Yes, thank you.
We are a little further into the bill, a few lines from the five-year review we have just been discussing. The legislation is very strict about protected information. However, it does not have to be so restrictive, given that possible exemptions may be authorized under the Access to Information Act.
My amendment seeks to remove subsection 28(1) completely, simply leaving section 28. The cases described in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection 28(2), refer to situations where communicating information is possible.
The amendment also seeks to amend a technical aspect. This is about the word “offence” in section 31. We are deleting section 28. In terms of offences under privacy of information legislation, the maximum fine is $10,000 and the maximum term of imprisonment is six months.
There can actually be protected information. That said, the Access to information Act already protects information of a commercial, economic or strategic nature, or information about national security. Information of that kind can already be protected by claiming an exception under the Access to Information Act. In my view, the provisions in section 28, which are even more restrictive than those in the Access to Information Act, have no reason to be there.
The amendment seeks to protect the public interest and its access to data, as well as to documentation from this bank. It might specifically be about the reasons why one project was chosen over another. That is what normally happens in a public forum. Our lawmakers, having been elected by the people, must stand by their decisions and justify why one project was chosen over another. Currently, it is hardly likely that the public will be able to have access to the reasons that led the lawmakers to choose one project over another.
In my opinion, exceptions to the Access to Information Act would allow greater flexibility in the information that could be provided to Canadians through an access to information request.
I am hoping for support from my colleagues. We must make sure that this crown corporation is comparable to other crown corporations. Given that CBC is in competition with private broadcasters, it is not the best of examples in terms of protecting its confidential, economic and commercial information. Of course the crown corporation is assured of protection, as is the case for other crown corporations such as VIA Rail and Canada Post.
I feel that the infrastructure bank could be subject to the same rules. It is not necessary to apply a rule that is so strict, so harsh. The public must not be unable to access anything at all about this bank. Otherwise, everything would be completely opaque and the public would have no access to the tiniest piece of information. That is inappropriate, given that $35 billion of public money are invested in it.