Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on June 13th, 2006

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

I would just like to make the observation--and I will try not to step on your toes at all, Mr. Chair--that with respect to the access to information provisions set forward in the bill, the Information Commissioner has called them retrograde and dangerous. I think we should ignore those words at our peril.

This is why I support my colleague Ms. Jennings, who is suggesting that given what we've heard from the expert in the country on this issue, we must be very careful not to take a step backward or do anything that might endanger the access to information and privacy regime until it can be done comprehensively. That's why we will be voting against the amendments that relate to the Access to Information Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to Mr. Owen, I profoundly disagree with him. I can't imagine how, as a well-respected scholar in these matters, he would pass up an opportunity to implement meaningful improvements to the access to information regime in this country.

Yes, it's only a fraction of what we would like to see, but for heaven's sakes, half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. We have negotiated and in good faith put forward amendments that will give some improvements...

I beg your pardon, Mr. Sauvageau?

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I think the same thing about Bill C-11.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Order. The chair is here.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

So here we have an opportunity to open government somewhat to areas where the light of day never shone, and to vote down these amendments now.... We don't know if the other committee will be able to make any meaningful Access to Information Act changes—in the ethics committee—so this is all we have. This is within reach; it's within our grasp. We'd be irresponsible not to take it now, to pass it over in the anticipation that there'll be a more comprehensive review in another committee at another time. Tomorrow may never come in terms of true access to information reform within this Parliament.

And if we don't do it in a minority Parliament, you know full well, Mr. Owen, we're not going to do it in a majority Parliament, because your government is a graphic illustration of how majority governments view reform of access to information laws.

So I urge you to reconsider, my other opposition colleagues. There will be a half dozen or more amendments dealing with access to information coming up, if they haven't already. We should support those. In the interests of better government, we should support them.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Owen.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Well, Mr. Chair, I'm glad to hear Mr. Martin speak in such positive terms about the ability of the opposition parties here to make this a better bill, including in terms of access to information.

Regrettably, our experience for the last three weeks has been that the NDP has consistently voted with the government on almost every progressive amendment we've tried to put forward. What I don't want is for us to put forward our amendments, which are progressive, have the NDP vote against them, and therefore find we have dealt with this only in a way that reinforces the retrograde and dangerous aspects the commissioner warned us about.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I want to return to the Commissioner of Lobbying. You two are having a great old time here, but I'd like to return to the Commissioner of Lobbying, if I could, please.

Mr. Owen.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Fine. Thank you.

Chair, could I have a brief recess? With a brief recess, we may be able to move this together more quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You may. Thank you, sir.

We'll have a brief break.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay, we're going to reconvene.

We have before us amendment NDP-5.1. Is there any further debate? If not, we're going to call the vote.

I'll be reasonable, but we have to keep moving here. I'll wait for a minute. I know what you're going to do; we'll wait for a minute, but go and find her.

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Perhaps in the meantime, if I may take a moment, I should clear the record. Maybe it'll help this vote; this is why this point is relevant.

Sometimes I vote against opposition motions simply because I have my own similar motion coming up in 15 minutes that I like a little bit better. It's not as though I'm against progressive ideas to improve Bill C-2, as Mr. Owen would have this public forum believe. In fact, often we have very similar amendments coming down the pike that are subtly different and that we would rather see implemented.

I just wanted to use this time to clear that up, for the record.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

We're going to vote on amendment NDP-5.1.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ladies and gentlemen, we will return to clause 65.

To remind you, the vote on clause 65 applies to clauses 66 to 88 and clauses 89 to 98.

(Clause 65 agreed to)

(Clauses 66 to 88 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 89 to 98 inclusive agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ladies and gentlemen, if you could turn to new clause 88.1, it's on page 69.

The vote on new clause 88.1 will apply to new clause 88.2 and to the amendment G-30 to clause 83, although clause 83 will be voted on separately.

So that you're following along with the program, clause 83 is on page 67 of the binders. It is government amendment. It is G-32 on page 69.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

The purpose of this amendment is to provide the technical underpinnings of the amendment that we all voted on yesterday. Yesterday we voted as a committee in favour of consistently applying a new five-year freeze on lobbying. That motion passed through this committee.

Amendment G-32 seeks to provide the technical underpinnings for that previous amendment. In essence, I respectfully suggest that those who supported yesterday's amendment would logically support today's amendment.

I invite any technical commentary from our panel of experts.

[Joe Wild]

The effect of new clause 88.1 is to retrospectively cover members of the transition team, if the Prime Minister chooses to so designate them, with respect to the various bans and employment restrictions in the lobbying act.

As new subclause 88.1(2) of the amendment makes clear, it's not a retroactive application in that it would only cover the carrying out of activities after the law comes into force, as opposed to making illegal anything that was done by any of those members between the time they left the transition team and the time when this law comes into force.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Debate, Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I want to make sure I understand Mr. Wild. The difference between “retroactively” and “retrospectively”, is that what you were explaining by your last remark?

[Joe Wild]

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, the member wasn't here last night when I talked about the difference between the two at some length.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Actually, I think I understand it. I would say I understand the difference.

[Joe Wild]

Retroactive application does create legal issues. Retrospective application doesn't create the same types of legal issues at all. So this amendment was carefully crafted to ensure that it's not a retroactive application.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

If I may carry on then, Mr. Chair, do I still have the floor?