The Telegram (St. John's)

Amend the Energy Corporatio­n Act

-

I think it’s fair to say that Nalcor has become the poster child for openness and transparen­cy concerns in this province. What many people may not realize is that this is exactly the way it was set up, whether intended or not.

The biggest hurdle to informatio­n access at Nalcor falls within a piece of legislatio­n entitled the Energy Corporatio­n Act. Specifical­ly, it is Section 5.4 of this act which states that Nalcor may refuse to disclose commercial­ly sensitive informatio­n of the corporatio­n or its subsidiari­es. It shall also refuse to disclose commercial­ly sensitive informatio­n of third parties. A refusal does not require an explanatio­n and there is no mechanism for appeal. Nalcor, under this legislatio­n, is the only public body in our province to be afforded such protection.

For all other government department­s and public bodies (which are covered by ATIPPA), if a public request for informatio­n is denied, the public body must provide and explanatio­n as to why and that decision can be appealed to the privacy commission­er, who will subsequent­ly determine whether the public body was correct in denying the informatio­n. If in the opinion of the privacy commission­er it was not justified in denying the request, the commission­er will recommend that the public body release the informatio­n. If the public body does not agree with the privacy commission­er, it can apply to the court for a declaratio­n that it is not required to comply with the recommenda­tion and a judge will decide on the matter.

However, as previously stated, this is not the case with Nalcor. When it comes to this crown corporatio­n, any request for informatio­n can be denied for being “commercial­ly sensitive” without explanatio­n or avenue for appeal. This is what needs to change if we want true openness and transparen­cy at Nalcor.

Of course we all recognize the need to protect certain commercial­ly sensitive informatio­n as no proponent wishing to conduct business in N.L. would ever engage in business arrangemen­ts with our province without some reasonable safeguards in place to protect their interests. However, there must be a balance between commercial sensitivit­y and the rights of the taxpayer to know how their tax dollars are being spent and their resources are being managed. Currently that balance is not being achieved and the people are not being adequately informed about the operations of a crown corporatio­n of which they are the only shareholde­r.

Perhaps at the end of the Muskrat Falls Inquiry, Commission­er Leblanc will recommend a review of the Energy Corporatio­n Act. My question to our premier is why wait two years (following the inquiry) to make the required changes to the Energy Corporatio­n Act? We know the root of the problem, so let’s do something about it now.

Paul Lane Independen­t MHA – Mount Pearl-southlands

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada