CC2 Committee Meeting

The Legislative Committee on Bill C-2 met in a televised session at 6:54 p.m. this day, in Room 237-C, Centre Block, the Chair, David Tilson, presiding.

The Committee resumed its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

The witnesses answered questions.

On Clause 166,

The Committee resumed consideration of the subamendment of Pierre Poilievre, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the proposed text with the following:

“Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada

Fondation Asie-Pacifique du Canada

Canada Foundation for Innovation

Fondation canadienne pour l'innovation

Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology

Fondation du Canada pour l'appui technologique au développement durable

Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation

Fondation canadienne des bourses d'études du millénaire

The Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation

La Fondation Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau”

After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Pierre Poilievre and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 2.

The question was put on the amendment of Benoît Sauvageau, as amended, and it was agreed to.

Clause 166, as amended, carried on division.

By unanimous consent, the Committee reverted to Clause 99.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed that the following changes be made to the French version:

In section 41.4 (2), that the words “sur la question” be replaced by the words “l'information reçue”; and in paragraph 41.5 (2), that the words “sur la question” be replaced by the words “sur l'ordre”.

Clause 167 carried on division.

Clause 168 carried on division.

Clause 169 carried on division.

Clause 170 carried on division.

Clause 171 carried on division.

On Clause 172,

STATEMENT BY THE CHAIR

These are amendments to the Access to Information Act schedule and are consequential to Clause 169 and proposed Clauses 172.1 and 172.21 and Clause 179.

At 7:00 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 7:05 p.m., the sitting resumed.

Clause 172 carried on division.

Accordingly, New Clauses 172.1, 172.21 and Clause 179 carried.

On Clause 173,

STATEMENT BY THE CHAIR

Clause 173 relates to returning officers. There are a series of other clauses that are related to this particular clause.

We'll deal with all the amendments that pertain to the subject matter of Clause 173 before we put the question on it.

We will first deal with the amendments to Clauses 174, 176, and 177. Once that's completed, we'll put the question on Clause 173, and the results will be applied to all the consequential clauses, namely 174 and 176 to 178.

On Clause 174,

“for returning officers an external appointment process within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Public Service Employment Act on the basis of”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Benoît Sauvageau and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

On Clause 176,

“(3.1) or if both their offices are vacant during an election period, the Chief Electoral Officer shall designate a person to act in place of the returning officer, and that person may, during and after that period, perform the duties of a returning officer in relation to that election.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pierre Poilievre and it was agreed to.

On Clause 177,

“534, 535 or 535.2 to the House of Commons”

Clause 173 carried.

Accordingly, Clauses 174 as amended, 176 as amended, 177 as amended, and Clause 178 carried.

On new Clause 179.1,

“179.1 The definition “government institution” in section 2 of the Library and Archives of Canada Act is replaced by the following:

“government institution” means an institution within the meaning of the definition “government institution” in section 3 of the Access to information Act or within the meaning of the definition “government institution” in section 3 of the Privacy Act or an institution designated by the Governor in Council.”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

This amendment proposes to add a definition of “government institution”, and it's amending section 2 of the Library and Archives of Canada Act.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 654: an amendment is inadmissible if it amends a statute that is not before the committee or a section of a parent Act unless it is specifically being amended by a clause of the bill.

Since section 2 of the Library and Archives of Canada Act is not being amended by Bill C-2, it is inadmissible to propose such an amendment.

On new Clause 179.2,

“179.2 The Act is amended by adding the following before section 12:

11.1 A director, an officer or an employee of a government institution shall cause the creation of any record that is reasonably necessary to document a decision made by them in the exercise of a power that is conferred under an Act of Parliament or under a prerogative of the Crown.

11.2 (1) The Librarian and Archivist is responsible for issuing directives and guidelines to government institutions concerning the creation of records under section 11.1.

(2) For greater certainty, a directive or guideline issued under this section is not a regulation for the purposes of the Statutory Instrument Act.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 654 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

On Clause 180,

“180. The Act is amended by adding the following after”

Clause 180, as amended, carried on division.

On new Clause 180.1,

“180.1 The portion of subsection 20(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

20. (1) Every person who contravenes subsection 10(1), section 11.1 or the regulations or fails to comply with a request of the Librarian and Archivist under subsection 11(1) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

This amendment proposes to add an offence to the Library and Archives of Canada Act.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 654 that “an amendment is inadmissible if it amends a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act unless it is being specifically amended by a clause of the bill”.

Since section 20 of the Library and Archives of Canada Act is not being amended by Bill C-2, it is inadmissible to propose such an amendment.

STATEMENT BY THE CHAIR

The vote on Clause 181 will apply to Clause 182.

On Clause 181,

“(2) The definition “government institution” in section 3 of the Act is replaced by the following:

“government institution” means

(a) any department or ministry of state of the Government of Canada, or any body or office, listed in the schedule, and

(b) any parent Crown corporation, and any subsidiary of such a corporation, within the meaning of section 83 of the Financial Administration Act;”

On Clause 182,

“3.01 For greater certainty, the Canadian Race Relations Foundation and the Public Sector Pension Investment Board are parent Crown corporations for the purposes of this Act.”

Pierre Poilievre moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing section 3.01 with the following:

“3.01 (1) For greater certainty, any provision of this Act that applies to a government institution that is a parent Crown corporation applies to any of its subsidiaries within the meaning of section 83 of the Financial Administration Act.

(2) For greater certainty, the Canadian Race Relations Foundation and the Public Sector Pension Investment Board are parent Crown corporations for the purposes of this Act.”

After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Pierre Poilievre and it was agreed to on division.

The question was put on the amendment of Paul Dewar, as amended, and it was agreed to.

Clause 181, as amended, carried on division.

Accordingly, Clause 182, as amended, carried.

On new Clause 182.1,

“182.(1) The portion of paragraph 11(1)(a) of the French version of the Act before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following:

a) de tous les fichiers de renseignements personnels, donnant, pour chaque fichier, les indications suivantes :

(2) The portion of paragraph 11(1)(b) of the French version of the Act before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following:

b) de toutes les catégories de renseignements personnels qui relèvent d'une institution fédérale mais ne sont pas versés dans les fichiers de renseignements personnels, donnant, pour chaque catégorie, les indications suivantes :

(3) Subsection 11(1) of the Act is amended by striking out the word “and” at the end of paragraph (a), by adding the word “and” at the end of paragraph (b) and by adding the following after paragraph (b):

(c) all government institutions that are not set out in the schedule.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 654 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

On Clause 183,

(a) by replacing line 23 on page 124 with the following:

“22.1 (1) The Privacy Commissioner shall refuse”

(b) by adding after line 29 on page 124 the following:

“(2) However, the Commissioner may not refuse to disclose any record that was created by the Commissioner or on the Commissioner's behalf in the course of an investigation conducted by the Commissioner or under the Commissioner's authority once the investigation is complete and all related proceedings, if any, are final.”

Tom Lukiwski moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing 22.1 (1) and (2) by the following:

“22.1 (1) The Privacy Commissioner shall refuse to disclose any personal information requested under this Act that was obtained or created by the Commissioner or on the Commissioner's behalf in the course of an investigation conducted by, or under the authority of, the Commissioner.

(2) However, the Commissioner shall not refuse under subsection (1) to disclose any personal information that was created by the Commissioner or on the Commissioner's behalf in the course of an investigation conducted by, or under the authority of, the Commissioner once the investigation and all related proceedings, if any, are finally concluded.”

After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Tom Lukiwski and it was agreed to on division.

The question was put on the amendment of Paul Dewar, as amended, and it was agreed to on division.

Clause 183, as amended, carried.

Clauses 184 to 189 inclusive carried severally.

On Clause 190,

190. The schedule to the Act is amended by striking out the following under the heading “Other Government Institutions”:

Atlantic Pilotage Authority

Administration de pilotage de l’Atlantique

Bank of Canada

Banque du Canada

Blue Water Bridge Authority

Administration du pont Blue Water

Business Development Bank of Canada

Banque de développement du Canada

Canada Council for the Arts

Conseil des Arts du Canada

Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation

Société d’assurance-dépôts du Canada

Canada Development Investment Corporation

Corporation de développement des investissements du Canada

Canada Lands Company Limited

Société immobilière du Canada limitée

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation

Société canadienne d’hypothèques et de logement

Canada Post Corporation

Société canadienne des postes

Canadian Air Transport Security Authority

Administration canadienne de la sûreté du transport aérien

Canadian Commercial Corporation

Corporation commerciale canadienne

Canadian Dairy Commission

Commission canadienne du lait

Canadian Museum of Civilization

Musée canadien des civilisations

Canadian Museum of Nature

Musée canadien de la nature

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

Canadian Tourism Commission

Commission canadienne du tourisme

Cape Breton Development Corporation

Société de développement du Cap-Breton

Cape Breton Growth Fund Corporation

Corporation Fonds d’investissement du Cap-Breton

Defence Construction (1951) Limited

Construction de défense (1951) Limitée

Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation

Société d’expansion du Cap-Breton

Export Development Canada

Exportation et développement Canada

Farm Credit Canada

Financement agricole Canada

The Federal Bridge Corporation Limited

La Société des ponts fédéraux Limitée

Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation

Office de commercialisation du poisson d’eau douce

Great Lakes Pilotage Authority

Administration de pilotage des Grands Lacs

International Development Research Centre

Centre de recherches pour le développement international

The Jacques-Cartier and Champlain Bridges Inc.

Les Ponts Jacques-Cartier et Champlain Inc.

Laurentian Pilotage Authority

Administration de pilotage des Laurentides

Marine Atlantic Inc.

Marine Atlantique S.C.C.

National Arts Centre Corporation

Corporation du Centre national des Arts

National Capital Commission

Commission de la capitale nationale

National Gallery of Canada

Musée des beaux-arts du Canada

National Museum of Science and Technology

Musée national des sciences et de la technologie

Old Port of Montreal Corporation Inc.

Société du Vieux-Port de Montréal Inc.

Pacific Pilotage Authority

Administration de pilotage du Pacifique

Parc Downsview Park Inc.

Parc Downsview Park Inc.

Queens Quay West Land Corporation

Queens Quay West Land Corporation

Ridley Terminals Inc.

Ridley Terminals Inc.

Royal Canadian Mint

Monnaie royale canadienne

The Seaway International Bridge Corporation, Ltd.

La Corporation du Pont international de la voie maritime, Ltée

Standards Council of Canada

Conseil canadien des normes

Telefilm Canada

Téléfilm Canada

Clause 190, as amended, carried.

On Clause 191,

After debate, by unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.

Clause 191 carried on division.

Clause 192 carried on division.

Clause 193 carried on division.

STATEMENT BY THE CHAIR

The next clause that we will deal with is Clause 194 which relates to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

There are a series of other clauses which are related to this particular clause. I propose that we deal with all the amendments that pertain to the subject matter of Clause 194 before I put the question on Clause 194.

Therefore, we will first deal with the amendments to this clause and to Clauses 201, 203, 210, 222, 224 and 225.

Once this is done, I will put the question on Clause 194 and its results will be applied to all the consequential clauses – namely Clauses 195, 197, 210 to 211, 216 to 219 and 222 to 226.

On Clause 194,

“taken against a public servant or researcher, including a student in a post-secondary or research-affiliated institution, because the public servant or researcher has made a protected disclosure or has,”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Paul Dewar and it was negatived.

(a) by adding after line 6 on page 127 the following:

“(3.1) The definition “reprisal” in subsection 2(1) of the Act is amended by striking out the word “and” at the end of paragraph (d), by adding the word “and” at the end of paragraph (e) and by adding the following after paragraph (e):

(f) any psychological harassment.”

(b) by adding after line 15 on page 127 the following:

““psychological harassment” means

(a) any vexatious behaviour in the form of hostile, inappropriate and unwanted conduct, verbal comments, actions or gestures that affects an employee’s dignity or psychological or physical integrity and that results in a harmful workplace for the employee, and

(b) any abuse of authority, including intimidation, threats, blackmail or coercion, that occurs when a person improperly uses the power or authority inherent in the person’s position to endanger an employee’s job, undermine the employee’s job performance, threaten the economic livelihood of the employee or interfere in any other way with the career of the employee;

and, for greater certainty, a single incident of such behviour that has a lasting and harmful effect on an employee also constitutes psychological harassment.”

The question was put on the amendment of Monique Guay and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 7.

““Tribunal” means the Canada Industrial Relations Board established by section 9 of the Canada Labour Code.”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

This amendment proposes to change the definition of “Tribunal” to the Canada Industrial Relations Board established in section 9 of the Canada Labour Code.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice states at page 654: “An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the Bill.”

Since the Canada Industrial Relations Board is not referred to elsewhere in this bill, I must rule that this amendment is proposing a new concept which is beyond the scope of Bill C-2 and consequently inadmissible.

Whereupon, Stephen Owen appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained, by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 4.

On Clause 201,

“19.1 (1) Any person who has reasonable grounds for believ-”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Paul Dewar and it was negatived.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Paul Dewar and it was negatived.

On Clause 203,

“(l) the power to request that a chief executive provide notice as referred to in section 36; and

(m) the power in section 37 and the power and duties in section 38 to make a report.”

On Clause 210,

(a) by replacing line 29 on page 152 with the following:

“prepare a case report setting out”

(b) by adding after line 4 on page 153 the following:

“(3.3) Within the period referred to in subsection (3.1), the Commissioner shall submit the case report to the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons, who shall each table the report in the House over which he or she presides forthwith after receiving it or, if that House is not then sitting, on any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the Speaker receives it.”

On Clause 222,

“222. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 55:”

The question was put on the amendment and the result of the vote was announced: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 6.

Whereupon, the Chair voted in the negative.

Accordingly, the amendment was negatived.

(a) replacing lines 4 to 13 on page 160 with the following:

“16.4 (1) The Public Sector Integrity Commissioner shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains information

(a) obtained by him or her or on his or her behalf for the purposes of or in the course of an investigation under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act; or”

(b) replacing lines 18 to 24 on page 160 with the following:

“(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of a record that contains information referred to in paragraph (1)(b) if the person who gave the information to the conciliator consents to the record being disclosed.

16.5 (1) The head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains information created for the purpose of making a disclosure under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act or for the purpose of providing information referred to in section 33 of that Act if, at the time of the request,

(a) 15 working days have not yet passed since the day on which the disclosure was made, or the information was provided, as the case may be;

(b) an investigation into the disclosure, or an investigation commenced under section 33 of that Act in relation to the information, as the case may be, is ongoing; or

(c) 60 days have not yet passed since the day on which a report was made to a chief executive in respect of an investigation into the disclosure, or in respect of an investigation commenced under section 33 of that Act in relation to the information, as the case may be.

(2) The head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains information created in the course of an investigation into a disclosure under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act or an investigation commenced under section 33 of that Act if, at the time of the request, the investigation is ongoing or 60 days have not yet passed since the day on which a report was made to a chief executive in respect of the investigation.

(3) The head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains information that identifies or could reasonably be expected to lead to the identification of

(a) a public servant who made a disclosure under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act;

(b) a person who is not a public servant and who provided information referred to in section 33 of that Act;

(c) a person who cooperated in an investigation into a disclosure under that Act or an investigation commenced under section 33 of that Act;

(d) a person against whom allegations of wrongdoing have been made that have not been the subject of an investigation under that Act;

(e) a person against whom allegations of wrongdoing have been made that have been the subject of an investigation under that Act if the investigation did not result in a finding of wrongdoing by that person; or

(f) a person against whom allegations of wrongdoing have been made that have been the subject of an investigation under that Act if the investigation resulted in a finding of wrongdoing by that person but 60 days have not yet passed since the day on which a report was made to a chief executive in respect of the investigation.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Paul Dewar and it was negatived.

“16.6 Sections 16.4 and 16.5 apply in the year that follows

(a) in the case of paragraph 16.4(a), the conclusion of the investigation in the course of which the information was obtained or created;

(b) in the case of paragraph 16.4(b),

(i) a decision by the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner under subsection 19.4 (1) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act not to deal with the complaint giving rise to the information, or

(ii) the earliest of the days referred to in paragraphs 19.5(3)(a) to (c) of that Act in relation to the complaint giving rise to the information; or

(c) in the case of section 16.5, the conclusion of an investigation into a disclosure made under that Act or, if no investigation was conducted, the disclosure in the course of which the information was created.”

The question was put on the amendment of Benoît Sauvageau and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

On Clause 224,

“57. Section 9 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Actis amended by adding the following after subsection (5):

(6) Despite clause 4.9 of Schedule 1, an organization shall not give an individual access to personal information that was created for the purpose of making a disclosure under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act if, at the time of the request,

(a) 15 working days have not yet passed since the day on which the disclosure was made;

(b) an investigation into the disclosure is ongoing; or

(c) 60 days have not yet passed since the day on which a report was made to a chief executive in respect of an investigation into the disclosure.

(7) Despite clause 4.9 of Schedule 1, an organization shall not give an individual access to personal information that was created in the course of an investigation into a disclosure under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act if, at the time of the request, the investigation is ongoing or 60 days have not yet passed since the day on which a report was made to a chief executive in respect of the investigation.

(8) Despite clause 4.9 of Schedule 1, an organization shall not give an individual access to personal information that identifies or could reasonably be expected to lead to the identification of

(a) a public servant who made a disclosure under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act;

(b) a person who cooperated in an investigation into a disclosure under that Act ;

(c) a person against whom allegations of wrongdoing have been made that have not been the subject of an investigation under that Act;

(d) a person against whom allegations of wrongdoing have been made that have been the subject of an investigation under that Act if the investigation did not result in a finding of wrongdoing by that person; or

(e) a person against whom allegations of wrongdoing have been made that have been the subject of an investigation under that Act if the investigation resulted in a finding of wrongdoing by that person but 60 days have not yet passed since the day on which a report was made to a chief executive in respect of the investigation.”

The question was put on the amendment of Paul Dewar and it was negatived.

On Clause 225,

“225. Section 58.1 of the Act is replaced by the following:”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Stephen Owen and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

that was obtained by him or her or on his or her behalf for the purposes of or in the course of an investigation under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

22.3 (1) The head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose personal information requested under subsection 12(1) that was created for the purpose of making a disclosure under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act or for the purpose of providing information referred to in section 33 of that Act if, at the time of the request,

(a) 15 working days have not yet passed since the day on which the disclosure was made, or the information was provided, as the case may be;

(b) an investigation into the disclosure, or an investigation commenced under section 33 of that Act in relation to the information, as the case may be, is ongoing; or

(c) 60 days have not yet passed since the day on which a report was made to a chief executive in respect of an investigation into the disclosure, or in respect of an investigation commenced under section 33 of that Act in relation to the information, as the case may be.

(2) The head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any personal information requested under subsection 12(1) that was created in the course of an investigation into a disclosure under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act or an investigation commenced under section 33 of that Act if, at the time of the request, the investigation is ongoing or 60 days have not yet passed since the day on which a report was made to a chief executive in respect of the investigation.

(3) The head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any personal information requested under subsection 12(1) that identifies or could reasonably be expected to lead to the identification of

(a) a public servant who made a disclosure under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act;

(b) a person who is not a public servant and who provided information referred to in section 33 of that Act;

(c) a person who cooperated in an investigation into a disclosure under that Act or an investigation commenced under section 33 of that Act;

(d) a person against whom allegations of wrongdoing have been made that have not been the subject of an investigation under that Act;

(e) a person against whom allegations of wrongdoing have been made that have been the subject of an investigation under that Act if the investigation did not result in a finding of wrongdoing by that person; or

(f) a person against whom allegations of wrongdoing have been made that have been the subject of an investigation under that Act if the investigation resulted in a finding of wrongdoing by that person but 60 days have not yet passed since the day on which a report was made to a chief executive in respect of the investigation.

By unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.

Clause 194 carried on division.

Accordingly, Clauses 195, 197, 201, 210 as amended, 211, Clauses 216 to 219 and Clauses 222 to 226 carried.

Clause 196 carried.

Clause 197 carried.

Clause 198 carried.

Clause 199 carried.

Clause 200 carried.

On Clause 212,

“may assign.

(1.2) The assignment of powers, duties and functions by the Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner may include the delegation to the Deputy Commissioner of any of the Commissioner's powers, duties and functions, including those referred to in paragraphs 25(1)(a) to (k) and the powers in sections 36 and 37, but it may not include the delegation of the Commissioner’s power or any of his or her duties in section 38.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pierre Poilievre and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 2.

At 9:01 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.