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

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Jennings, do you have a question?

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

I don't understand what Mr. Heiss has just said, so perhaps you could explain, because I don't have the Access to Information Act in front of me.

What does proposed section 18.1 actually do? What does proposed section 20.1 actually do? What does proposed section 20.2 actually do? What do these sections, which are being repeated in Bill C-2, actually do?

[Werner Heiss]

It's contained in the current bill, at the moment. Clause 149 provides for the amendment adding proposed section 18.1; and clause 150 provides for proposed section sections 20.1 and 20.2 as amendments to extend the act to the respective corporations.

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

And what do those sections actually do?

[Joe Wild]

Under the Access to Information Act, those sections create specific exemptions for certain types of information held by the crown corporations that are actually named in the proposed sections. There's a variety of them.

The coordinating amendment anticipates that if the access to information provisions are approved, proposed section 79.4, on page 95, which addresses the confidentiality requirements around the parliamentary budget officer, says those confidentiality requirements have a relationship to certain exemptions under the Access to Information Act.

So what this coordinating amendment is doing is saying the new exemptions that Bill C-2 is proposing would also go into this proposed section 79.4 so that those new exemptions would come into play with respect to the confidentiality requirements of the parliamentary budget officer.

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

Am I correct in thinking that in the reference, for instance, in proposed paragraph 119.1(1)(a), to “section 18.1, as enacted by section 149 of this Act”, “section 149” is a section of Bill C-2, which makes reference to section 18.1 of the Access to Information Act as it currently exists?

[Joe Wild]

No, clause 149 of Bill C-2 creates proposed section 18.1.

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

It creates.

[Joe Wild]

That's right.

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

So my question then is why are we dealing with amendment G-40 when it's predicated on clause 149 of Bill C-2 and clause 150 of Bill C-2 being carried by this committee and we haven't got there yet?

[Susan Baldwin, Procedural Clerk]

These coordinating amendments always coordinate far too much for comfort, to begin with.

The next thing is that if you look at the bottom part of that, at proposed section 79.4, that is clearly consequential to the budgetary officer. So we decided that if the committee didn't want to vote the whole thing together, then they could remove part of it and it would still be very much a consequential amendment to clause 119.

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

Okay, that was just Greek, Chinese, and Mandarin. It was everything but English, French, and Italian, which are the only three languages I understand.

Could you give that to me again? I'll try to concentrate even harder.

[Susan Baldwin]

Our reasoning was that proposed section 79.4 of the Parliament of Canada Act being replaced by the following at the end of this amendment has very much to do with the parliamentary budget officer. Our reasoning was that if part of the amendment had to so clearly do with the parliamentary budget officer, it was then probably consequential even though we were aware that there were other references.

These coordinating amendments always have a multiple reference. If the committee would prefer, we could vote on it separately, but it's not a matter of great moment.

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

Just to give you an example to make sure I have understood in fact, if the committee votes on the entire G-40 amendment as proposed and it is not carried, then it still has no impact on clauses 149 and 150, which we find further on in the act. Is that correct?

[Susan Baldwin]

It would only have an effect on their coming into force. That is it.

Is that right?

[Joe Wild]

If I could assist a little bit on that, what this section is really doing is saying if proposed sections 18.1, 20.1, and 20.2 are enacted, once they come into force you then take the proposed section 79.4 that's currently in the bill and replace it with this proposed section 79.4 that's proposed at the bottom of the page. That's what it's doing.

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

So if we adopt new clause 119.1, the G-40 amendment, and then come to clauses 149 and 150 of the bill--because we haven't been told that by adopting this it automatically means those two other clauses are adopted--and we defeat clauses 149 and 150, then what happens?

[Joe Wild]

The coordinating amendment, in my opinion, wouldn't have anything to--

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

Coordinate.

[Joe Wild]

--coordinate, because it's only if those clauses are enacted and once they are brought into force that proposed section 79.4 then gets replaced with what's in the coordinating amendment. So if they don't get enacted, then in my view there's nothing to coordinate with.

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

Thank you. I understand now. We can proceed to a vote if everyone else is prepared to.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're going to vote on clause 117, but before we do that we're going to take a five-minute break.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're going to call the meeting to order, we'll reconvene, and we're going to vote on clause 117. Is there any further debate on clause 117?

(Clause 117 agreed to)

(On clause 120)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We now move to clause 120, and it's on page 112 of the amendments. It's a Bloc Québécois proposed amendment, and it appears to be the same as L-13.4, and NDP-8.6.

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

It's the same thing; we want there to be concordance.