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

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

I'd like to call the meeting to order. This is the Legislative Committee on Bill C-2, meeting number 24, which is being televised. Our orders of the day are Bill C-2, An Act providing for conflict of interest rules, restrictions on election financing and measures respecting administrative transparency, oversight and accountability.

We are on clause-by-clause.

(On clause 89)

We have a subamendment of Mr. Poilievre to NDP 5.1. The subamendment has been distributed to members of the committee.

Mr. Poilievre.

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

Yes. The subamendment, which we've submitted, seeks to sharpen up some of the wording in the existing amendment. I don't believe the changes are particularly substantive, but we believe the subamendment does present better wording than the original NDP 5.1, and I'd invite any commentary from our panel of experts.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Wild.

[Joe Wild, Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice]

I think that's correct in terms of the subamendment. It's primarily meant as a tightening of language, and the substantive part of it is that it transforms a “may not refuse”, which is discretionary, to “shall not refuse”, which is non-discretionary, and that's probably the key important change that's happening through the subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Debate?

Mr. Martin, debate?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Just let me say simply, although I wasn't the one who was here last night to initiate amendment NDP 5.1, that I would welcome this amendment as a friendly amendment. I think any time you go from “may” to “shall” it's for greater certainty regarding what the intent of the clause is. We want the Commissioner of Lobbying to disclose in these circumstances. We don't want it to be an “if” or a “may” situation.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Today I believe we're studying a number of amendments that concern the Access to Information Act. Consequently, I repeat what I said yesterday: we of the Bloc Québécois would have liked the reform of the Access to Information Act to be included in Bill C-2, as the Conservatives said during the election campaign.

That was not the government's wish, as we saw when it tabled Bill C-2. It decided to table a proposal for study by another committee. We don't want to adopt certain amendments concerning the Access to Information Act on a piecemeal basis. We think this should have been included in Bill C-2. If that isn't the case, we should let another committee study the reform of the Access to Information Act.

Furthermore, the Conservatives are putting on the pressure to have Bill C-2 passed very quickly. They have told us that in the committee and emphasized it through the media, since it was announced in the newspaper today. Consequently, I think we should only study the elements included in Bill C-2 and not touch the Access to Information Act.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That's not necessary, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Martin, I'm sorry.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'd just like to call the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes.

Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I'd simply like to state, on behalf of my Liberal colleagues, that we share the same view as the Bloc on this issue. Given that the government in its wisdom has decided not to follow through on its electoral commitment in its accountability bill to bring forth amendments to the Access to Information Act and has instead decided to table a paper and have the access to information, privacy and ethics committee examine this in detail before going forth with a comprehensive overhaul of the Access to Information Act, we do not believe it's appropriate for this committee to be dealing piece by piece with various amendments that touch and amend the Access to Information Act.

So we will not be supporting this amendment.

(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Is there any debate on the amendment?

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

If I can say briefly, I disagree with my colleagues from the Liberals and the Bloc in that, yes, we would rather have comprehensive sweeping changes to the Access to Information Act, but that's not what is on the table. We're the Legislative Committee on Bill C-2 and we're duty bound to deal with the clauses of Bill C-2 in order to make this the best bill it can possibly be. Those of us who embrace open government, those of us who are fans of freedom of information, are doing all that we can to move amendments to Bill C-2 in order to touch on as many of the key points of access to information as may exist.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Do you want to keep on topic, Mr. Martin?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Well, we got off to a bad start with statements by both of the other parties.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You know, you're right. I've tried to make it clear, as chair, that I really am opposed to members from all sides bating and teasing each other. That's what's been going on, and that's what has started today.

Please keep on topic, Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

We're pleased that there will be a Commissioner of Lobbying. We want the activities of the Commissioner of Lobbying to be as transparent as other officers of Parliament.

I think there's a valid reason to restrict the access to some of the activities and some of the records held by the Commissioner of Lobbying. Obviously when you talk about access and freedom of information, you have to offset and balance that with the right to privacy of individuals and certain information. Once the investigation is concluded, that information should be made public. We would urge that it would be.

This is a subject I'm sure will be monitored carefully. If there is to be a five-year statutory review of this act, one of the considerations will be how clauses like this are working where the word “may” rather than “shall” is in fact used--what has been the experience. That's all we can judge it on. That will be the measure of whether it's a success or a failure.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chairman, someone said that our mandate was to make the best bill possible. However, that same person, and I'm not talking about Snoopy or Winnie the Pooh, was reported in today's edition of Le Droit as saying the following about the bill's passage:

I think it's feasible. Our committee will be sitting 43 hours this week. We're compressing things—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We are on the amendment. Please stick to it.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'm getting there.

If it doesn't work, it will be due to the bad faith of some people. We're told—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Did you not hear me? Please stick to the amendment. I don't want to go there. I don't want to go where you're going. I'm really getting upset about the shots that are being taken by all sides. Don't get the chair in a cranky mood.

Proceed.

Mr. Owen.