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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
I'll start from the beginning. It is proposed subsection 6.1(3): “In exercising discretion pursuant to 6.1(1), the Information Commissioner shall balance the reasons for non-disclosure against the public interest in the disclosure of any records.”
Mr. Baylis.
Liberal
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Sure.
Ms. May's one solution was to delete the part about the request being for such a large number of records. But if we're going to give the Information Commissioner discretion over this section.... That's a great thing, and I think it's a really important amendment that Mr. Saini moved. The only concern I would have with what was paragraph 6.1(1)(c) is that we're allowing for requests to be denied where there is such a large number of records that it would unreasonably interfere with the operations of government institutions, and I think we ought to put in writing that it's incumbent on the Information Commissioner, when doing a balancing act regarding what would interfere with government operations, to consider the public interest as well—for that and for any other decision to refuse.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
Mr. Rankin supports it.
All right. This is the amendment we're voting on.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Can we have a break before we vote? That's something I haven't thought about.
Conservative
Liberal
November 6th, 2017 / 4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
I bring the meeting back to order.
Mr. Baylis, you said you were ready.
I'll note for the committee that when I say two minutes, I actually mean two minutes. I'll be more disinclined to give breaks again if people say they are ready and they're not. That's just a little warning.
We'll proceed to the vote.
Mr. Baylis.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Before we proceed to the vote, I just want to explain that after having this break, I'm going to vote against this, because it's my understanding this will actually curtail the latitude of the Information Commissioner by being specific on what she must take into account, whereas she currently can take that and anything else she so chooses into account. I'll be voting against it for that reason.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Just because there's a statement that she must take take x into account does not mean she cannot take y and z into account.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
We'll move to the vote on the amendment.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 6 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 7)
Mr. Rankin, on amendment NDP-7.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Thanks, Chair.
This is a really simple one. Section 11 of the act requires people to pay a fee, a tollgate fee on the public's right to know, of $5. It's a tollgate fee which costs the government, by testimony, if it's a cheque, $55 to process. While it seems bizarre in terms of the economics, it should also be seen as an obstacle that doesn't exist in most provincial freedom of information laws.
The amount of recovery is miniscule in the grand scheme of things, and all it can be is yet another obstacle to people's right to know. I point out that recommendation 14 of this committee was entirely consistent with removing the fee. I'm just proposing this in order to implement this committee's own recommendation.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
There's another ruling from the chair.
Bill C-58 makes adjustments to section 11 of the Access to Information Act, which deals with fees. The amendment seeks to repeal section 11 of the act. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 766, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to in 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, Bill C-58 allows for modifications to the fees provisions of the act, but the scope and the principle of the bill don't go as far as to allow for a complete elimination of fees. I therefore rule the amendment inadmissible.
Liberal
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
In other words, if the government had chosen to say the fee is reduced from a to b, or expanded from a to b, that would be fine, but because it chose to be silent on something that has for 30 years been seen as an obstacle, it's not within the scope and principle of an access to information act. I find that hard to believe.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
We have another challenge to the ruling.
The question is, shall the decision of the chair be sustained?
(Ruling of the chair sustained)
Ms. May.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't find your ruling hard to believe, because that's why I proposed this amendment instead of the other one. I would love to eliminate all fees, but I was anticipating the ruling that you just made.
I've only suggested removing the additional payment in section 11, essentially eliminating subsection 11(2). I'd remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that the Liberal Party platform says, “We will make it easier for Canadians to access information by eliminating all fees, except for the initial $5 filing fee.” Even more wonderful, from our historical archives, is a private member's bill from 2014, Bill C-613. It was put forward by the member for Papineau, who said in his speech at the time that the act “would require that only the initial $5.00 request be paid by Canadians, with no additional fees added on later.”
We have the member for Papineau's private member's bill, and the pledge from the Liberal platform. It seems to me that subsection 11(2) is in error, and the effect of my amendment would be to get rid of it.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Not to take a lot time of the committee, but PV-7 has the same effect as PV-6 in eliminating the additional fee of $5.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 7 agreed to)
(Clause 8 agreed to)