Evidence of meeting #37 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was move.
A video is available from Parliament.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
We're happy to support it, but I think it's a major shift throughout the document.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Yes. If one thinks that a policy choice was made for the 48 hours, I can understand its not being within the idea of the amendment, but we will support it.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Sure, you can.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
We will now move on to amendment PV-43.
Now we are into the one we were talking about before.
Ms. May.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
You're going to get a sense of déjà vu all over again.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, to be jumping ahead, but since you've already heard some of it, I'll just refresh everybody's memory.
This deals with a recommendation from the Chief Electoral Officer to clarify what is meant by “person or group”, to ensure that the language would be inclusive of political parties. It is part of a general attempt to cover live calls and to ensure that, as between proposed new sections 348.08 and 348.09, we have consistency in language.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Okay. Thank you.
Are there comments on amendment PV-43?
Mr. Scott.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
I note simply that this is a discrepancy that I think I drew attention to in the House. I would be happy to vote for it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
All right. Then we'll go to the question.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
The amendment Mr. Scott brought in before we broke for question period, NDP-38.1—
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I'm just wondering when we're getting to that. I hope I didn't miss it.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Yes, we're fine any time. I just wanted the chair to put it in his rotation someplace.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
If it's okay with you, Mr. Lukiwski, we'll finish clause 76. At the end of it, we'll go to it, just so we keep all clauses together, or try to do that.
On NDP-41, go.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
NDP-41, which I will move, is to insert a new section after proposed section 348.11 on page 43.
Just to set this up, it follows the new provision that says the CRTC “is responsible for establishing and maintaining a registry, to be known as the Voter Contact Registry, in which all documents” listed elsewhere are to be put.
What we're wanting to add is that the CRTC:
shall keep all documents and information filed in the Voter Contact Registry for at least seven years after the day on which they are provided.
The rationale is that when we asked the CRTC how long documents would be kept, it turned out to be a guesstimate. But the guesstimate at the time was seven years. Subsequently we heard that it actually might vary according to different government policies. We were referred to a government policy link on how long different kinds of documents are kept.
This is in the spirit of both the length of time that was being suggested, five years and 10 years in general, and the fact that the CRTC can be the ultimate guarantor of making sure that documents that are filed with it do not disappear. It's a government agency with the capacity. There will be absolutely no problem along the lines of what the minister was bringing up in the House about different organizations with different capacities and lifespans not being able to keep documents.
Even when some of the actors who have to keep documents at the moment only for one year, and that will change in some context to three years with the government's amendment, if any of them go bust or don't do a proper job, or whatever, then we really need to know that any of that information that has been passed on will at least be available in the CRTC's hands.
On some level, all of the discussions—including stuff I have been pushing hard on—about the one-year retention period being such a problem because it's so short, can be solved by knowing that whatever the CRTC receives, they have to keep for seven years. That's all this is about.
It's actually, I think, an extremely important amendment, but not one that I think in any way goes against the spirit of what this section is supposed to be all about, the voter contact registry's purpose. It would change nothing about how the whole system works other than insurance that documents won't disappear.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Yes, I have just a question. Maybe our officials can answer this or perhaps they can't. What is the practice now of the CRTC in terms of document retention, i.e., if they retain certain documents for 3, 5, or 10 years, after that period of time what happens? Are they just destroyed? Are they archived? Do you know what happens?
Senior Officer and Counsel, Privy Council Office
When the representatives from the CRTC appeared before the committee, I remember them saying that in accordance with their retention agreement with Library and Archives, they retain them for seven years. But I'm not sure what value these documents would have and whether they would be maintained in the archives afterwards.
Director, Democratic Reform, Privy Council Office
The only thing I would add is that under the government information retention management policy, there would be obligations in terms of publishing information banks, and that sort of thing, with the retention period played out according to types of information. Maybe that's what was being referred to.
But I don't know what the retention period is. They did say seven years.
