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

[Joe Wild]

Not that I'm aware of. Again, what this is trying to do is...where there is information that the Chief Electoral Officer is currently required to make public under the Canada Elections Act, this exemption cannot be used as a basis not to provide that information required under section 541 of the Canada Elections Act.

It's not to say that we're.... This gets a little complicated.

The only point is that—

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

It does not correspond to what is being said. It is the opposite.

[Joe Wild]

No, it says “Subject to section 541”. So subject to that section, “the Chief Electoral Officer shall refuse to disclose” information obtained or created in the course of an investigation—but this is subject to section 541. So the Chief Electoral Officer still has to respect the requirements under section 541, in terms of rendering or making public the information required by that section.

So we can't use the exemption to avoid the obligation under section 541 of the Canada Elections Act. That's what this is saying.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

But under section 541, he has to disclose documents of an investigation. But under clause 147, he cannot disclose these documents, except those mentioned in section 541.

My question is just this. If there is an investigation, will we get these documents or not after 15 or 20 years?

[Joe Wild]

Proposed section 16.3 does not affect the disclosure requirement under section 541. If the documents are required to be disclosed under section 541, they would still be disclosed under that section.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Let me try to be more specific. Suppose there is a referendum in Quebec and the chief electoral officer investigates. In 15 years from now, will section 541 apply, or will it be clause 147?

[Joe Wild]

We haven't touched section 541 of the Canada Elections Act. Section 541 is specifically talking about examinations or reviews, and it has certain requirements under it. Proposed section 16.3 is simply saying that section 541 is there, and without affecting section 541, records obtained or created pursuant to an investigation, an examination, or a review are not required to be disclosed under the Access to Information Act. But that in no way affects whatever disclosure requirement there may be for examination or reviews under section 541.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I listened carefully, and I think I understood what you said.

If, after an investigation, I want to get documents, I would not ask them from the information commissioner, because I could not get them under clause 147, but I could make my request to the chief electoral officer. Under section 541, he should disclose these documents to me.

Are we prohibiting or not the disclosure of certain documents? If so, which documents? I am sorry, I do not understand quickly.

[Joe Wild]

If documents are required to be disclosed by, or if there are documents that are disclosable, put it that way, under section 541 of the Canada Elections Act—

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I understand that.

[Joe Wild]

No, no, I'm trying to assist as best I can, Mr. Chairman. If the documents are disclosable under section 541 of the Canada Elections Act, this exemption does not apply to those documents.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Obviously. The bottom line is that if section 541 applies, he will not disclose the documents. You said earlier that section 541 applied to examinations and reviews.

Suppose there is an investigation and it does not deal with an examination or review, so that it is not under section 541. Under the Access to Information Act, documents created by this investigation could not be made available to the general public, to a journalist, a member of Parliament or minister 25 years from now. Is that right?

[Joe Wild]

Correct.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

That is it. But this is supposed to be a legislation on transparency. That is why I will vote against this amendment. I wanted to make sure. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Poilievre.

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

I'm still not sure Mr. Sauvageau understands. What this amendment actually does is it removes the possibility that this clause could be misinterpreted to shield information from disclosure.

Without this amendment, proposed section 16.3 could potentially lead one to believe that the Chief Electoral Officer has the right to refuse to disclose any record requested.

What this amendment does is it gives precision to the fact that if those documents were accessible under section 541 of the Canada Elections Act, the Chief Electoral Officer would not be allowed to use this section in the Accountability Act as an excuse for not revealing them.

I think Mr. Sauvageau is speaking as though this amendment seeks to further constrain the flow of information, when in fact it does exactly the opposite.

If it is truly his view that we need to have in place the maximum transparency to protect against an Elections Canada conspiracy and a Quebec referendum, he ought to be anxiously supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Poilievre, but I understood just fine. If I am mistaken, I would rather be corrected — verbally and not physically, of course — by Mr. Wild and not by you. Anyway, Mr. Wild said “Subject to section 541”. I would be interested in knowing what applies subject to section 541. Is it everything or just a small part? He told us this clause applies to examinations and reviews.

Suppose an investigation is undertaken tomorrow morning and there are records containing information that was obtained or created by or on behalf of a person who conducts an examination at the office of the chief electoral officer. For the sake of this investigation, a report should be made public. But the public would not be able to access these documents until the end of times. I am mistaken?

[Joe Wild]

Documents related to an investigation are covered by the exemption and would not be accessible under the Access to Information Act.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Merci beaucoup.

So I understand, Pierre.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Poilievre.

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

It's not in the physical sense, but I do intend to correct Mr. Sauvageau once again.

The section that he refers to here, 16.3, does not actually create a new exemption. This information is not accessible under ATI right now. So if Mr. Sauvageau or anyone else went through ATI and tried to access this information today, they would not find it.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Sauvageau, Mr. Poilievre has the floor.

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

This section, to which he has taken such inexplicable offence, actually codifies a very simple principle, that documents that are created during an investigation are not to be accessed through the investigator; those documents are to be accessed elsewhere. This section does not create any new exemption or close off accessibility to any information that would otherwise be available to the public. So in fact he's wrong.

If he objects for some reason to the fact that documents under proposed section 16.3...documents that the “Chief Electoral Officer shall refuse to disclose”--if he objects to that proposed section being there and he really feels so strongly, I'm curious as to why he has taken this sudden stand now and why he has not chosen to introduce an amendment to remove that entire section.

If he really believes that this section is some nefarious attempt to cover up an Elections Canada conspiracy related to a Quebec referendum, he very easily could have prevented such a conspiracy by putting forward an amendment and making proper argumentation for its passage.

In the absence of that amendment, I suggest he vote for our amendment, which clarifies

the provision in question.

Thank you.