Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 10th, 2006

[Jim McArdle, Senior Vice-President, Legal Services & Secretary, Export Development Canada]

Under our disclosure policy now there is a section that requires EDC to ask for and receive ex ante disclosure in certain categories of projects from the sponsor. It's all the sponsor's information, so we have to ask the sponsor to do it. If they refuse to do that, our policy says we clearly refuse to do the project. The sponsor will be making its environmental assessments public on its website and we'll have links to it. In the really serious category A projects, we require that in all countries except for the G-7, where there is disclosure in any event.

That's how we've tried to approach it.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Just to understand then, if information were given to you about environmental concerns or perhaps about labour standards, then under this act it would be available to us. Or would that be considered something separate? Would that be the client relationship you were referring to?

[Rob Wright]

It would be a client relationship. If we were getting something to help us decide whether to engage in a project.... We want information to come to us. We don't want people to be afraid to share information. We would make a consideration of whether we were going to support the project. If we do support a project, it is going to be available, and it will be available.

I should say, on the whole area of corporate social responsibility, the way we work on anti-corruption, environmental issues, and all issues in that area, is something that we have great profile on and we work very hard on. If we use it at the other end and people are afraid to give us information, it might come out other than through a process to get our support and it would turn off some business. But if we're going to engage in that project, we will make that information available as part of our due diligence.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you.

Mr. Wright, I have a pretty straightforward and simple question. One of the things, obviously, that we've been trying to do in this committee is to examine the bill, talk to witnesses, and see whether there's anything that needs to be done to strengthen the bill.

Based on all of the pieces of this legislation, the Federal Accountability Act, that relate to Export Development Canada that you've examined, what, if any, suggestions or amendments would you propose that could make this bill better with respect to your activities?

[Rob Wright]

We're pretty comfortable without being covered by it.

I think it's important to take the step you're taking, and we support it. We would want sufficient time before it becomes effective to make sure we can act professionally. It will take some time, because it affects our systems.

The clients we work with made their concerns known to us and to members of Parliament. I think the way the bill is structured will serve well to protect their interests. The act will apply to what we do and how we operate as an organization. It's well structured to protect Canada's commercial interests. We're in a tough market right now. Canadian companies need to know that.

We're not recommending any change. We said to our colleague from the Bloc that we know people are suggesting simplistically you could just cover everything we're doing. There would be enormous Canadian economic impact in that event. That would be very negative.

We think this is a balanced approach. It's a big step for us. We will make sure we do our diligence appropriately.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you very much.

I think Mr. Petit has questions, but that's all for me.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Monsieur Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Good afternoon, Mr. Wright.

You said you're satisfied with section 24 of the Access to Information Act, as well as the proposed clause 18.1. You admit that commercial information must be protected because it is invaluable to your clients, that you're doing business outside Canada, and so on.

EDC can conduct a transaction with the United States, and we know that the U.S. has its own legislation. I can obtain information on you through the U.S. legislation. I can get insurance information and commercial information. I do it regularly myself.

In what way do you think section 24 is strong enough? I'm trying to understand. Having worked in this field, I know that, if I want to get information from you, I don't ask you, but rather the client, who is subject to other legislation. I get the information. How am I to interpret the fact that you accept section 24?

[Rob Wright]

Section 24 will essentially make it against the law for us to release information we receive from and about clients. So we will not be releasing that information on clients.

It's especially important for a country like Canada and an organization like EDC, because what we're offering is a service to Canadian exporters. We don't want to discourage them from coming forward. Unlike very large countries--and Ex-Im Bank is a very large agency of the U.S. government--when we're working internationally, we're working with partners that can choose not to work with us. Being able to protect the information we secure is absolutely vital for us; otherwise, we will lose out on opportunities to build bridges for Canadian companies to endure.

I believe that section 24, by making it against the law for us to release client information, will assure Canadian business that their information is going to be safe. We do a lot of due diligence in obtaining very detailed information that even financial markets and others don't know to make sure we structure our balance sheet and our approaches to protect our risk. Again, being able to protect that information means we have a better chance to balance ourselves prudentially for the future of Canadian business.

I think that section 24 and section 18 recognize that we have commercial systems in place to assess risk, determine our pricing, and assess different markets. Again, this gives us a provision to provide additional protections for those systems.

I wasn't here to ask for an amendment. I was here to say that we strongly support the way the bill is structured. It very much reflects what we've heard from Canadian business. We think you may get alternative views; we wanted our views on the record.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you very much, gentlemen, for coming this afternoon and commenting on the legislation.

Believe it or not, ladies and gentlemen, we are on time. We will proceed with some delegations tomorrow. Unless something else happens, we do have time to proceed with the notice of motion that Mr. Poilievre served us yesterday.

The meeting is adjourned until tomorrow morning at nine.