidence that was submitted or any of the pleadings,” Woodhead tells Network letter. “They just wanted to get to a very fast resolution and I think without due regard to whether what they were doing ended up in setting just and reasonable rates.” The commission erred when it opted to use an expedited oral hearing, refused to allow the company to present evidence, used final offer arbitration and then allowed the two parties to make counter offers, according to Telus’ leave to appeal. Using an expedited oral hearing is not the proper way to set rates, particularly when there are costing elements and costing arguments involved, Woodhead says. “In virtually ever other circumstance where rates are established, they are done through paper proceedings, with interrogatories and so on and so forth,” he tells Network Letter. “I thought at the very least what the commission should have done if it was determined that it wanted to go down this rush to judgement process is allow us to participate given that it was clear that we had an interest in the outcome.” Besides, he adds, the commission chose this process even though Public Works didn’t have the costing experience to participate in a CRTC hearing and was up against Bell, a company that has “loads of costing experts.” The commission established a final offer arbitration approach in this case, but then allowed Bell and Public Works to make offers and counter offers in hopes of coming to an agreement acceptable to both parties. Ultimately, this didn’t happen and the CRTC chose Bell’s final offer. “In establishing a final offer arbitration mechanism to set rates under the Telecom Act, the commission is actually doing what it’s supposed to do – it’s core mandate is setting just and reasonable rates – leaving it up to parties to high ball and low ball I don’t think that really gets you to just and reasonable rates," Woodhead argues.“I think it abdicated its statutory duty to set rates ." Would the CRTC have to come to the same conclusion had it allowed Telus to participate in the proceeding? Woodhead isn’t sure. “I don’t know,” he says. “I’d be speculating to say if it would be a different outcome, but at least they would have had the full evidence before them as to costs, not one-sided evidence.” After months of trying to negotiate a network usage agreement while the Department of National Defence migrated telecom services to Telus, Public Works filed a Part VII in November 2008 seeking a commission determination on just and reasonable rates.

Telus says CRTC didn’t need to rush in DND case, seeks leave to appeal

News | 04/16/2009 5:57 pm EDT

To keep reading, get a free trial.

Already a Subscriber?

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us