Evidence of meeting #25 for Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We're now going to the Liberal amendment on page 131, L-19 which is consequential to L-20.1, page 139, which is clause 166.
We have Mr. Owen. Please go ahead, sir.
Did we make a mistake, Ms. Jennings?
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
It's on page 139.1, Mr. Owen.
So we're going to go to page 131?
It's L-19, from Ms. Jennings.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Yes, I've got it.
Can we start with L-20.1 first? L-20.1 is removing--
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
That's clause 166.
Okay, to add to the confusion, Ms. Jennings, with L-20.1, there is a line conflict with BQ-28 from Mr. Sauvageau. I'll repeat that: regarding L-20.1, there's a line conflict with BQ-28.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
In which case, I would prefer to start with my amendment L-19 on page 131.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I'm sure all the members here recall when the representatives of the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology came before this committee. They made what I believe to be an eloquent case to ensure that their confidential and proprietary applicant information, external viewers assessments, proprietary methodology, etc., remained confidential. They recommended that the committee adopt an amendment to clause 150 immediately following proposed section 20.2. I understand that an amendment from Mr. Martin has just been adopted as proposed section 20.3, so o the number here would simply change, but it would read as follows:
The head of the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology shall refuse to disclose a record requested under this Act that contains information—including facts, data, opinions, external assessments and comments—obtained or created by the Foundation in relation to applicants, applications for funding, eligible projects and eligible recipients.
I don't want to repeat the entire brief and testimony of the representatives of the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology. As I said, it was quite eloquent, and it convinced me, and that's why I put forward this amendment to clause 150. I hope it will have the support of our colleagues here.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
I would like to ask Mr. Wild whether, among the witnesses we heard, for example, from the Business Development Bank of Canada, Export Development Canada, Genome Canada, the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation and others, some would have liked to be excluded.
In all due respect to Mrs. Jennings, this is another case of a piecemeal approach. We just excluded the National Arts Centre, and we included the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology. If five or six other agencies appeared before this committee and asked for the same treatment, why should we not grant their request?
4:50 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
I certainly can't answer the question of why a particular crown corporation or foundation that appeared before the committee hasn't been offered some kind of an exemption by a member of the committee through an amendment.
In terms of who has appeared and asked for some form of amendment, certainly there were crown corporations that appeared in support of the amendments within Bill C-2 now. The Export Development Corporation was one of those, as was the Public Sector Pension Investment Board. Canada Post also appeared before the committee and asked for a host of other amendments, none of which has been moved by any member of the committee that I can see. As far as the foundations go, I believe there were three foundations that appeared.
Again, this is the only amendment that appears before the committee. I'm really not in a position to answer why that is.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
I can give a partial answer. First, several foundations could not appear before this committee because our schedule was pretty full. Also, these foundations may not have the lobbying capacity to be able to tell members of Parliament that they want to be exempted from Bill C-2. This is another reason why we will oppose amendment L-12.
We do not want a piecemeal approach to this, and we think all these foundations and agencies should have been examined so as to decide which ones are included and which ones are not. I have no grudge against the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology. But I will vote against amendment L-19.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I just want to add one piece. Sustainable Development Technology Canada was clear that there are organizations dealing with small and medium-sized enterprises. Bill C-2 recognizes the types of difficulties that can arise with organizations that deal with those kinds of small and medium-sized enterprises and offers exemptions similar to the ones already available, for instance, under Bill C-2 to EDC, the Export Development Corporation, to protect the third-party confidential information it handles. The exemption that exists under the Access to Information Act has already been in place for a considerable time for the Business Development Bank.
I believe this would provide that kind of exemption, and the exemptions have already been created under Bill C-2 for other crown corporations, or already exist for other crown corporations, under the existing Access to Information Act. I believe it's quite important that we ensure that Sustainable Development Technology Canada be in a position to ensure, for instance, that the external reviewers, the name of the reviewer, and the information within the assessment that expresses opinions or relates to competitive information is protected. My reading of the current Access to Information Act, and certainly their reading of it, is that it does not provide that protection.
If Sustainable Development Technology Canada cannot provide confidentiality assurances to its reviewers, there won't be anyone to review the applications and the projects. That's really important. No one's going to want to be a reviewer because then they could be open to liability. That's one example.
The other example is the fact that under the current Access to Information Act, yes, it provides exemptions relating to disclosure of third-party information; however, today's reality is that the courts have been using the test of economic interest worthy of protection. The problem with that is the majority of enterprises or third parties that Sustainable Development Technology Canada deals with are budding enterprises that have not existed long enough and their intellectual property has not been developed sufficiently so that a court would find there's an economic interest worthy of protection. That causes a major problem. That then makes it difficult to attract investors, the angel capitalists, the venture capitalists, etc.
So my amendment seeks to ensure that the kind of work SDTC has been doing will continue to be able to be conducted, will continue to be profitable, and will continue to be a positive thing for our economic society, for our small and medium-sized businesses.
I will stop there, Chair.
