Evidence of meeting #77 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 clause.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, I'm certainly happy if counsel has any advice on this, but our understanding on NDP-31 was a simple—you can call it simple or not, but shifting a burden about seeking judicial review, whether it was on the institutions themselves, as we're seeking it to be, and not on the requesters themselves, which is a burden on the Canadian who's trying to seek the information from government. I wasn't made aware of any testimony that said that would be a legal problem. It's an onus question, whom do you want to put the burden and the onus on. We thought it was appropriate with the institution denying the information as opposed to the person seeking it.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I don't know if anyone has any advice or interpretation.
Ms. Naylor?
4:20 p.m.
Ruth Naylor Executive Director, Information and Privacy Policy Division, Chief Information Officer Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat
Bill C-58 currently puts the burden on the government institution.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
But we saw clause 24 as not allowing that and that the amendment we sought to make would clarify that. Are you reading it differently?
4:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Information and Privacy Policy Division, Chief Information Officer Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat
We're taking a look at it.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay. If that's what Bill C-58 overarchingly seeks to do, then this is what our attempted amendment clarifies, unless we have the amendment wrong, which sometimes happens.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
I will call the meeting back to order.
Ms. Naylor, have you had a chance to sort things out?
4:25 p.m.
Executive Director, Information and Privacy Policy Division, Chief Information Officer Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat
Yes.
4:25 p.m.
Executive Director, Information and Privacy Policy Division, Chief Information Officer Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat
Our understanding of the effect of this amendment would be to delete a reference to the Privacy Commissioner's right of review in the section that describes burdens of proof in relation to the Privacy Commissioner or third parties' rights of review. It's related to the previous discussion around NDP-28, which would have removed the Privacy Commissioner's right of review. This would be consequential to that, to remove a subsequent reference to the right of review, if that had been deleted. Is that clear?
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Just to clarify, Ms. Naylor, are you suggesting that this is the piece that hangs with the other section in right of review, just in its application to the Privacy Commissioner?
4:25 p.m.
Executive Director, Information and Privacy Policy Division, Chief Information Officer Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat
That's correct. It makes sure that if the previous amendment had been approved/supported, the appropriate consequential amendment would have been made as well.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay, thank you for the clarification.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
Are there any comments or debate?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 24 agreed to)
There are no amendments from clauses 25 to 30. We can do these in a block if you wish. This isn't our first rodeo. We need unanimous consent to deal with clauses 25 to 30 in a block.
4:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
(Clauses 25 to 30 inclusive agreed to)
LIB-8 was dealt with under LIB-7.
(On Clause 31)
We have LIB-8.1.
Mr. Picard.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
It was my understanding that this was consequential to LIB-7. Therefore, if LIB-7 was accepted then this was—
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
That was in reference to LIB-8, the one that I just mentioned. This is LIB-8.1.