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.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, we can clump them, if I can just ask a question before—
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
In regard to LIB-10.4, these carve out provisions for Prince Edward Island, Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. Is there any particular reason for this? The assumption I want to make is that the courts are so small that the entire jurisdiction is clumped together.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Yes, the north will be clumped as one, and then with respect to Prince Edward Island, the Court of Appeal and the Superior Court.
The numbers are too few, exactly.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
Is there any further debate on LIB-10.2, LIB-10.3, and LIB-10.4?
(Amendments negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll move to LIB-11. Who is speaking to LIB-11?
Mr. Erskine-Smith, go ahead.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
I'm not going to move LIB-12. I'm just going to stick with this.
We heard testimony from the judges association in relation to judicial independence, who should be the final arbiter of judicial independence, and that it should lie with the chief justice of the affected court and not with a member of the executive. I think that's correct, so I'm putting this forward.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
Is there any further debate on LIB-11?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Yes, LIB-11 was a stronger version of that.
Presumably, I was going to be the only vote for LIB-12 as well.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Don't assume.
(Clause 38 agreed to)
(Clauses 39 and 40 agreed to)
(On clause 41)
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I would like to move that clause 41 be amended by deleting line 26 on page 48, please.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I may have missed this one. Was this dropped recently as well?
It's very straightforward. Before we have a vote, my question is, what does that amendment do?
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
This is a consequential amendment related to the new subsection 11(1), which makes paragraph 41(v) redundant as the phrase “this act” has already been replaced by the phrase “this part” in section 26 of the act.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
Is there any further debate on LIB-12.1?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 41 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 42 and 43 agreed to)
(On clause 44)
Now we move to LIB-13.
Mr. Erskine-Smith, go ahead.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
This was a recommendation from the Information Commissioner.
We had a fairly lengthy discussion here a little while ago about reasonableness and different standards. There is an important onus shift that is happening with the new order-making power.
Frankly, I do think it's important, and it should be in the purview of the Information Commissioner to administer complaints as efficiently as possible, and in doing so, there shouldn't be a dual track system where some complaints are not subject to the new order-making power and new complaints are.
I don't think there's any particular downside in ensuring she can use one model for all complaints with which she's currently dealing. That's the rationale.