ARCHIVED - Letter

VIA EMAIL : hintven@mccarthy.ca

Ottawa, 19 August 2009

Hank Intven

McCarthy Tétrault LLP

Toronto Dominion Bank Tower

Toronto, Ontario

Canada   M5K 1E6

Dear Mr. Intven:

Re:    Proceeding to consider the compliance of Globalive with the ownership and control regime, Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-429 - Assessment of confidentiality claims and extension of time to file comments and reply comments                                                                                                  

This letter deals with disclosure of information for which confidentiality claimed and the deadlines for filing comments and reply comments.

Disclosure of confidential information

By letters dated 17 August 2009, Bell Canada ( Bell ), Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers) and TELUS Communications Company (TELUS) requested disclosure of some of the information filed in confidence by Globalive Wireless Management Corporation (Globalive). By letter dated 18 August 2009 , Globalive filed its reply.

Globalive submitted that Bell, Rogers and TELUS are attempting to turn the Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-429 proceeding into an adversarial court-like process where their role would be as full participants along with the Commission and Globalive. Commission staff notes that the Commission has indicated that third party participation will be permitted only to the extent determined by the Commission in order to further its completion and testing of the evidentiary record.

Commission staff notes that the requests for disclosure relate only to the interrogatory responses filed by Globalive on 14 August 2009, and not to any material filed by Globalive prior to that date.

In evaluating confidentiality claims filed pursuant to subsection 39(1) of the Telecommunications Act (the Act), an assessment is made as to whether there is any specific direct harm likely to result from the disclosure of the information in question. In making this evaluation, a number of factors are taken into consideration, including the degree of competition that exists in a particular market or that is expected to occur. All things being equal, the greater the degree of actual or expected competition, the greater the specific direct harm that could be expected to result from disclosure. Another factor 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 likelihood that specific direct harm will flow from its disclosure.

Even where specific direct harm may result, this harm must be balanced against, and outweigh the public interest in disclosure, in order to qualify for confidentiality. In certain circumstances, specific direct harm from disclosure may still be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure.

Having regard to the above, Commission staff has determined that no specific direct harm would likely result from disclosure, or that the public interest in disclosure outweighs any specific harm that might result from disclosure, of the information specified in the Attachment to this letter.

Globalive is to file, for the public record, serving a copy on all parties to Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-429, by 8:00 a.m. on Friday, 21 August 2009, all of the information specified in the Attachment.

Documents to be filed and served in accordance with the above must be received, not merely sent by the date and time specified.

In addition to filing the above material with the Commission in the ordinary manner, please email Lyne Renaud at lyne.renaud@crtc.gc.ca and Leigh-Anna Gates at
leigh-anna.gates@crtc.gc.ca .

Extension of time to file comments

In letters dated 17 August 2009 , Bell and Rogers requested an extension of time for interested parties to file their comments until 5 days following Globalive's supplementary responses on the public record pursuant to the Commission's confidentiality ruling. Globalive replied to this request by letter dated 17 August 2009 .

Interested parties may file their comments, serving copies on all other parties, on or before Monday, 24 August 2009. Globalive will have until Friday, 28 August 2009 to file its reply comments, serving copies on all other parties.

Documents to be filed and served in accordance with the above must be received, not merely sent by the date specified.

In addition to filing the above material with the Commission in the ordinary manner, please email Lyne Renaud at lyne.renaud@crtc.gc.ca and Leigh-Anna Gates at
leigh-anna.gates@crtc.gc.ca .

Should you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (819) 997-9412 or by fax at (819) 994-0218.

Yours truly,

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY :

Lyne Renaud

Director, Ownership & Acquisitions

PDR - CRTC

cc:   Parties to Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-429

Attachment

Information over which confidentiality was claimed that is to be disclosed

( NC 2009-429)

(i) Interrogatory Globalive(CRTC)4Aug09- 1.1

Disclosure is required of the entire question, except for the monetary figure. The information contained in question 1.1 is essentially repeated in question 1.2, where no confidentiality was claimed.

(ii) Interrogatory Globalive(CRTC)4Aug09- 2.6

Disclosure is required. The response to this question reflects the expertise of the representatives of the Board of Directors, and the harm (if any) which would result from disclosure would not outweigh the public interest in its disclosure.

(iii) Interrogatory Globalive(CRTC)4Aug09- 3.1.2

Disclosure is required. The response to this question reflects the general reasons why individuals are appointed to boards. The harm (if any) which would result from disclosure would not outweigh the public interest in its disclosure.

(iv) Interrogatory Globalive(CRTC)4Aug09- 3.1.3

Disclosure is required. This question provides categories of advice, but not specific advice. The harm (if any) which would result from disclosure would not outweigh the public interest in its disclosure.

(v) Interrogatory Globalive(CRTC)4Aug09-3.2.3

Disclosure is required. This answer provides general generic advice which is not specific in nature. The harm (if any) which would result from disclosure would not outweigh the public interest in its disclosure.

(vi) Interrogatories Globalive(CRTC)4Aug09- 3.3.3 and 3.3.4

Full disclosure is required, except for employee names in the 3.3.4 table. The information contained in this answer is integral to the assessment of Orascom`s expertise and influence. The harm (if any) which would result from disclosure would not outweigh the public interest in its disclosure.

(vii) Interrogatory Globalive(CRTC)4Aug09-4.2

Disclosure of the original loan amounts is required. It should be noted that the loan amounts are already on the public file.

(viii) Interrogatory Globalive(CRTC)4Aug09- 5.3

Disclosure is required of the first two sentences of the first paragraph, as well as the last paragraph. These sentences are generic, and the harm (if any) which would result from disclosure would not outweigh the public interest in its disclosure.

(ix) Interrogatory Globalive(CRTC)4Aug09- 5.6

The general confidentiality claim for Documents INT 5.6-4 and 5.6-5 is NOT granted. The corporate documents for the other corporations are already on the public file. The subsidiary confidentiality claim of street addresses in sub paragraph A is granted.

SECTION B. SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENT REQUEST

(x) Interrogatory Globalive(CRTC)4Aug09- 6.1

The general confidentiality claim for Document INT 6.1-1 is NOT granted. The document reveals the evolution of the relationship between the parties, and the harm (if any) which would result from disclosure would not outweigh the public interest in its disclosure. The subsidiary confidentiality claim for paragraphs A, B, C, D, E is granted.

(xi) Interrogatory Globalive(CRTC)4Aug09-6.2

The general confidentiality claim for Documents INT 6.2-1, 6.2-2 and 6.2-3 is NOT granted. These documents reveal the evolution of the relationship between the parties, and the harm (if any) which would result from disclosure would not outweigh the public interest in its disclosure. The subsidiary confidentiality claim in sub-paragraph A is granted.

(xii) Interrogatory Globalive(CRTC)4Aug09- 6.4

The general confidentiality claim for Documents INT 6.4-1 to 6.4-8 is NOT granted. These documents contain generic corporate governance information. The harm (if any) which would result from disclosure would not outweigh the public interest in its disclosure. The subsidiary confidentiality claim is granted for:

Document INT 6.4-1, A-J*

Document INT 6.4-2, A-F*

Document INT 6.4-3, G-Q*

Document INT 6.4-4, R*

Document INT 6.4-7, S-Y*

Document INT 6.4-8, Z*

*The letters correspond to those in Globalive's claim for confidentiality dated 14 August 2009 .

Date modified:

2009-08-19