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

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I have a question for my NDP friend and colleague.

Why is it that the commissioner of lobbying and the chief electoral officer are not included in this provision? Why not have paragraphs (d) and (e)?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

The issues that have been brought to our attention arise in the context of the investigations by these particular officers of Parliament. It was felt that these were the offices that needed special mention and accommodation in the bill.

That's the only answer I can give my colleague.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

A significant part of Bill C-2 deals with the commissioner of lobbying, and another one deals with the chief electoral officer.

We do not oppose certain clauses out of bad faith, but because they are not clear and specific enough, and they were hastily drafted. Some commissioners were included at random and others have been left out. With a little more time to design this bill, both the commissioner of lobbying and chief electoral officer would have been included in this clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

For the speaking order, I have Ms. Jennings and then Mr. Poilievre and then Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I wonder if it would speed things along if we asked the technical advisers if those other offices are dealt with elsewhere in the act.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay, we'll do that.

[Joe Wild]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chief Electoral Officer is dealt with...it's on page 113 of C-2 in clause 147 amending section 16.3 of the Access to Information Act. The commissioner of lobbying was dealt with previously in section 89 of C-2, which created the exemption for the commissioner of lobbying. Later on in this part, part 3 of the bill, under the amendments dealing with the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, there are amendments for the Access to Information Act relating to the public sector integrity commissioner.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Jennings.

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

It's just a point of clarification, and I'm sure Mr. Wild will be able to provide it to me, through you, the chair.

In NDP amendment 11.1, am I to understand from reading it that it only pertains to the heads of government institutions that are actually mentioned there, i.e., the Auditor General of Canada, the Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada, the Information Commissioner, and the Privacy Commissioner, period?

[Joe Wild]

You're quite correct that reference to the following heads of government institutions means the head of those offices that are listed in (a), (b), and (c).

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Poilievre.

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

I'd like to propose a subamendment. It adds something to the third subsection of Mr. Martin's amendment. It reads as follows:

(3) However, the head of a government institution referred to in subsection (2) shall not refuse under that subsection to disclose any record that contains information that was created by them or on their behalf in the course of an investigation or audit conducted by them or under their authority once the investigation or audit and all related proceedings, if any, are finally concluded.

It's the same except that it becomes an obligation instead of a permissive authority.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Just so I understand, you've changed “may” to “shall”?

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

That's right.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I have Mr. Martin still. I have you on the list, sir.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

We now have a subamendment, and if I could just ask for clarification.... I'm not averse to the subamendment, and my initial insight is that it makes it stronger, but I am concerned that, as he read through it, there were quite a few differences in the paragraph. Was that just an oversight, or is your main intention to change “may” to “shall” to actually strengthen subsection (3)?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm going to ask you to read it again, and I'm going to ask you to bring it to the front so we can have a look at it.

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

It reads:

However, the head of a government institution referred to in subsection (2) shall not refuse under that subsection to disclose any record that contains information that was created by them or on their behalf in the course of an investigation or audit conducted by them or under their authority once the investigation or audit and all related proceedings, if any, are finally concluded.

So there are additional changes in addition to the change from---

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Could you bring it to the front to make sure we've got it?

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

Sure. While I'm doing that, I'll just ask the--when he's done his point of order, I still have the floor.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have a point of order, I'm sorry.

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

It may be just a translation problem. The wording that was read by Mr. Poilievre and the one I heard from the interpreter are the same as the one I have on this page in French. It has been written in advance. We do not need to copy it. I can hand you my page. It is the exact version in French. I can read it again to make sure I am not mistaken.

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

I will also read it in French.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I will read it, and you will realize it is the same thing we have in our documents.

It goes like this, “Toutefois, aucun des commissaires ne peut refuser de communiquer des documents--”