Evidence of meeting #76 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was section.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Olivier Champagne  Legislative Clerk, House of Commons
Ruth Naylor  Executive Director, Information and Privacy Policy Division, Chief Information Officer Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

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.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

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.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

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?

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

That is correct. I would ask for that.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

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.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

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.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer

We'll open it up for debate, then.

Mr. Rankin.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

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.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

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.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

It's only Info Source.

4:15 p.m.

An hon. member

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

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

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.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

I expected as much.

(Clause 5 agreed to)

(On clause 6)

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer

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

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

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

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer

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

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

I'm not moving it.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer

Okay, thanks everybody.

We have the next amendment from the NDP.

Mr. Rankin.

4:20 p.m.

NDP

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.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer

Thank you, Mr. Rankin.

Is there debate?

Yes, Mr. Erskine-Smith.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

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

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer

Yes.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

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.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer

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

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

Yes, whoever might answer my question.