|
Summary
|
|
ORDER BACKGROUND: The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (the Ministry) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to information relating to certain funding proposals (the proposals) submitted to the Ministry under the Mine Technology Research Subprogram of the Northern Ontario Development Agreement (NODA), together with the Ministry's evaluations of the proposals. NODA is a joint undertaking of the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario, whose purpose is to encourage economic development and diversification in Northern Ontario by the development and implementation of strategies for sustainable development in tourism, forestry and minerals. A Joint Federal/Provincial Management Committee administers the programs operated under NODA. The Mining and Minerals Technology Program Technical Sub-Committee is responsible for administration of the funding program. The requester specifically sought access to the following proposals and corresponding evaluations: 05, 06, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 25, 27, 33, 34, 36, 37, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, and an unnumbered proposal submitted for the creation of the Canadian Abandoned Mine Agency. All proposals relate to mining and minerals technology. The Ministry provided access to records relating to proposal 22, which involved the requester, and denied access to all other responsive records, pursuant to sections 15(a) and 17(1) of the Act . The requester appealed the Ministry's decision. Mediation was not successful, and notice that an inquiry was being conducted to review the decision of the Ministry was sent to the appellant, the Ministry and the 14 companies and/or individuals who submitted the particular proposals identified by the appellant (the affected persons). Written representations were received from the Ministry and the appellant. Two affected persons involved with projects 06, 18, 27 and 37 agreed to the release of their proposals and evaluations, and a third affected person objected to the release of the proposal and evaluation relating to his project. None of the other affected persons responded to the Notice of Inquiry. ISSUES: The issues arising in this appeal are: A. Whether the discretionary exemption provided by section 15(a) of the Act applies to the records. B. Whether the mandatory exemption provided by section 17(1) of the Act applies to the records. C. If the answer to Issues A and/or B is yes, whether there is a compelling public interest in disclosure of the records that clearly outweighs the purpose of the exemption. SUBMISSIONS\CONCLUSIONS: ISSUE A: Whether the discretionary exemption provided by section 15(a) of the Act applies to the records. Section 15(a) of the Act states: A head may refuse to disclose a record where the disclosure could reasonably be expected to, prejudice the conduct of intergovernmental relations by the Government of Ontario or an institution; In order to qualify for exemption under section 15(a) the records must meet the following test: 1. The Ministry must demonstrate that disclosure of the records could give rise to an expectation of prejudice to the conduct of intergovernmental relations; and 2. The relations which it is claimed would be prejudiced must be intergovernmental, that is relations between the Ministry and another government or its agencies; and 3. The expectation that prejudice could arise as a result of disclosure must be reasonable. [Order 210] The Ministry submits that prejudice would result from the release of the information contained in the records. The Ministry's representations, referring to advice received from the Federal Government's co-chairperson of the Mining and Minerals Technology Program Technical Sub-Committee, state that: release of the information in the records would likely alienate the mining industry in general and discourage its participation in the Northern Ontario Development Agreement, and accordingly the records should not be disclosed. It was felt by [Ministry officials] that due to the very dominant role the federal government plays in this program, if we did not respect their wishes federal-provincial relationships in this area would be seriously prejudiced. In my view, the Ministry's representations, as well as the Federal Government's position focus on the possibility that release of the records would prejudice the relationship between the mining industry and both levels of government, not the relationship between the federal and provincial governments themselves. Accordingly, I find that the Ministry has failed to establish that an expectation of prejudice to the conduct of intergovernmental relations could reasonably be expected to result from disclosure of the records and, therefore,the records do not qualify for exemption under section 15(a) of the Act . ISSUE B: Whether the mandatory exemption provided for by section 17(1) of the Act applies to the records. Section 17(1) of the Act provides, in part: A head shall refuse to disclose a record that reveals a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations information, supplied in confidence implicitly or explicitly, where the disclosure could reasonably be expected to, (a) prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of a person, group of persons, or organization; (b) result in similar information no longer being supplied to the institution where it is in the public interest that similar information continue to be so supplied; (c) result in undue loss or gain to any person, group, committee or financial institution or agency; For a record to qualify for exemption under sections 17(1)(a), (b) and/or (c) the Ministry and/or the affected person resisting disclosure must satisfy each part of the following three-part test: 1. the record must reveal information that is a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations information; and 2. the information must have be
|