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

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

I'll withdraw that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

All right.

We're now on amendment NDP-21.2, on page 162.1.

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I take it if I put it forward, you will....

[An hon. member]

Take a chance.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Are you moving it?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Yes, I am.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It's in order.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you.

This is what we've done before, in terms of strengthening the bill in scope and transparency. I won't read it all; people have it in front of them. The intent here is to take a look at how the bill is going to be exacted, be implemented, be understood.

When you look at what is in the amendment, you'll see that it's congruent with the philosophy of what we're trying to do here, and that is to strengthen transparency and the access to citizens of what accountability really is.

If you take a look at what we've asked before in this area, and take examples of ATI, this is consistent with what we've asked before.

I just wonder if the expert panel has any comments on this. I would welcome their input.

[Joe Wild]

The proposed motion, Mr. Chairman, does several things. It starts off, of course, by providing a broad coverage for the PSIC for documents that are obtained. Then it tailors the exemptions specific to the PSIC as well as those applying more generally to all heads of government institutions, because there's also the internal complaint mechanism within those institutions to provide limited coverage for materials that are created prior to or during an investigation. It also ensures that there is protection for the identities of persons who are involved in the disclosure process.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chairman, correct me if I'm off point. My question is for the officials who are advising us brilliantly. It concerns amendment NDP-21.2, and, if you will, BQ-31. If you'll allow me to explain briefly, you'll understand why.

Our intention is to ensure that the information concerning a disclosure is made public one year after the end of the investigation. Under the present wording of Bill C-2, a report would be prepared following an investigation by the disclosures commissioner, and that report can be kept secret on a shelf for ever.

I'd like to understand. To make that report public, is it simply preferable to adopt amendment NDP-21.2 or BQ-31?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The question should be asked if they're different, I think.

Mr. Wild.

[Joe Wild]

I think it's important, Mr. Chairman, to make sure the committee is aware that there is a requirement on the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner to report publicly at the conclusion of an investigation if the commissioner has determined that there has been wrongdoing. There is certainly a public reporting requirement on the commissioner.

In terms of distinctions between the motion proposed by amendment NDP-21.2 and the motion proposed by amendment BQ-31, there are a couple of questions to note about BQ-31.

I'm not sure if this was the intention or not, but as we read and analyzed it, it appeared that this particular amendment was creating an exemption for information obtained or created that would apply only during the year that follows the conclusion of the investigation, but not during the investigation. It has a bit of a temporal application that I think raises an issue, in that the protection on records obtained or created applies only for the year after the investigation is completed, as opposed to during the actual conduct of the investigation. That may be just an error in drafting, I'm not sure, but it's something to point out.

The other thing is that the NDP amendment is very specific about the nature of the timeframes in which the head of a government institution is protecting information.

That's an attempt to be helpful to the committee. There are some areas of distinction.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

If we don't adopt amendment BQ-31, would it be eternally impossible for the public to gain access to the internal audit reports and documents, for example?

Also, if we adopt it, the report would be made public at the end of the investigation, and the documents used to prepare the report would be made public one year after the report is tabled, rather than be inaccessible.

[Joe Wild]

The commissioner has to file his report within 60 days after the commissioner has concluded the investigation and determined there was a wrongdoing. That's the report part.

On the documents, the commissioner would not be required to disclose those documents. The documents could come out not through an access regime, but through the tribunal process or if there was a court challenge to a decision. But in the access regime, those documents would be protected.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Are you finished, Mr. Sauvageau?

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I had a question that came out of a response. Since we are doing a comparative analysis here, I'm just looking at the BQ-31. It talks about adding a new subsection 16(6). Correct me if I'm wrong here, but rather than having a prohibition against disclosure, it just seems to impose a delay; so the prohibition would apply only in the year that follows the conclusion of the investigation or decision.

I'm looking at this and thinking that the amendment could weaken the protection offered the whistle-blower, and that the person would have less because of that, because you're talking about delay, not a prohibition.

I just wanted your comments on that, just for a comparative analysis within that thread.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We'll vote on NDP-21.2.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

BQ-31, on page 163, is a Bloc Québécois amendment. We have had some discussion on it already.

Monsieur Sauvageau, you may proceed to move that. We have to move it before we vote on it.

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'm introducing it, but I don't have any questions, since the ones I intended to ask have been answered.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, sir.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We now move to amendments for clause 224.

Mr. Dewar, could you move NDP-21.3, please?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Yes, so moved. I think, just to quicken the pace here, instead of reading the whole thing, I'll give it to the committee to wrestle with, and perhaps to our expert panel for an opinion.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 225)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Now we go to the amendments for clause 225.

It's a Liberal-proposed amendment, L-24.

Mr. Owen.