ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8740-B2-200504680
This page has been archived on the Web
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.
LetterOttawa, 20 May 2005 File No: 8740-B2-200504680 BY E-MAIL
Mr. David E Palmer Dear Mr. Palmer: RE: Bell Canada Tariff Notice 6866: 3-1-1 Service - Request for the disclosure of confidential information This letter deals with a request made by the City of Calgary, the City of Toronto, the Halifax Regional Municipality, La Ville de Gatineau, La Ville de Montréal and the Regional Municipality of Halton (collectively, Toronto et al.) in a letter dated 3 May 2005 for the disclosure of information filed in confidence by Bell Canada in Tariff Notice 6866 filed 15 April 2005. Specifically, Toronto et al. requested the disclosure of information filed in confidence in the "Bell Canada Report on the Economic Evaluation for the Introduction of Municipal Boundary Routing". This information had been submitted by Bell Canada under a claim of confidentiality made under section 39 of the Telecommunications Act. Bell Canada provided its reply to Toronto et al's request in a letter dated 18 May 2005. Factors in the assessment of requests for public disclosure Requests for the disclosure of information for which confidentiality has been claimed are assessed in light of sections 38 and 39 of the Telecommunications Act and section 19 of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure of (the Rules). In the case of each request, the public interest in disclosure is weighed against the specific direct harm, if any, likely to result from disclosure. In doing so, a number of factors are taken into account, including the following. The degree of competition that exists in a particular market is an important consideration in assessing requests for disclosure. All things being equal, the greater the degree of competition in a particular market, the greater the specific harm that could be expected to result from disclosure. Another factor in assessing the extent of harm is the expected usefulness of the information at issue to parties in furthering their competitive position. In this regard, an important consideration is the degree to which the information at issue is disaggregated. Generally speaking, the more aggregated the information, the less the likelihood that harm will flow from its disclosure. The expectation that specific direct harm might result from disclosure is not, by itself, sufficient to justify maintaining a claim of confidentiality. In certain circumstances, substantial harm from disclosure may still be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure. Further, the treatment of confidentiality requests should not be taken as an indication of the manner in which such matters would be dealt with in the future, in different circumstances. Having regard to the considerations set out above, Bell Canada is not required to place any of the information requested by Toronto et al. on the public record of this proceeding or alternatively, or to disclose it in-camera to Toronto et al. Yours sincerely, Original signed by:
Suzanne Bédard
c.c.: Interested Parties to Date Modified: 2005-05-19 |
- Date modified: