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

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you.

I think those initiatives would come under the category of best management practices, and I take it from what you've said, Mr. Wright, that you're already engaged in making those improvements to the checks and balances within your own practices, without this bill.

[Rob Wright]

I think we have. I've mentioned that we have some examples of voluntary disclosure of certain things. There's no doubt in my mind that the breadth of this bill would require a much more substantive and serious look at how we do business, so there would be much more disclosure.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

So the bill was an incentive for you to initiate those practices?

[Rob Wright]

I guess what I'm saying is I think you'll see us fully incented over the coming year in terms of looking at a broader set of things to release. I think, as good practice, we've obviously been disclosing what we're doing. We have in fact a very good record in terms of the way we report to Parliament. We've been recognized by the Auditor General seven of the last eleven years as having the excellence award in reporting among large crowns. So we have very strong practices. I think this bill will require us to be more open to the way we do business and we're ready to do that.

The key thing we flagged with the officials working on this for the last year or two is, if you're doing this, do it in a way that protects our capacity to work and compete commercially, because that's what we're about.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Your report is very accurate and precise with respect to those issues and I thank you for that.

Those are all the questions I have, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Wright, and the gentleman accompanying you, good afternoon and welcome.

I listened to you very carefully, and I'm not sure I understood. I'd like some clarification.

The text of your presentation reads:

EDC customers and their foreign buyers should not have to worry that their commercially sensitive information could risk falling into the hands of their competitors. Section 24 puts those fears to rest.

And yet, from reading your presentation, it seems to me you fear that your clients' information might become accessible under the Access to Information Act. Does section 24 put those fears to rest? Do you still have any fears on that point?

[Rob Wright]

Section 24 is the most important thing to put the fears to rest.

Exactly the same is true for the Business Development Bank of Canada. I had some meetings with the President of BDC, Jean-René Halde, and

section 24 requires us--in fact, it would make it against the EDC Act for us to release information we receive from our clients and about our clients in a way that might affect their commercial interests. This ensures that clients know they can approach us, give us the information we need to support them without risk of international competitors taking advantage of that.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

So the text should read: “Section 24 should put those fears to rest,” not “Section 24 puts those fears to rest.”

From what I understand—and I'm not sure I understand that clearly—there's no longer any problem, but I get the impression from hearing you that there is a problem. Am I to understand what you tell me or what I read?

[Rob Wright]

No, no, I'm sure it's me. All I want to underscore is that our concerns are fully met through section 24 and section 18. That will permit us to continue to protect client information. Now some have suggested that EDC should be covered by this access act without such sections. That would create major problems for Canadian exporters.

So with the bill as it is currently structured, we were very pleased and we were very supportive, but we wanted to underscore how vital those sections are for us, as they have been for other commercial crowns like Business Development Bank of Canada.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

In short, you're suggesting the status quo with respect to Bill C-2 because you think no amendments are required.

[Rob Wright]

That's correct. We understand and we were very supportive of Bill C-2. We very much appreciate the government's decision to structure it in this way. It will apply Access to Information to us as a corporation but allow us to protect our clients' information.

We wanted to appear here because there are some people who have spoken saying that isn't necessary and I wanted to give a context from us working there that we think it's absolutely vital.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you very much.

[Rob Wright]

It was a pleasure for me to speak with you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, and I should thank you for a briefing I had with EDC not too long ago. It was very informative for me as a new member.

I just want to go back and refresh my memory as to what you consider and define as small business in terms of your context--just roughly.

[Rob Wright]

Under $5 million in revenue.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you for the reminder. That was given to me before when I had the briefing from EDC.

[Rob Wright]

I thank them for the reminder as well.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

You did mention concerns about having the freedom of information touch clients. I'm certain we can all appreciate why that might be a problem.

As a question—and I'm not sure whether you'd have this in a comparative format—if you look at other jurisdictions, is there an occurrence in any other jurisdiction where that freedom of information is available?

[Rob Wright]

That's a very important question. EDC is Canada's export credit agency. There is a current set of structures to provide support for exporters along a set of rules that are minimalist subsidies called concessional and consensus financing. Some governments, some countries, only do that.

In our case, over 90% of our business for the last several years, but 95% of our business last year, was done on market terms. So if a country has a department administering export credits, as the U.S. has—it's a department of government, it's not a commercial entity—then it is subject to access to information. I think the U.K. has just brought their department--they have 23 clients, not 7,000 in the U.K., and they provide only consensus support, not market support. But the competitors we have in the private sector internationally and in countries like Germany and Australia are deliberately excluded entirely from the Access to Information Act.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Both sides?

[Rob Wright]

Both sides.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you.

One of the things that impressed me in the briefing I had earlier was that you have an environmental assessment procedure that you now have put in place when you're dealing with clients.

I have a question. I'm not quite sure how to frame it. If there were a concern brought forward on environmental standards of one of the clients or there were labour standard concerns, which is a question maybe for another time in terms of its scope, and it was brought to the attention of EDC that there were unfair labour practices--I understand your environmental assessment process would hopefully pick up the environmental concerns that one might have, particularly in mining, because we've heard a lot about that--we would be reliant upon the EDC to disclose that information if it were a concern.

I'm just trying to figure out, if that information of the client isn't available to us and it's known by EDC that there were concerns around environmental or labour practices, would that mean that under this bill that information would be available to us and to the public?

[Rob Wright]

We have committed to disclose particularly our environmental reviews for certain categories of new investments. We also are committed to making sure we benchmark the environmental review and our approach to these projects to the highest world standard. If it's a government approach, it would be to the standards of the World Bank and higher, and if it's a non-governmental approach, it would be to the local conditions of the marketplace. We have committed to category A.

Jim, why don't you summarize what disclosure we have now under the way we structure our environmental review?