To the Board of Directors and Management of TELUS Corporation (“TELUS”),
We have reviewed selected quantitative performance indicators and TELUS’ self-declaration that it has met the A+ level of conformance with the GRI requirements (the “Subject Matter”) presented in TELUS’ Corporate Social Responsibility Report (the “Report”) for the year ended December 31, 2010. We did not review all information included in the Report.
Subject Matter
We reviewed the selected quantitative indicators noted in the attached table labeled Attachment A and TELUS’ self-declaration that it has met the A+ level of conformance with the GRI requirements. The selected quantitative performance indicators were chosen by TELUS primarily on the basis of perceived external stakeholder interest. We did not review the narrative sections of the Report, except where they incorporated the Subject Matter.
Responsibilities
TELUS management is responsible for collection and presentation of the Subject Matter set out in the Report. Our responsibility is to express a conclusion, based on our assurance procedures, as to whether anything has come to our attention to suggest that the Subject Matter is not presented fairly in accordance with the relevant criteria.
Methodology & Assurance Procedures
We conducted our work in accordance with the International Standard on Assurance Engagements (ISAE) 3000, “Assurance Engagements other than Audits or Reviews of Historical Financial Information”, issued by the International Federation of Accountants. As such, we planned and performed our work in order to provide limited assurance with respect to the Subject Matter.
We obtained and evaluated evidence using a variety of procedures including:
-
Interviewing relevant TELUS management and staff responsible for data collection and reporting
-
Obtaining an understanding of the management systems, processes, and controls used to generate, aggregate and report the data
-
Reviewing relevant documents and records on a sample basis
-
Testing and re-calculating quantitative information related to the selected performance indictors on a sample basis
-
Assessing the information collected for completeness, accuracy, adequacy and consistency
-
Reviewing and discussing the final version of the Report with TELUS management to confirm that it reflected our findings
Our evidence-gathering procedures were more limited than required for a reasonable assurance engagement and, consequently, we do not express an audit opinion on the Subject Matter.
We carried out our work on the selected performance indicators at TELUS’ head office in Burnaby, British Columbia. We did not visit TELUS’ other national or international locations. Our assurance criteria comprised the Global Reporting Initiative Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (2006), industry standards, and TELUS internal management definitions as disclosed in the Report, informed by relevant regulations.
Our assurance team included individuals with environmental, health and safety, social, economics and assurance experience.
Conclusion
Based on our work as described in this report, nothing has come to our attention that causes us to believe that the Subject Matter is not, in all material respects, presented fairly in accordance with the relevant criteria.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Vancouver, Canada
July 28, 2011