Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 6th, 2017

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you, Mr. Rankin.

Once again I have a ruling. Bill C-58 creates a new part 2 in the Access to Information Act for specific entities, creating two distinct regimes. The amendment seeks to import into part 1 entities for which part 2 is created. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 766: "An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill."

In the opinion of the chair, having two distinct regimes for distinct entities is a fundamental principle of the bill. I therefore rule the amendment inadmissible.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Chair, I don't understand why, if the government could have chosen to put this in part 1, they chose to put it in part 2. We get boiler plate routine disclosure from offices like the Prime Minister's Office, not what people might request, not like journalists and others who told us about the sponsorship scandal precisely because they could apply and seek records might request. Simply putting it in part 2 therefore seems to me to be a way of end running the requirement.

I don't see why it is beyond the scope or principle of the act to move something from part 2 to part 1. With respect, I disagree with the chair's ruling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Just so you know what the procedure is, if the ruling of the chair is disagreed with, the committee will vote on whether to sustain the ruling of the chair. A simple majority of committee will decide whether or not it's sustained again or passed.

Is that what you wish, Mr. Rankin?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

That is correct. I would ask for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

The question is whether the chair's ruling should be sustained.

(Ruling of the chair sustained)

(Clause 4 agreed to)

(On clause 5)

Mr. Erskine-Smith, on the amendment to clause 5.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I'll move this, but frankly it's not the most important thing. We did hear some testimony in relation to Info Source and the importance of keeping Info Source.

This amendment would keep a digital version of that, given we heard testimony that it's antiquated and the written version is unused. I don't want to place too much emphasis on this.

I will move this for debate, frankly. I don't think this is the solution to access to information necessarily, but given that we had it drafted and submitted it, we might as well have a conversation about it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

We'll open it up for debate, then.

Mr. Rankin.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I would support the amendment. I think it's the right thing to do.

It was shocking that Info Source, which has been a valuable source for so many years to Canadians, was thrown in the garbage can through this bill. To bring it back in a digital form makes eminent sense.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Okay. We'll move to a vote on the amendment, then, if that's all the comments we have.

Okay, it's a tie.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

It's only Info Source.

[An hon. member]

It's not a tie. He can't vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

That's correct. Mr. Deltell doesn't have a vote on committee.

Thanks, Mr. Deltell. Nice try.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The amendment fails.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I expected as much.

(Clause 5 agreed to)

(On clause 6)

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

On the second amendment, LIB-2, Mr. Erskine-Smith.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I won't be moving that one. I prefer that my colleagues—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

We have a Liberal amendment. Who will choose to move that amendment?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I'm not moving it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Okay, thanks everybody.

We have the next amendment from the NDP.

Mr. Rankin.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Chair, this is NDP-4.

The objective of this is to take out the requirements that this bill would impose upon requesters to identify the specific subject matter of their request, the type of record, and the period for which the record pertains. Obviously, as in the words of the commissioner, it is one of the most regressive amendments imaginable. Currently people have the ability to apply for information that they want, and in sufficient detail to let an experienced employee identify the record, with reasonable effort, who has a duty to assist individuals.

This amendment would take us back to where we've been for the last 30-plus years and away from a world where you have to know what you want before you look for it.

I point out once again, Chair, the testimony to this committee by our Information Commissioner, that the sponsorship scandal would never have been identified if this section were in place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you, Mr. Rankin.

Is there debate?

Yes, Mr. Erskine-Smith.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Can I put a question to the folks at the desk?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Yes.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

My colleague Mr. Saini, I think has an important amendment to proposed section 6.1 that I look forward to supporting.

If new paragraph 6.1(1)(a) is removed, that perhaps resolves some concern that we've heard. If that is removed, my question is this. In relation to proposed clause 6, which we're dealing with now, I understand already in the act it says that the request shall be made in writing. I understand if it were not made in writing, the department could refuse to process that request.

That being the case, what's the difference between that requirement and the requirement “shall set out the following information”: (a), (b), (c). If (a), (b), (c) are not met, isn't it the same thing as an oral request and the department will simply be able to decline it? If not, maybe you could clear up that ambiguity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Mr. Erskine-Smith, who are you asking specifically? Is it anybody in the group?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Yes, whoever might answer my question.