Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 6th, 2017

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

It's four o'clock, and it's time to get going.

Welcome, everybody, to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Today, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, September 27, 2017, we're considering Bill C-58, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

If there are any questions that need to be answered or if we have questions as a committee, we have with us today from the Department of Justice, Sarah Geh, director and counsel general. From the Treasury Board Secretariat, we have Ruth Naylor, and we have Riri Shen from the Privy Council Office. Thanks for coming.

I've been asked by each party for a one-minute opening comment.

Go ahead, starting with Mr. Kent.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Colleagues may have noticed that the official opposition presented no amendments. Just let me say at the beginning that after hearing the testimony of the President of the Treasury Board, a myriad of witnesses, and, most importantly, the commissioner herself, the official opposition has decided that Bill C-58 is beyond redemption.

That being said, hope springs eternal, and we will enthusiastically participate in the consideration of amendments. We know the President of the Treasury Board has indicated he may roll back a couple of the elements that the Information Commissioner has termed “regressive”. We look forward to participating.

Finally, it's interesting to note that Bill C-58 is composed of 58 pages of text. The Information Commissioner's condemnation of Bill C-58 amounted to 48 pages of text, and we have before us now amendments taking up 75 pages of text. I wanted to make clear that this is the reason we in the official opposition believe that despite the exercise before us, BIll C-58 is beyond redemption. The status quo would be preferred.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Next up we have MP Rankin.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

The objective that the NDP has today is to collaborate in good faith to see if we can improve this legislation. Like my friend, Mr. Kent, there are those who say the bill is beyond redemption, but in hope springs eternal, we believe we can make a difference. We have proposed 36 amendments. I've been very outspoken in my criticism of this bill because I think it's very important we get it right. I was here 30-some years ago, when the bill was initially introduced, lobbying on behalf of reform for the Canadian Bar Association.

I was very, very shaken by what our Information Commissioner said about this bill. She specifically testified here that having the status quo would be better than the bill before us. I can understand the skepticism of my friend Mr. Kent. However, we're here to try to roll up our sleeves and make it better, and in that spirit we look forward to the discussions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you, Mr. Rankin. It couldn't have been 30 years ago. You're so young.

Mr. Erskine-Smith, would you like an opportunity? If not, we'll get right into it.

I'd like to start off by suggesting that we'll allow one minute per amendment.

We'll start off with, of course, clause 1.

We're opening the floor for debate, folks. Shall clause 1 carry?

(Clause 1 agreed to)

Shall clause 2 carry? Is there any debate? I don't want to encourage you to talk, but we should take advantage of this as much as we can.

(Clause 2 agreed to)

(On clause 3)

Regarding the first amendment, we go to the NDP.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

The objective of this is to be consistent with the recommendations made by this committee in May 2016 to extend the coverage of the legislation to deal with a plethora of quasi-autonomous, non-governmental organizations, subsidiary crown corporations, namely those entities for which the government has 50% or more but that are not covered by the existing definition. That is the objective of the amendment before you. I think you'll see that it's consistent with the ethics committee's recommendations 1 and 2 of May 2016. Chair, I think it's consistent with the principle and scope of Bill C-58 in that this is an amendment to the Access to Information Act. We're simply trying to extend its coverage as this committee has recommended in the past.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Before we get started here, I'm going to explain my role a little bit more, so you can understand what the chair's role here is in this particular clause-by-clause consideration.

We've had legislative clerks give us advice on what they deem inadmissible or admissible. Their suggestions and rulings have been put before me. It's still up to the committee to decide. I'm going to go through that first, and then we'll open it up for debate, and we'll go from there.

It's a ruling, so you can challenge it.

Maybe Mr. Champagne could give a brief explanation for the committee.

[Olivier Champagne, Legislative Clerk, House of Commons]

Basically, there are many rules in terms of procedural admissibility for amendments. The main rules that we use are principle, scope, and the financial prerogative of the crown.

If an amendment is considered to go beyond the scope of the bill or against its principle, it will be ruled inadmissible. If an amendment would incur new spending for the government that is not already provided for, it will be ruled inadmissible.

When an amendment tries to amend a section of the parent act, in this case the Access to Information Act, that is not currently amended by the bill, it is frequently ruled inadmissible, because it's, in fact, beyond the scope of the bill.

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

When you say frequently, why would it not always be? What's the idea behind that?

[Olivier Champagne]

Sometimes the amendment would be consequential to another amendment, or it could be a correction to the existing act that wasn't envisioned in the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Is that clear for everybody?

Mr. Rankin.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Am I to understand there's an interpretation of amendment NDP-1, or was that just a general statement?

[Olivier Champagne]

Yes, that was a general statement, but there's a ruling prepared for the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

For each amendment, yes, there is.

I will read it for this particular amendment.

The definition of “government institution” in the Access to Information Act is not modified by Bill C-58. The amendment seeks to expand the definition by relaxing the conditions required for corporations to fall under the act. 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, the scope of the bill is limited by the current definition of “government institution”. I therefore rule the amendment inadmissible.

Mr. Rankin.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

That is, as expressed by yourself, your opinion as chair, so I'm not able to challenge it, except to say that we're here to amend a statute called the Access to Information Act. It seems to me that the key to that statute is the scope of that statute.

The principle of openness is simply being extended to other agencies controlled by the Government of Canada, so it would seem to me that should be within the scope of our deliberations. The government chose to bring Bill C-58 in to amend the act. This is simply in the spirit of that, to extend it to cover other government institutions. I would submit that it is within the scope, but of course, I defer to your ruling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Mr. Erskine-Smith.

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

This is just a clarification question. The definition section is being amended. It's specific language that is being amended within the definition section. It's only in relation to the specific words that are being redefined that we could move amendments on. Is that your interpretation?

[Olivier Champagne]

Not necessarily, it could be an interpretation. But in that case, my understanding is that the impact of changing that definition, the way it's proposed now, would be quite significant. My advice to the chair was that it would go beyond the scope of the bill.

We have to look at the scope of the bill, and not the scope of the act, and my interpretation is that such a change was not envisioned and not comprised in the scope of the bill itself.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Mr. Baylis.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

If I understand, you're saying this change would expand the scope dramatically, and therefore, it's not admissible within the aspects of this particular bill. Is that correct?

[Olivier Champagne]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

The procedure will be to move to the next amendment, and not vote on that one, because it's inadmissible.

I don't know if you have the same amendments before you, but the next amendment has been moved by Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to be mindful of time, but I do need to put on the record that I would have the right to put this motion in amendment forward at report stage of the bill before all of Parliament if not for a motion passed by this committee identical to the motion passed in all committees, a motion that I continue to protest. It is not an opportunity for me; it reduces my rights. We have had times when I have clause-by-clause consideration in different committees at the same time, and it's very difficult to be in two places at once. I would just put the protest on the record and move quickly to say that the purpose of my amendment, and it's enumerated as PV-1, Parti vert-1. I think when I first started presenting amendments people were worried if they had G for the Green Party, it would look like G for government. PV-1 is a motion similar to the one put forward by the New Democrats to extend the definition of “department” to include the minister's office. I have not made the effort to extend it to Prime Minister's Office as that would fall outside the scope of the act, but I believe this is inside the scope.

Thank you.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Just as an identifier, the amendment that just failed is identical to the next amendment, NDP-2. There's really no need to vote on that. Are there any comments?

Shall clause 3 carry?

(Clause 3 agreed to)

(On clause 4)

Next up is Mr. Rankin.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

NDP-3 is an amendment that would propose to extend the coverage to the Prime Minister's Office and parliamentary entities. The primary thrust of it is proposed section 3.3, which would define the Prime Minister's Office in the same manner as if it were a government institution. I think this is consistent with the clear promise made by the Liberal Party when they were running for office, and this is simply to give credence to their promise through legislation.