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

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Sir, you still have the floor, but try to restrain yourself.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm using an enormous amount of restraint, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I know you are, sir. As I've said, I know your passion towards this topic.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

If I sound frustrated, let's consider the users of a clause like this and the beneficiaries of a clause like this. Quite often it's journalists, quite often it's opposition parties who use access to information requests to shine a light on the inner workings of the mysteries of this massive behemoth we call government.

There was a deliberate effort in recent years—and I won't say by which political party, but I can say it's within the time I've been here—to squirrel money away into foundations and into institutions being created: scholarship funds, innovation foundations, all kinds of.... Billions and billions of dollars that would no longer be before the public accounts committee were hived off from the normal access and the normal scrutiny that the system contemplates, or that the system has built in the oversight for. There's been a lack of oversight of, I'd say, one-third of the government's economic activity.

What we're seeking to do by this amendment is chisel away at that, incrementally chip away at it, so that ideally, someday in the fullness of time, all of government's activities will be in the full light of day. We're very concerned that now not enough is.

And there are very few friends of open government in the senior ranks of the bureaucracy. We are pushing an enormous rock up an enormous hill as we fight this battle for open government, for freedom of information. And I hope people focus on that word “freedom”; it's a fundamental freedom and a fundamental right to know what people are doing with our money on our behalf.

So it's reasonable to take the narrow definition of government institutions that are subject to access to information and expand it. I would like to expand it further, and we intend to do that at another committee, hopefully with your help, Mr. Chairman, as you will be a vice-chairman of the ethics committee, which will be dealing with the fuller picture of access to information laws.

But for now, we have a bird in the hand, which is worth two in the bush. We have an opportunity before us; we have a window of opportunity to do something meaningful and significant. Before noon, even before lunch, we will have changed the world if we pass this amendment. And that's not bad; we will have done a day's work already. We could go home satisfied that we've done something good for Canadians and not just twiddled our thumbs and argued about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin in any part of Canada.

So I'm adamant that...well, I suppose I appeal to my colleagues in the opposition benches: do not take any hostility or resentment out towards me on this important initiative. If you feel that way, we can meet outside and we can argue. But don't jeopardize something good because of petty partisan politics. Let's do something for Canadians before the end of this session of this 39th Parliament.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Monsieur Sauvageau, Ms. Jennings, and then Mr. Murphy.

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Martin, your speech was eloquent, grandiloquent, fantastic and credible. However, there's a minor problem. You gave it in the wrong place at the wrong time, since, in the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, the members of the New Democratic Party voted against the Bloc Québécois motion that the committee immediately review that essential feature of democracy, the Access to Information Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We've got a point of order.

Mr. Poilievre.

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

Every single time somebody felt their feelings were hurt by Mr. Martin there was a point of order, which you ruled in order, to silence his speech and change the topic of his words. Now when the reverse is happening I don't see any such intervention. I'm asking, if you're going to have this rule, that it be evenly applied to all members of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Poilievre is correct, Mr. Sauvageau. You're going to have to refrain from referring to another vote in another place.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

On page 111 of my document, line 14, the title is "Access to Information Act".

Mr. Chairman, may I ask you whether the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics exists? If it exists, may we talk about it? Would it be unrealistic on my part to think that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics can review the Access to Information Act?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I said you could not refer to a vote in that committee. You can talk about the committee, but you can't talk about another member and how they voted or how they didn't vote.

This is starting to get difficult.

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

All right. I won't talk about the other committee. However, I'd like to say that, in a corridor of the House of Commons, a member of the fourth party might have made that speech to his colleague sitting on another committee to direct his conscience in a different direction and to ensure that the consequences were different.

However, at a meeting of this committee, a member of the opposition who was neither from the Liberal Party nor from the Bloc Québécois voted not to hear witnesses or so helped to limit the schedule for the hearing of witnesses that we were unable to hear—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You've gone too far. I'm going to move on if you keep doing this.

On a point of order, Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Chair, you've got a handle on it, but I was going to say the member opposite, whom I respect very much, is trying to circumvent the rules that you have established by trying to get too cute by half in trying not to refer directly to Mr. Martin, but by referring to a member of the opposition not of the Bloc or of the Liberals. It's obvious who he's talking about.

I thought the intent of your ruling, sir, was to make sure we stop this baiting. If Mr. Sauvageau or any member of the opposition does not want to support this clause, or wishes to support the clause, then let's deal with the clause and vote on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Sauvageau, this is the last warning. I'm going to move on if you continue on with this.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

For the purpose of passing the motion, I think it would have been wise to hear the representatives of the Bank of Canada, the Blue Water Bridge Authority, the Canada Council for the Arts, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Canada Development Investment Corporation, the Canada Lands Corporation and the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which our agenda did not allow us to do. That's all; I'm finished.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Jennings, you have the floor.

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

I appreciate the sentiments Mr. Martin expressed as they pertain to the objective of his amendment. The difficulty I personally have is that I actually do believe that if one is going to change the rules that affect an entity, whether it be a crown corporation or an individual, those parties should be heard, and we should actively seek out their views on a potential amendment.

I applaud the government in the sense that notwithstanding that we did not necessarily hear from all of the witnesses that we, the Liberals, wished to hear from, I believe we heard from a sufficiently broad base so we got a fairly decent understanding—not as extensive or as profound as I would have liked—from the various parties who were going to be affected by Bill C-2 in its current written stage on how it was going to affect them. Those who felt it was going to affect them negatively actually made recommendations and proposed amendments.

Therefore, given that the aim of the amendment NDP-9.2 is to change the regime--of which certain entities who will be affected by it were not consulted or did not have an opportunity to come before the committee--I do believe this should be in the domain of the access to information, privacy and ethics committee, in its review subsequent to the tabling of the government's paper on the reform of access to information.

Therefore I won't be supporting amendment NDP-9.2.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Chair, thank you.

Mr. Martin makes some good points. In that an Irishman named Martin founded the SPCA, I wonder if Mr. Martin is getting his Irish up a bit today.

I don't know if it's permissible to ask him a question, but in the interests of understanding this and seeing why it's important, we heard from a number of witnesses that protecting proprietary information, protecting competitive advantages for people who seek government funding, is paramount for many of the groups we speak of. With your permission, Mr. Chair—it's your ruling—I would like to hear from Mr. Martin what protection there may be remaining to make sure someone who's in the innovation field isn't disadvantaged on a world scale by having an ATI application expose some of his trade secrets or staffing levels. These things are very important to our economy and our well-being.

I don't know if that's permissible.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

There are no more speakers. If Mr. Martin wishes to respond he can.

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I will briefly, and thank you for that very legitimate, serious question.

I am quite comfortable in the research we've done that the Information Commissioner has within his discretion the right to withhold the release of any information that may be commercially sensitive. There are a number of checks and balances built into the Access to Information Act to deal with that very thing, and there are further complete exclusions built into Bill C-2 for places that are particularly sensitive, such as the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, where they may be seeking large institutional investors who may be scared away if they think that, even 20 years down the road, information normally considered privileged in the corporate world may be made public because of their relationship with this quasi-public institution.

The points you raise are valid, sir, but they are already accommodated within the discretion of the Information Commissioner.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Are we ready to vote?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])