Observations reçues par le Groupe d'étude

Soumission complète

(Soumis en anglais seulement.)

Auteur : Groupe de travail des ONG sur la Société pour l'expansion des exportations
Envoyé : 19 juillet

Andrée Delagrave
Chair
Access to Information Review Task Force

July 17, 2001

Ms. Delagrave;

I am writing to this task force review on behalf of the NGO Working Group on the Export Development Corporation. The NGO Working Group is a coalition of Canadian NGOs concerned about the human and environmental impact of export credit agencies. The Working Group promotes adherence by export credit agencies, particularly the Export Development Corporation, to internationally accepted standards regarding human rights, environment, disclosure and development.

As access to information underlies all other issues of accountability, the Working Group strongly promotes disclosure of non-confidential information by the Export Development Corporation (EDC). Project specific information was given by the EDC until the mid 80s. Recently, the EDC's draft disclosure policy reinstated this disclosure. However, the Canadian public needs this right to disclosure to be made into law. The Working Group demands that the EDC be regulated under the Access to Information Act.

It is in this way that the Access to Information Review Task Force is of greatest interest to us. Reinforcing this Act and limiting its necessary exemptions is crucial. Particularly, we believe the Act should be amended to require cabinet to add an institution to the list of institutions covered by law, if this institution, whatever its nature and mandate, is partly or wholly funded and/or owned by the government.

The Canadian public would benefit from the EDC being subject to the Access to Information Act because this would guarantee access to basic information and to an Information Commissioner for the right to appeal. Currently, the Canada Commercial Corporation and the Business Development Corporation fall under the Act.

Our specific recommendations, based on the Open Government Canada coalition paper, are the following:

Recommendation 1: As in the United Kingdom, the ATI Act should be amended to require Cabinet to add an institution to the list of institutions
covered by the law if the institution (or information it maintains):

• is funded in whole or in part by the federal government;
  
• is an administrative part of the institution of Parliament
  (including Minister's offices);
  
• is wholly or majority owned by the federal government;
  
• is owned by a parent institution which is wholly or majority-owned
  by the federal government;
  
• it or its parent institution managed by one or more people
  appointed under federal law;
  
• performs functions governed by federal law; or
  
• performs essential public interest functions (i.e.. in the areas of
  health, safety, environmental protection, economic security).

Recommendation 2: The ATI Act should be amended to require that all
contracts entered into by institutions covered by the law include a clause
that ensures records generated during the contract remain in the control of
the institution and covered by the access law.

Recommendation 3: All exemptions in the ATI Act should be discretionary,
not mandatory.

Recommendation 4: The "commercial confidences exemption" of the Act must be clarified so as to specifically describe what type of information can be withheld.

Recommendation 5: A proof-of-harm test and public interest override (as in
B.C. and Alberta) should limit the discretion, under all exemptions, to
withhold a record.

Recommendation 6: Given that the ATI Act contains more than adequate
exemptions and exclusions, section 24 of the law should be repealed.

Recommendation 7: The ATI Act should be amended to give the Information
Commissioner the following explicit powers:

• as in the United Kingdom, Ontario, B.C. and Quebec, to order the
  timely release of any record covered by access rights in the ATI Act;
  
• as in the United Kingdom, to order the release of any record if the
  release is in the public interest;
  
• to order that an institution be covered by the ATI Act if the
  Commissioner is of the opinion that the institution falls within criteria
  for coverage in the ATI Act;
  
• as in Ontario, the power to obtain from government institutions any
  statistics concerning administration of the law in order to prepare
  performance-based reports on the institutions;
  
• to order the amendment of government policies or guidelines,
  including fee schedules, if the Commissioner is of the opinion that the
  policies or guidelines do not adhere to the spirit and intent of the ATI
  Act;
  
• as in the United Kingdom, to issue directives (including requiring
  the submission of a compliance plan) to correct patterns of violations of
  the ATI Act by government departments, and to penalize violators of the ATI Act or related government policies and guidelines.

Recommendation 8: The ATI Act should be amended to require the government institution to prove that the withholding of information meets the criteria of any exemption or exclusion.

Recommendation 9: The current powers of the Information Commissioner
should not be further restricted in any way.

We thank you for taking these recommendations into consideration.

Regards,

Émilie Revil
On behalf of the NGO Working Group on the Export Development Corporation

Observations reçues par le Groupe d'étude