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.
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
NDP-10.1 proposes to amend the availability of information concerning government institutions under the Access to Information Act. House of Commons Procedure and Practice states at page 654:
...an amendment is inadmissible if it amends a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act unless it is being specifically amended by a clause of the bill.
Since section 5 of the Access to Information Act is not being amended by Bill C-2, it is inadmissible to propose such an amendment. Therefore, NDP-10.1 is inadmissible.
(On clause 164)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We will now go to the amendments for clause 164.
A point of order, Mr. Lukiwski.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I appreciate your last ruling, on the inadmissibility of NDP-10.1, but I would like to hear a comment, if I may, from the technical experts. I believe there may be some conflict with--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I've ruled it out of order. Why are you proceeding with it? It's “gone-zo”. Unless someone wants to challenge the chair, we're moving on, Mr. Lukiwski.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I'm sorry, sir, but I've ruled it inadmissible.
We're going to turn to page 135.3 for an amendment to clause 164. It's government amendment G-41.1.
Conservative
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Chairman, if it's in order, I would seek to move amendment NDP-18.2.
This amendment calls for a report of expenses for all ministries and departments, in the interest of expanding what information is subject to the access to information law. This is part of a theme we've introduced in this suite of amendments put forward by the NDP.
If I had the time, I would find the amendment and actually speak to it directly....
Oh, here it is.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Perhaps you could pause for a minute, Mr. Martin. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page.
I understood that we were doing NDP-18.2. I think you're on another topic.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Ah, yes; I was referring to my notes of 18.1, Mr. Chairman, where we'd had a false start.
I'll carry on, then, and move NDP-18.2, which would amend clause 164 by adding, after line 20 on page 118 of Bill C-2, the following:
(2) Subsection 77(1) of the Act is amended by striking out the word “and” at the end of paragraph (g), by adding the word “and” at the end of paragraph (h) and by adding the following after paragraph (h):
(i) prescribing criteria for adding a body or office to Schedule I.
That's a very complicated way of saying something very simple. This is a method for adding to the list in schedule I in terms of what agencies, etc., would be listed. There should be some way of adding to and subtracting from that list. This, I believe, talks about establishing criteria by which we would add to the bodies or offices listed in schedule I.
Conservative
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
That's one for the good guys.
Oops, I didn't realize my mike was on.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
You're on the air, Mr. Martin.
We now go back to clause 143.
Just to repeat what I said before, we're going to put the question on clause 143, and its results will be applied to consequential clauses 144 to 147--excluding clause 146--and clause 164.
(Clause 143 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 144 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 145 agreed to)
(Clause 147 agreed to)
(Clause 164 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 161)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
On page 133 we have Liberal amendment L-20.
Mr. Owen or Ms. Jennings.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Amendment withdrawn.
(Clause 161 agreed to on division)
(On clause 146)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Sorry to jump around, but that's the way it is.
On page 122 we have NDP amendment 11, a line conflict with L-16 on page 123.
Mr. Martin.
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
All right. NDP-11 is gone.
Now we go to NDP-11.1, on page 122.1.
Mr. Martin.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an updated version along the same lines.
I'd like to move NDP-11.1, found on page 122.1 of our book, amending clause 146 by--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Excuse me just a second. I want to confer with the clerk about L-16.
I'm sorry, Mr. Martin.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is an important amendment dealing with the Access to Information Act--NDP-11.1. It says:
The Auditor General of Canada shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains information that was obtained or created by or on behalf of the Auditor General of Canada in the course of an investigation, examination or audit conducted by or under the authority of the Auditor General of Canada.
It's an important addition to give comfort to those whose information may be held by the Auditor General in the context of her work that otherwise would have been protected or not covered under the Access to Information Act. I will ask the technical advisers to expand further.
It also speaks to records relating to investigations and audits by the following heads of government institutions who shall also refuse to disclose any record: the Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada, the Information Commissioner, and the Privacy Commissioner.
No one should read into this that we are trying to say that the Official Languages Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, and the Privacy Commissioner shouldn't be subject to the Access to Information Act. In virtually every other capacity, their offices are in fact subject to access to information.
We all remember the scandal in the Privacy Commissioner's office. Believe me, the NDP would never try to put an amendment forward that would contemplate some special protection from the ordinary operations of the Privacy Commissioner, but some of the information held by the Privacy Commissioner in the context of an investigation shouldn't be released, and the privacy of that information should be upheld.
In the final clause, it says:
However, the heads of the government institutions mentioned in subsection (2) may not refuse to disclose any record 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 is complete and all related proceedings, if any, are final.
In other words, this is an exclusion, but it's not a permanent and absolute exclusion. It may be after the fact that information can be released, once the investigation and all related proceedings have gone their natural course; I suppose that could be an appeal to the courts that may drag on and on.
I realize this is a sort of pluralistic clause and that it touches on a few different things, but we believe it's necessary to the integrity of the access to information provisions we're seeking to achieve.
