|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Observations reçues par le Groupe d'étude
Présentation au Groupe d'étude de l'accès à l'informationRésumé: préparé par l'Association des fabricants internationaux d'automobiles du Canada et l'Association canadienne des constructeurs de véhicules Nos membres insistent vivement pour que le Groupe d'étude étudie, dans le cadre de son examen, une recommandation visant à renforcer les exemptions ou dispositions législatives de sorte à reconnaître que certaines communications ou certains échanges d'information entre des institutions gouvernementales et des tiers se font en toute confidentialité par ces institutions et qu'il est entendu, explicitement ou implicitement, qu'elles respectent cette confidentialité. Nous exhortons le Groupe d'étude à reconnaître que cet aspect de la confidentialité est essentiel au maintien d'une relation continue et fonctionnelle entre le gouvernement et de telles tierces parties et que c'est tout à fait dans l'intérêt public, comme l'a affirme le Juge Mackay, dans Air Atonabee Ltd. c. Canada (Ministre des Transports) (1989), 37 Admin. L.R. 245 (C.F. 1re inst.) :
Nos membres font valoir aussi qu'en plus des exemptions déjà prévues dans la Loi, il peut y avoir des circonstances où certains renseignements confidentiels devraient être exemptés en bonne et due forme de la divulgation, lorsque celle-ci nuira probablement à la capacité d'obtenir des informations nécessaires à l'avenir ou qu'elle risque de porter atteinte à des rapports confidentiels entre le gouvernement et une tierce partie. Il est certain que l'incapacité du gouvernement à obtenir de l'information utile de sources extérieures peut réduire l'efficacité du gouvernement. L'information pouvant faire l'objet d'une telle exemption pourrait inclure l'information reçue par une institution gouvernementale conformément aux obligations réglementaires visant les tierces parties, mais il faut envisager inclure les circonstances où le gouvernement fait appel activement à des particuliers ou à l'industrie pour lui fournir de l'information, notamment dans le genre de situations comme celle décrite plus haut en ce qui concerne les additifs à essence. En bref, nos membres estiment que les mesures de protection de l'information confidentielle prévues aux termes de la loi devraient être claires, sans ambiguïté et complètes. Pour conclure, nous sommes d'accord pour dire que pour assurer un accès approprié et efficace à l'information du gouvernement, il faut que les documents sous le contrôle de celui-ci soient gérés et archivés méticuleusement. Comme l'a fait observer l'honorable John Reid lorsqu'il a pris la parole au Colloque des éditeurs de l'ACJ sur l'accès à l'information (le 25 novembre 1999) : " S'il n'est pas possible de trouver et de produire facilement des documents sur certains sujets, le droit d'accès à l'information n'a pas de sens.... [L]a gestion de l'information au gouvernement est en crise. Cette crise ne menace pas seulement la viabilité du droit d'accès à l'information; elle menace également le système d'archivage national et la possibilité de garantir un bon gouvernement aux citoyens. " Selon nous, une mauvaise gestion de l'information pourrait aussi entraîner la divulgation d'information confidentielle alors que cette divulgation est exemptée de la Loi et, à ce titre, menace l'intégrité des dispositions relatives à l'exemption. Par conséquent, nous encourageons la prise de toute mesure pour améliorer la gestion des dossiers et le respect de l'obligation de rendre compte à cet égard en vertu de la Loi.
|
Soumission complète
(Soumis en anglais seulement.)
Auteur : Association des fabricants internationaux d'automobiles du Canada et Association canadienne des constructeurs de véhicules
Envoyé : 31 mai 2001
On behalf of the members of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada (AIAMC) and the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association (CVMA), we are writing in response to the invitation from the Access to Information Review Task Force to offer comments on how the Access to Information Act could be improved.
By way of background, the AIAMC represents a wide diversity of international manufacturers that market vehicles throughout Canada. The membership of the AIAMC includes:
- BMW Canada Inc.
- Daewoo Auto Canada Inc.
- Honda Canada Inc.
- Hyundai Auto Canada Inc.
- Jaguar Canada
- Kia Canada Inc
- Mazda Canada Inc.
- Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc.
- Nissan Canada Inc.
- Porsche Cars Canada Ltd.
- Subaru Canada, Inc.
- Suzuki Canada Inc.
- Toyota Canada Inc.
- Volkswagen Canada Inc.
The CVMA is the national industry association with more than 70 years experience representing Canada's largest manufacturers of light and heavy duty vehicles. The membership of the CVMA includes:
- DaimlerChrysler Canada Inc.
- Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited
- General Motors of Canada Limited
- International Truck and Engine Corporation Canada
- Volvo Cars of Canada Ltd.
Introduction
Since the proclamation of the Access to Information Act (the "Act') in 1983, Canadian society has witnessed significant change. Both access legislation and unquestionably radical advances in technology have seemingly fostered an unquenchable thirst for information. At the same time, however, increasing access to information has raised real concerns about the maintenance of individuals' privacy and confidences.
The Act itself bears the characteristics of a double-edged sword. Providing access to information within government control clearly enhances opportunities for meaningful participation by Canadians in the governing process; however, concerns exist among others that the confidentiality of their information may be compromised as a result of such access. The AIAMC and CVMA wish to take this opportunity to outline some of those concerns for the Access to Information Review Task Force.
The Experience and Concerns of Automobile Manufacturers
As a result of the jurisdiction of Transport Canada and Environment Canada over matters related to motor vehicle safety and emissions testing and compliance, automobiles manufacturers have enjoyed, we believe, a long-standing and productive working relationship with government to resolve technical and other issues that arise from time to time. However, the member companies of the AIAMC and CVMA perceive a fundamental difficulty between the objectives and underlying policy of the Access to Information Act (i.e., to allow access to government Information with as few restrictions as possible) and responding to requests for information or assistance from government when it is becoming increasing apparent that the current legislative scheme is ostensibly unable guarantee that companies' confidential information will not later be made available publicly pursuant to a request under the Act for such information. Indeed, our members believe that the failure to appreciate the confidential nature of certain communications between industry (including the auto industry) and government may create a "chilling effect" on such groups in lending their expertise or assistance to government in making important policy decisions or in advising Cabinet.
The member companies of our Associations are cognizant that the administration of the Act requires consideration of varied interests. On the one hand, the Act must meet its stated objective. In doing so, the Act promotes positive dialogue between government and Canadians and increases accountability of elected officials. On the other hand, a balance must be struck between providing access to information within the government's control and preserving appropriate levels of privacy, confidence and commitment not only at an intra-government level but also between government and its external sources of information.
Automobile manufacturers appreciate that in order for government to operate efficiently and effectively government must arm itself with the best available facts so as to discuss and assess issues and policy options. Limited government resources, however, mean that it is not fiscally open for government departments to carry out extensive research of their own on all government concerns. Accordingly, government has turned, and will presumably continue to turn, to industry groups and stakeholders including automobile manufacturers, for information and assistance so that government can make informed and wise policy decisions.
By way of example, in or around 1994, the federal government contemplated restricting the importation and inter-provincial trade of Methylcyclopentodienyl Managenese Tricarbonyl ("MMT"). In the process of developing Bill C-29 and its predecessor C-94 (or what would eventually become the Manganese-based Fuel Additives Act), the Minister of Environment, who sponsored the passage of that legislation, requested from automobile manufacturers and other interested parties, information related to the effects of MMT on vehicle emissions systems. In response to the Minister's request, certain of the major vehicle manufacturers did submit, on a confidential basis, documents and reports in order to assist the Minister in the formulation of government policy and legislation on the issue of fuel additives.
From the perspective of those companies disclosing information to the government, the documents contained confidential, commercially sensitive and/or technical and scientific Information and trade secrets that, if available publicly, could prejudice the competitive position of such companies. Indeed, the Information was provided to the government with the express or implied understanding that such information would be received and remains confidential.
In late 1995, Ethyl Canada Inc., ("Ethyl") through its solicitors, requested that the Minister disclose to it certain records in its possession and related to MMT. That request was denied; however, pursuant to section 41 of the Act, Ethyl applied to the Federal Court to review the decision of the head of Environment Canada to refuse to disclose the requested documents, which included the automobile manufacturers' confidential documents and reports.
The aforementioned dispute concerning access to the MMT related documents was eventually resolved but not until significant costs were incurred by the manufacturers who were required to incur the cost and trouble of having to defend the confidentiality of their documents. Perhaps more damaging, however, was the loss of confidence by members of the automobile industry that, in circumstances such as those described above, proprietary and confidential information supplied by them would not be disclosed. Government, too, as a result of such loss of confidence, may be put in the unenviable position of having to make decisions on less than desirable levels of information --which may potentially undermine both government efficacy and public confidence in government.
Summary and Conclusions
Our members urge the Task Force to consider in their review a recommendation
to strengthen the legislative exemptions or provisions in order to recognize
that certain communications or exchanges of information between government
institutions and third parties are received by such institutions in confidence
and are understood, either expressly or impliedly, to be held confidentially.
We urge the Task Force to appreciate that this element of confidentiality
is essential to a continuing and functional relationship between government
and such parties, and that there is a strong 'public interest in fostering
such confidences, as was articulated by MacKay J. in Air Atonabee Ltd.
v. Canada (Minister of Transport) (1989) 37 Admin. L.R. 245 (Fed. T.D.)
at 274:
..,"it is consistent with the public interest, and the relationship
[between government and certain third parties] would be fostered for the
benefit of the public. ..by treating as confidential those communications
which originate with [such third parties] where the [third party] has
considered them confidential. ...(The third party would be encouraged
to be open and frank with [government officials] if its understanding
about the restricted purposes and circulation of its communications is
recognized and respected).
Our members also submit that, in addition to the exemptions already provided for under the Act, there may be circumstances where certain confidential information ought properly to be exempt from disclosure where disclosure is likely to impair government's ability to -obtain necessary information in the future or where disclosure may impair a confidential relationship between government and a third party. Indeed, the inability of government to secure useful information from external sources may impair or reduce the efficacy of government. Information subject to such an exemption may include information received by a government institution in accordance with a third party's regulatory obligations, but should also property contemplate and include circumstances where government actively seeks the assistance of individuals or industry, such as described above in relation to fuel additives. In brief, our members believe that the protection of their confidential information under the legislation should clear, unambiguous and complete.
On a final note, we agree that proper and effective access to government information depends on meticulous management and archiving of documents within government control. As suggested by the Honourable John Reid in his Remarks to CNA Publishers Forum on Access to Information (November 25, 1999), "If records about particular subjects cannot be readily located and produced, the right of access is meaningless. ...[mismanagement] does not only threaten the viability of the right of access, it also threatens to undermine national archival requirements and the ability to deliver good government".
We suggest that mismanagement of information may also lead to the release
of confidential information exempt from disclosure under the Act and as
such threatens the integrity of the exemption provisions. Accordingly,
we would encourage any step taken to improve records management and accountability
under the Act.
Observations reçues par
le Groupe d'étude
