Month: March 2007

2002 Access to Information Review: Chapters 4,

Some notes from my review of the final Report of the Access to Information Review Task Force, June 2002:

Public interest is always the key factor in determining whether a requested record should be disclosed. The purpose of the exemptions and exclusions in the Access to Information Act, therefore, is to define
in a narrow and specific way those instances where the public interest may lie in the protection of information. The right balance has to be achieved in each exemption and exclusion as well as in the overall
structure of exemptions and exclusions. The Act must be looked at in its entirety to fully appreciate the delicate balancing of public interests that it embraces.

In 2000-2001, Section 69 was claimed in 6% of all refusals to disclose (exemptions and exclusions). (p.44)

Section 69 states that the Act does not apply to confidences of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada – which includes Cabinet and Cabinet committees. The Act does not define such confidences, but provides a list of examples including: Cabinet memoranda, agendas, records of decisions; communications between Ministers on matters relating to the making of government decisions or the formulation of government policy; pre-Cabinet briefings of Ministers and draft legislation.

Section 69 has been the subject of strong criticism.

Section 21 accounted for 18.6% of exemptions claimed in 2000-2001. (p. 47)

Section 21 of the Act is a discretionary exemption allowing the head of a government institution to refuse to disclose a record containing:

  • advice or recommendations developed by or for a government institution
    or a Minister;
  • an account of consultations or deliberations involving officers or
    employees of a government institution, a Minister, or a Minister’s staff;
  • positions or plans developed for the purposes of negotiations, and considerations
    related thereto; and
  • personnel management or administrative plans that have not yet been put into effect.

Section 21 is the third most frequently claimed exemption. Requesters and commentators have criticized it for being too broad, and too broadly applied. No one disputes the need for government to conduct some deliberations in private and for ministers to receive the full and frank advice needed for effective policy-making. The issue is how to strike the right balance in the legislation, and in practice, between the principle of openness and the need for some confidentiality. We believe several changes should be made to improve this balance.

2002 Access to Information Review: Introduction and Main Points

Some notes from my review of the final Report of the Access to Information Review Task Force, June 2002:

…the Task Force has concluded that the Access to Information Act is still basically sound in concept, structure and balance. (1)

These legislative and administrative measures, by themselves, will not be enough to ensure the objectives of the Act are achieved. They must be supported by a strong “access” culture within government.

…providing information to Canadians must be recognized as a legitimate, and indeed, core aspect of every public servant’s day-to-day work. Access to information must be valued and recognized and become a matter of pride for the public service.

Many requesters feel that the essence of the Act is sound, but it continues to be applied inconsistently and in such a way as to contradict the principles of openness, transparency and accountability that underlie it. Delays, fees and inconsistency are major complaints. (3)

The Information Commissioner is critical of what he perceives to be a deeply entrenched culture of secrecy in government, and a lack of commitment to the principles of the Act. (3)

Access to information needs to be resourced in the same way as any program delivered by the Government of Canada. (5)

The total costs of administering the Act are in the order of $30 million annually or less than $1 per Canadian per year. (5)

Over one-half of all requests (52 per cent in 2000-2001) are made to five government institutions: Citizenship and Immigration Canada; National Archives; Health Canada; Human Resources Development Canada; and the Department of National Defence. (9)

The largest request received at this point was to the Department of Foreign Affairs for 1.2 million documents.

Since it was first enacted, the Access to Information Act has been amended three times. (13)

In 2000-01, the ratio of access to information and privacy requests at the federal level to the total Canadian population was about 0.004 or half the ratio in the U.S. (0.0079). (15)

 

Tags:

Go ahead, use your phone in the hospital, study says

A new study out of the prestigious Mayo Clinic in the U.S. says cell phones do not interfere with hospital medical equipment, suggesting that the usual bans on cell phone use in hospitals are unwarranted. That said, there are some devices, apparently, that could interfere with medical equipment. Some portable CD players, for example, caused odd ECG readings.

METHODS: Two cellular telephones from different cellular carriers were tested in various patient care areas between February 15, 2006, and June 29, 2006. To monitor the medical devices and equipment in the patient care areas during testing, we observed the device displays and alarms.

RESULTS: Interference of any type occurred in 0 of the 75 patient care rooms during the 300 tests performed. These 300 tests involved a total of 192 medical devices. The incidence of clinically important interference was 0% (95% confidence interval, 0%-4.8%).

CONCLUSIONS: Although cellular telephone use in general has been prohibited in hospitals because of concerns that these telephones would interfere with medical devices, this study revealed that when cellular telephones are used in a normal way no noticeable interference or interactions occurred with the medical devices.

 

Suncor's annual report – revenues, production and emissions intensity

Suncor Energy Inc. released some of its annual disclosure documents today, including the company’s annual report for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. It was a very good year for Suncor, which marks its 40th year in 2007 in the oil sands business in northern Alberta.

Suncor posted a profit for the year of $2.97–billion on revenues of $15.8 billion. Revenues were up 42 per cent compared to 2005. Profits were up 157 per cent compared to 2005.

Suncor’s return on capital employed, including capitalized costs related to major projects in progress, was 30.4 per cent in 2006, more than double what it was in 2005 (14.3 per cent) and much better than the five-year average of 18.2 per cent.”…we remain focused on the goal of achieving a return on capital employed of at least 15% at mid-cycle oil prices .”

Suncor produced nearly 294,000 barrels of oil a day in 2006. “Our goal: production of more than half
a million barrels per day in 2010 to 2012.” Suncor hopes to hit 350,000 bpd in 2008.

Now in 2005, the most recent year for which data is available, Suncor emitted 7,694,457.67 tonnes of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming from its facilities near Fort MacMurray, Alta. In that year, Suncor reported production of about 171,000 barrels per day of oil. 

The Pembina Institute estimates that oil sands production of oil creates between 91 and 127 kilograms of carbon dioxide per barrel.

Suncor has been closely monitoring developments of federal and provincial strategies to reduce these emissions and notes as much in its annual report.

“Suncor is laying the groundwork for growth beyond 2012. The blueprints for those plans haven’t yet been drawn, but carbon capture and storage and harnessing energy from petroleum coke gasification could play a role in shaping the economic and environmental performance of future upgrading assets.”

 

EU pledges absolute targets on greenhouse gas emission reductions

Canada will shortly announce its plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants. All indications are that Canada’s targets will be “intensity” targets. In other words, Canada will want its pollution per unit of economic output. Greenhouse gas emissions can still rise under this scenario if economic output continues to grow.

Meanwhile, the European Union has set absolute emissions targets. In other words, the EU has committed that greenhouse gas emissions must fall even if economic output stays the same or increases:

Europe yesterday claimed leadership of the global battle against climate change as it agreed to slash carbon emissions and generate one fifth of its energy from renewables including solar and wind power.

At the end of a two-day summit, and after intensive cajoling from the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, EU leaders signed up to a series of binding targets which will mean a dramatic change in the way Europe powers its economies.

However, they also gave comfort to countries that rely heavily on nuclear power, suggesting that they may be allowed to adopt less ambitious targets for generating wind, solar or hydro-electric power.

Yesterday's agreement commits the EU to a 20 per cent reduction in carbon emissions from 1990 levels by 2020 – though that will rise to 30 per cent if other nations follow suit. It also promises that, by the same date, one-fifth of EU energy will be derived from renewables – though the effort will not be shared equally among all 27 nations.

The environmental campaigning group Greenpeace hailed the deal as “the biggest such decision since the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol”. Nevertheless, yesterday's landmark agreement is just the beginning of a period of intensive wrangling over how the burden will be shared.

Europe yesterday claimed leadership of the global battle against climate change as it agreed to slash carbon emissions and generate one fifth of its energy from renewables including solar and wind power.

At the end of a two-day summit, and after intensive cajoling from the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, EU leaders signed up to a series of binding targets which will mean a dramatic change in the way Europe powers its economies.

However, they also gave comfort to countries that rely heavily on nuclear power, suggesting that they may be allowed to adopt less ambitious targets for generating wind, solar or hydro-electric power.

Yesterday's agreement commits the EU to a 20 per cent reduction in carbon emissions from 1990 levels by 2020 – though that will rise to 30 per cent if other nations follow suit. It also promises that, by the same date, one-fifth of EU energy will be derived from renewables – though the effort will not be shared equally among all 27 nations.

The environmental campaigning group Greenpeace hailed the deal as “the biggest such decision since the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol”. Nevertheless, yesterday's landmark agreement is just the beginning of a period of intensive wrangling over how the burden will be shared.

The issue of ‘intensity’ vs ‘absolute’  targets has been an issue for environmental activists who believe they will not be very effective cutting greenhouse gases. But forgetting about the issue of environmental suitability for a moment, the issue is also important from an economic point-of-view. After listening to presentations at various House of Commons committees by environmental activists, think tanks, politicians, and company representatives, here’s what I understand to be the reason:

New international markets are emerging to ‘trade carbon’. Companies can buy and sell carbon credits on these markets. How does this work? Let’s say a regulator says all companies must emit no more than 100 tonnes of greenhouse gases in a year. Company A invests in ways to reduce GGEs and emits 90 tonnes. It earns 10 credits. Company B forgoes investments in GGEs and emits 110 tonnes. It must buy credits of 10 tonnes to comply with the regulations. In this scenario, Company A sells its credits and earns revenue. Company B has an added expense — the ten credits it must buy.

Almost all of these international markets in carbon trading are based on jurisdictions that have set absolute targets and not intensity targets. If Canada decides to set intensity targets, it could make it difficult or impossible for Canadian companies to participate in international carbon markets.

Tags:

Meetings were not 'secret' says PMO

Earlier this week, I posted some of the results of government records I received as the result of an Access to Information request. After a September meeting in Calgary between three top cabinet ministers and more than two dozen oil and gas executives, I asked three governnment departments for the briefings, etc. produced for and after this meeting.

The title of my post was “Conservatives’ secret meeting with Calgary’s oil and gas sector”. Many of you objected to my characterization of this meeting as “secret” and some of you, judging by your comments, wondered what all the fuss was about.

The Prime Minister’s Director of Communications, Sandra Buckler, was also among those who wondered if I hadn’t veered a little too far away from the truth. Here’s a lightly edited excerpt of a message she sent me today:

We made no secret of consultations with industry.

We have and will continue to talk to industry leaders about the environment because it will take everyone's participation to make a difference.

The government has been involved in consultations with all sectors of the Canadian industrial economy since early last summer.

These consultations have been conducted by bureaucrats and by ministers.

The consultations have involved a free exchange of views on all aspects of the government’s environmental agenda.

While the consutations have not been held in public, there has been no secret about the fact they have taken place.

There have been consultations with [environment non-governmental organizations] as well.

The results of all of these meetings will inform the decisions which will ultimately be made by the government as to the regulation of both GHGs and air pollutants.

I believe your blog is misleading – the conspiracy tone doesn't match up with the truth.

I’m always pleased to hear from Sandra but, as this my house, so to speak, allow me a rebuttal:

The meeting in September was not publicized ahead of the fact by any government official. When we got wind of the meeting, I called or wrote government officials who were unable to confirm the meeting. CTV and several organizations, through a little luck and hard work, tracked down the whereabouts of the meeting. A meeting that is not publicized ahead of time is, by definition, secret.

After the fact,  none of the minsters involved would answer any basic questions about the meeting: Who was there? What did you talk about? Why did you have this meeting? So far as I know, none of the ministers have ever spoken in any detail about that meeting and, as we still do not know who the attendees were (the records I received only list the inviteees), there is much we still don’t know about this meeting. In other words, it’s secret.

The ‘records’ I received contain several sections that were blacked out, i.e., they are “secret” and I am not permitted to view them.

Now, many, including Sandra, suggest it is not unreasonable to meet with those about to affected by new federal regulations. That may be true but we’re not arguing about that point, we’re arguing about the appropriateness of labelling such meetings secret. Clearly, the meetings were secret in the sense that none of the participants indicated ahead of time that such meetings were taking place.  The mere fact that no one tried to hide their existence after the fact doesn’t make them any less secret. The participants of that meeting remain secret. We know only who was invited; not who showed up. We have no minutes of the meeting, only the talking points for one of the ministers. We do not know why the Minister of Indian Affairs attended a meeting. Clearly the subject area seemed to be suitable for the Ministers of Environment and Natural  Resources. But why was Jim Prentice’s attendance required? I can guess but, as I’m a reporter, I’d rather deal  in the facts.

I would also point out that one of the reasons Conservatives are overhauling the lobbyists registration system is to make the system more ‘transparent’ or “less secret”. One of the ways the Conservatives plan to do this is by asking lobbyists to declare who it is in government that they meet with. Would it not make sense that it should also go the other way? If cabinet ministers ask to meet with key industry players, should there not be increased transparency or ‘less secrecy’ of that process?

I look forward to your comments …

Conservatives' secret meeting with Calgary's oil and gas sector

On September 28, Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn, and then Environment Minister Rona Ambrose held a secret closed-door meeting with the country’s most powerful oil-and-gas executives. The next day, I filed an Access to Information request with the appropriate federal  government departments to get “memos, e-mail messages, telephone logs, etc.” and other records held by the government that related to those meetings.

Some of those records were recently released to me and here’s some of the excerpts:

  • The purpose of the meeting was to give oil and gas executives “an advance briefing” on the Conservatives Clean Air Act, which was not unveiled by Ambrose until after Thanksgiving break, more than two weeks later. Ambrose led the meeting with the oil and gas execs, running through a PowerPoint slide deck laying out the government’s plan.
  • At all times throughout the document, the bureaucrats advising Lunn talk about intensity-based targets and not absolute caps. Environmental activists argue that Canada should, like the rest of the signatories to the Kyoto Protocol set absolute targets and not simply reduce the ‘per-barrel’ amount of pollution.
  • The government wanted to give industry leaders a heads-up on their plans “to provide clarity to industry and help avoid stranded investments.”
  • Oil and gas executives were told that the goverment’s environmental regulations would
    • “incorporate flexible compliance mechanisms, including self-supporting market mechanisms that are not reliant up on taxpayer dollars.”
    • …[provide] industry the flexibility to choose the most cost-effective way to meet the emissions targets.
  • Ambrose outlined the consultation timelines:
    • By Spring 2007 – Set down guiding principles for the regulatory process and the approach to target-setting
    • By end of 2008 – Detailed consultations on sector-specific targets and timelines with pre-publication of the first sectoral regulations in Canada Gazette Part I
    • By 2010 – Proposed regulations published in Canada Gazette Part II and start consultations on the next set of draft regulations.
  • “A core group of Ministers would like to meet directly with CEOs on a regular basis. Ministerial direction will guide overall consultation processes.”

We don’t yet have the list of those who attended the meeting but we do have the list of the 28 who were invited. I think it would be fair to assume that, given the importance of the regulations to their various businesses, the invited CEOs probably attended or, at the every least, sent a very senior person in their organization to attend in their place. Here’s a partial list:

  • Harold Kvisle, Trans Canada Corp.
  • Patrick Daniel, Enbridge Inc.
  • Randy Eresman, Encana Corp.
  • Clive Mather, Shell Canada
  • Rick George, Suncor Energy
  • Jim Carter, Syncrude Canada
  • Tim Hearn, Imperial Oil
  • Ron Brenneman, Petro-Canada
  • Charlie Fischer, Nexen
  • John Lau, Husky Energy
  • William Andrew, Penn West Energy Trust
  • Brent Smolik, Conoco Philips Canada
  • Doug Haughey, Duke Energy Gas Transmission
  • Steve Snyder, TransAlta
  • Murray Edwards, Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.

 

 

Tags:

Pro-Conrad Black site was a hoax

Editor and Publisher – the magazine about the magazine and newspaper industry — reports today that:

Supportlordblack.com — a Web site supposedly supporting deposed newspaper mogul Conrad Black with “symbolic” pledges of financial support and an “On-to-Chicago Caravan” for the opening of his federal racketeering trial next week — is a hoax created by the Canadian satirical magazine Frank, the current issue reveals.

The site was the subject of an online column in E&P last week that suggested the site could be satire. “They're kidding, right?” the column asked. But it nonetheless concluded after an e-mail interview with its “creator” — one “Alastair Smith,” a 32-year-old with a vague position in Toronto's financial markets — that it was a serious undertaking by people under the thrall of Ayn Rand.

“…We were kidding,” Frank Editor Michael Bate, signing himself “aka Alastair Smith” said in an e-mail to E&P. “As Lord Black is one of the few satiric assets we have left in this frozen backwater, we pray for his safe return.” … [Read the rest]

The Web site supportlordblack.com is still up — click on the letters section to see who wrote in supporting Black. Frank magazine, like many media outlets this week, features Black prominently in its latest issue.

The ties that bind: Conservatives and the ADQ

Canadian Press reporter Alex Panetta does a nice job sketching out the links between the federal Conservative Party and the Action démocratique du Québec .

[Philippe] Gervais was the Tories' deputy campaign manager in 2006, helped run [ADQ Leader Mario] Dumont's tour in 2003 and served a similar function with [Liberal Party of Quebec leader Jean] Charest in the 1998 provincial campaign.

He says the federal Tories harbour no bias for either of the non-separatist parties.

“I think Mr. Harper has had a very good relationship with the Liberal government, and also has a good one with Mr. Dumont,” he said.

“Is there a preference there? I don't think so. It's more of a hands-off approach and let Quebecers decide what they want to do. I guess the only one they don't want is the PQ.”

This renewed attention comes as Charest begins to focus his attacks on Dumont, rather than PQ leader Andre Boisclair.

Quebec Premier Jean Charest went on the offensive against the Action démocratique du Québec yesterday, calling it a “party of one” and demanding that one of its candidates resign for criticizing pay equity and the annual commemoration for the 14 female victims of the École Polytechnique massacre.

It was the clearest indication so far that the province's two major political parties are worried the traditional third party, which is surging in public opinion polls, could steal critical votes in the March 26 election.

 

Tags: ,