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.
Ottawa, 31 October 2001
Our file: 8665-C12-14/01
Re: Request for Further Responses to Interrogatories - Public Notice 2001-60
This letter deals with requests for further responses to interrogatories filed in the above noted proceeding.
In a letter dated 3 October 2001, Arc et al, (Public Interest Advocacy Centre on behalf of Action Réseau Consommateur, the Consumers Association of Canada and the National Anti-Poverty Organization filed a request for further responses to some of its interrogatories.
Bell Canada et al. (The Companies), TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI), Microcell Telecommunications Inc. (Microcell), Rogers Wireless Inc. (RWI) and the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA) each filed a response to ARC et al's request.
Requests for Further Responses
With regard to requests for further responses, the requirements of subsection 18(2) of the CRTC Rules of Procedure apply. The general principles followed by the Commission include the following:
If the provision of the information sought would require an effort disproportionate to the probative value of the information itself, further responses will not be required. Having regard to the considerations set out above:
In interrogatory (ARCetal) 27Aug01-2, Microcell was asked if in
Microcell's view, the PIPED Act required "that consent to the use or disclosure of personal information for secondary marketing purposes be obtained in a manner that ensures that the consent is intentional and informed".
Microcell answered (Attachment to letter dated October 10, 2001) "there are circumstances under which, based on the reasonable expectations of the customer, a customer's consent can be presumed to have been given. We then provided an example of such circumstances. Specifically, we indicated that consent can be presumed to be given where: (i) a customer has consented to the documented and specified purposes for which a customer's personal information is collected, used and disclosed; (ii) such purposes include marketing activities; and (iii) the purposes include disclosure to an affiliate. "
The answer discusses circumstances under which consent can be implied but is silent on Microcell's views on whether the PIPED Act requires "that consent to the use or disclosure of personal information for secondary marketing purposes be obtained in a manner that ensures that the consent is intentional and informed."
The response provided by Microcell is not responsive to the interrogatory sent. Accordingly, Microcell is to file a further response to interrogatory (ARCetal) 27Aug01-2 and address the specific elements stated in the question posed by ARC et al.
In this interrogatory, ARC asked TELUS to list all examples of sharing among affiliates for which TELUS believes that customer consent can reasonably be taken to be implied.
TELUS's reply (October 10, 2001) to ARC et al.'s request stated " TELUS would offer the following further example of implied consent for the disclosure of customer information. TELUS will normally share customer information with Dominion Information Services for the purpose of publishing telephone directories."
The example provided by TELUS falls within the current exceptions to the confidentiality provisions. The response provided is not responsive to the interrogatory sent.
Accordingly, TELUS is to file a further response to interrogatory (ARCetal) 27Aug01-2(a) to include examples of instances where consent can be implied for the sharing of customer information, that do not fall within one of the current exemptions to its confidentiality provisions.
With respect to the other requests for further responses that were submitted, either the original response is satisfactory, or the companies in question have provided the additional information sought in response to the further request.
All the information to be provided pursuant to this letter is to be filed with the Commission and served on interested parties by 14 November 2001. The information is to be received, not merely sent by the prescribed date.
This letter reflects the Commission's objective of ensuring that all the parties have the benefit of the maximum amount of information placed on the public record, in order to ensure that all parties have the opportunity to participate in the proceeding. Questions regarding this procedure or electronic information should be addressed to: firstname.lastname@example.org
cc: Philippe Tousignant, CRTC (819) 997-1334