Finance Committee on May 30th, 2017

[Glenn Campbell]

This is a provision that exists in other legislation, including the EDC and BDC acts, where initially they had a five-year review and then it went to a ten-year review. Of course, we know this exists under the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act.

When it's the next available time in Parliament to have that review, it becomes a procedural issue before the review is brought forward to Parliament.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

In my mind, I'm trying to establish when the next review would be. It would be in 2022, probably. Most likely it would not be in this Parliament, but the 43rd Parliament, somewhere in the third year almost.

[Glenn Campbell]

Generally speaking, it would be five years from the end of this June, if this bill were to pass. Then the responsible minister would work out when to bring the review forward in advance of that time, to ensure that a review is undertaken prior to the date that would now be established in legislation. The government would have to bring forward a review prior to the expiry of that five years.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

When the plans are tabled, we would always have the right to question here at the finance committee if we desired, or to question the finance minister.

We would always have that level of accountability.

[Glenn Campbell]

You would.

And let me remind you, if I may, that at two points during the year, the corporate plan and the annual report are documents that are tabled in Parliament on a rolling basis. That provides an opportunity to potentially discuss the operations of the Canada infrastructure bank.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you both.

That ends discussion on NDP-28.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

I'd like a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Madam Clerk.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1)

Turning to NDP-29, this motion is considered moved by Mr. Aubin, who is with the NDP on the transport committee, I believe.

On a technical point here, if NDP-29 is adopted, the question cannot be put, due to line conflicts with NDP-30 and PV-19.

Mr. Dusseault, the floor is yours, if you want to say anything on it.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

Mr. Ouellette, you're speaking to NDP-29.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes. I'd like to direct this question to Mr. Campbell.

Are there other examples of crown corporations that have similar legislation to what is found in 28(1) to (2)(a), (b), (c), and (d)?

[Glenn Campbell]

Yes.

Mr. Chair, the narrow exemption that's included in this legislation parallels the similar exemptions that exist under Export Development Canada and Business Development Canada, two other crown corporations. It is specifically targeted to protect the counterparty or client information of either a financial participant or even another order of government. It's their information that is being protected, not the project and not the activity of the bank. It's precisely to give assurance to those counterparties that their information—voluntarily put forward to the government—is not released.

On the latter point, the Information Commissioner would still have jurisdiction to oversee how access to information and related provisions are applied in the corporation.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm also wondering if you could give a bit more information on what Mr. Dusseault mentioned, that another section also deals with confidential or privileged information. This proposed section lays out that privileged information “may be communicated, disclosed or made available in the following circumstances”. How do these two proposed sections then work together?

[Shawn Grover]

Proposed subsection 28(1) discusses what information is privileged, and then proposed subsection 28(2) provides certain exemptions from that. For example, if there's consent of the other party, then that information can be disclosed. That's how they work together.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Monsieur Dusseault, what was the other section you mentioned?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

I was also talking about section 31, about the offence.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Section 31?

It talks about a person who contravenes section 28 and 29.

It says: “…is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction…”

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

I wonder whether there are measures similar to section 31 in other legislation about other crown corporations.

[Shawn Grover]

There are equivalent provisions in the EDC and BDC acts for violations under the privileged information provision. They would also be offences under those acts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Dusseault asked your question for you. You two work well together.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Dusseault. I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is that it with regard to NDP-29?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

I have another question. If my amendment is adopted, would it still be possible for the infrastructure bank to refuse access to information requests because of the exceptions that already exist for information of an economic, commercial and strategic nature?

[Glenn Campbell]

The Access to Information Act applies. Therefore, the various exemptions under the existing act will apply, depending on the circumstance. The bank will be charged with fulfilling the obligations under that act, whatever applies, or the exemptions. This is one additional very narrow exemption that just provides additional comp to the counterparties who have to put forward information to the bank in a very narrow way. The bank management and the board will be responsible for adhering to the legislation.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

So what we are really saying is that subsection 28(1) keeps BlackRock and its private investors satisfied.