Skip to main content Start of content

ETHI Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

Minutes of Proceedings

42nd Parliament, 1st Session
Meeting No. 77
Wednesday, November 8, 2017, 3:34 p.m. to 5:01 p.m.
Televised
Presiding
Bob Zimmer, Chair (Conservative)

House of Commons
• Olivier Champagne, Legislative Clerk
 
Library of Parliament
• Chloé Forget, Analyst
• Maxime-Olivier Thibodeau, Analyst
Department of Justice
• Adair Crosby, Senior Counsel and Deputy Director, Judicial Affairs, Courts and Tribunal Policy, Public Law Sector
• Claudette Rondeau, Counsel, Centre for Information and Privacy Law
Treasury Board Secretariat
• Ruth Naylor, Executive Director, Information and Privacy Policy Division, Chief Information Officer Branch
Privy Council Office
• Riri Shen, Director of Operations, Democratic Institutions
Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Wednesday, September 27, 2017, the Committee resumed consideration of Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

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

Ruth Naylor answered questions.

On new Clause 13.1,

Nathan Cullen moved, — That Bill C-58 be amended by adding after line 22 on page 6 the following new clause:

“13.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 34:

34.1 (1) The Information Commissioner, if requested to do so or on his or her own initiative, may, at any time the Commissioner deems it expedient, appoint a mediator for the purpose of attempting to bring about a settlement of the complaint.

(2) At the request of the parties or the Information Commissioner, a mediator appointed under subsection (1) may make recommendations for settlement of the complaint. ”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on pages 767-768 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

Clause 14 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 1.

Clause 15 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 1.

On Clause 16,

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith moved, — That Bill C-58, in Clause 16, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 3 on page 8.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Nathaniel Erskine-Smith and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 5.

Nathan Cullen moved, — That Bill C-58, in Clause 16, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 8 the following:

“(6) The Information Commissioner shall, on the written request of the person who made the complaint, file a certified copy of the order, exclusive of the reasons for it in the Federal Court, unless, in his or her opinion,

(a) there is no indication, or likelihood, of failure to comply with the order; or

(b) there is another good reason why the filing of the order in the Federal Court would serve no useful purpose.

(7) An order of the Information Commissioner becomes an order of the Federal Court when a certified copy of it is filed in that court, and it may subsequently be enforced as such.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Nathan Cullen and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Nathan Cullen, Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Jacques Gourde, Peter Kent — 4;

NAYS: Frank Baylis, Emmanuel Dubourg, Mona Fortier, Michel Picard, Raj Saini — 5.

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith moved, — That Bill C-58, in Clause 16, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 8 the following:

“(6) The Information Commissioner may file a certified copy of the order, exclusive of the reasons for it in the Federal Court, unless, in his or her opinion,

(a) there is no indication, or likelihood, of failure to comply with the order; or

(b) there is another good reason why the filing of the order in the Federal Court would serve no useful purpose.

(7) An order of the Information Commissioner becomes an order of the Federal Court when a certified copy of it is filed in that court, and it may subsequently be enforced as such.”

The question was put on the amendment of Nathaniel Erskine-Smith and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 5.

Clause 16 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

On Clause 17,

Frank Baylis moved, — That Bill C-58, in Clause 17, be amended by adding after line 24 on page 10 the following:

“(3.1) The Information Commissioner may publish the report referred to in subsection (2).

(3.2) However, the Information Commissioner is not to publish the report until the expiry of the periods to apply to the Court for a review of a matter that are referred to in section 41.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Frank Baylis and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 2.

The Chair ruled that the following amendment was consequential to the previous amendment and therefore it was also adopted:

That Bill C-58 be amended by adding after line 9 on page 17 the following new clause:

“30.1 The portion of section 64 of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

64 In carrying out an investigation under this Act and in any report published under subsection 37(3.1) or made to Parliament under section 38 or 39, the Information Commissioner and any person acting on behalf or under the direction of the Information Commissioner shall take every reasonable precaution to avoid the disclosure of, and shall not disclose,”

Nathan Cullen moved, — That Bill C-58, in Clause 17, be amended by adding after line 42 on page 10 the following:

“(5) The Information Commissioner may, as soon as the report is provided under subsection (1), make it available to the public.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Nathan Cullen and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

Clause 17, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 2.

Clause 18 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 2.

On Clause 19,

Nathan Cullen moved, — That Bill C-58, in Clause 19, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 12 and 13 on page 11 with the following:

“apply to the Court for a review of any matter that is the subject of an order set out in the report.”

(b) by replacing lines 25 to 29 on page 11 with the following:

“of any matter that is the subject of an order set out in the report and that relates to the application of any exemption provided for under this Part that may apply to a record that might contain information described in subsection 20(1).”

(c) by replacing lines 36 to 39 on page 11 with the following:

“a review of any matter that is the subject of an order set out in the report and that relates to the disclosure of a record that might contain personal information.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Nathan Cullen and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Nathan Cullen, Jacques Gourde, Peter Kent — 3;

NAYS: Frank Baylis, Emmanuel Dubourg, Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Mona Fortier, Michel Picard, Raj Saini — 6.

Nathan Cullen moved, — That Bill C-58, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 11 to line 2 on page 12 with the following:

“(5) The person who applies for a review under subsection (1) or (3) may name only the head of the government”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Nathan Cullen and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.

Clause 19 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 2.

Clause 20 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

On Clause 21,

Nathan Cullen moved, — That Bill C-58, in Clause 21, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 3 on page 14.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Nathan Cullen and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

Clause 21 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.

Clause 22 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

Clause 23 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

On Clause 24,

Nathan Cullen moved, — That Bill C-58, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing lines 5 to 7 on page 15 with the following:

“der this Part or a part of such a record is on the government institution concerned.”

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

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-58, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing lines 5 to 7 on page 15 with the following:

“der this Part or a part of such a record is on the government institution concerned.”

The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 6.

Nathan Cullen moved, — That Bill C-58, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 15 with the following:

“application under subsection 41(3), the burden of”

Debate arose thereon.

At 4:22 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 4:26 p.m., the sitting resumed.

The Committee resumed consideration of the amendment of Nathan Cullen, — That Bill C-58, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 15 with the following:

“application under subsection 41(3), the burden of”

The debate continued.

The question was put on the amendment of Nathan Cullen and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.

Clause 24 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 25 to 30 inclusive carried severally by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

On Clause 31,

Michel Picard moved, — That Bill C-58, in Clause 31, be amended by

(a) replacing line 11 on page 17 with the following:

“paragraph (b) is replaced by the following :”

(b) adding after line 12 on page 17 the following:

“(a) published material, other than material published under Part 2, or material available for purchase by the public;”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michel Picard and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

Clause 31, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.

Clause 32 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 2.

Clause 33 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

Clause 34 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

Clause 35 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.

Clause 36 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

On Clause 37,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-58, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 25 with the following:

“she establishes the mandate of any other minister within 30 days after the issuance of the letter or revised letter.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 0.

Emmanuel Dubourg moved, — That Bill C-58, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 19 to 25 on page 28 with the following:

“(2) A minister shall not cause to be published any of the information, any part of the information, any of the materials or any part of the materials referred to in any of sections 74 to 78 if that information, that part of the information, those materials or that part of those materials were set out in a record and, in dealing with a request for access to that record, a head of a government institution”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Emmanuel Dubourg and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 2.

At 4:39 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 4:40 p.m., the sitting resumed.

Michel Picard moved, — That Bill C-58, in Clause 37, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 21 to 24 on page 31 with the following:

“contract that has been entered into in relation to the activities of a government entity and that has a value of $10,000 or less is amended so that its value exceeds $10,000, or within 60 days after the end of that quarter if that quarter is the fourth quarter, the head of the government entity shall”

(b) replacing line 30 on page 31 with the following:

“that its value is increased or decreased, or within 60 days after the end of that quarter if that quarter is the fourth quarter, the head of the”

The question was put on the amendment of Michel Picard and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 2.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-58, in Clause 37, be amended by deleting line 36 on page 33 to line 4 on page 34.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 5.

Mona Fortier moved, — That Bill C-58, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing line 37 on page 33 to line 4 on page 34 with the following:

“91 (1) The Information Commissioner shall not exercise any powers or perform any duties or functions in relation to the proactive publication of information under this Part, including receiving and investigating complaints or exercising any other powers, duties or functions under Part 1.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall be construed as preventing the Information Commissioner from exercising his or her powers or performing his or her duties and functions under Part 1 with respect to a record that, although subject to Part 2, is subject to a request for access under Part 1.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mona Fortier and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 2.

Clause 37, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

On Clause 38,

Frank Baylis moved, — That Bill C-58, in Clause 38, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 6 to 10 on page 40 with the following:

“(a) a description of the incidental expenditures reimbursed to judges of the Supreme Court during the quarter;

(b) the dates on which the expenditures were incurred; and

(c) the aggregate of all incidental expenditures reimbursed to judges of the Supreme Court during the quarter.”

(b) by replacing lines 18 to 22 on page 40 with the following:

“(a) a description of the expenses reimbursed as representational allowances to judges of the Supreme Court during the quarter;

(b) the dates on which the expenses were incurred; and

(c) the aggregate of all expenses reimbursed as representational allowances to judges of the Supreme Court during the quarter.”

(c) by replacing lines 29 to 33 on page 40 with the following:

“(a) a description of the expenses reimbursed as travel allowances to judges of the Supreme Court during the quarter;

(b) the dates on which the expenses were incurred; and

(c) the aggregate of all expenses reimbursed as travel allowances to judges of the Supreme Court during the quarter.”

(d) by replacing lines 3 to 7 on page 41 with the following:

“(a) a description of the expenses reimbursed as conference allowances to judges of the Supreme Court during the quarter;

(b) the dates on which the expenses were incurred; and

(c) the aggregate of all expenses reimbursed as conference allowances to judges of the Supreme Court during the quarter.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Frank Baylis and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 5.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous amendment be applied to the following two (2) amendments which are therefore also negatived:

That Bill C-58, in Clause 38, be amended

(a) by replacing line 36 on page 44 to line 3 on page 45 with the following:

“form, for each court, the following information:

(a) a description of the incidental expenditures reimbursed to judges during the quarter;

(b) the dates on which the incidental expenditures were incurred; and

(c) the aggregate of all incidental expenditures reimbursed to judges during the quarter.”

(b) by replacing lines 9 to 14 on page 45 with the following:

“published in electronic form, for each court, the following information:

(a) a description of the expenses reimbursed as representational allowances to judges during the quarter;

(b) the dates on which the expenses were incurred; and

(c) the aggregate of all expenses reimbursed as representational allowances to judges during the quarter.”

(c) by replacing lines 19 to 25 on page 45 with the following:

“cause to be published in electronic form, for each court, the following information:

(a) a description of the expenses reimbursed as travel allowances to judges during the quarter;

(b) the dates on which the expenses were incurred; and

(c) the aggregate of all expenses reimbursed as travel allowances to judges during the quarter.”

(d) by replacing lines 30 to 36 on page 45 with the following:

“be published in electronic form, for each court, the following information:

(a) a description of the expenses reimbursed as conference allowances to judges during the quarter;

(b) the dates on which the expenses were incurred; and

(c) the aggregate of all expenses reimbursed as conference allowances to judges during the quarter.”

That Bill C-58, in Clause 38, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 45 the following:

“90.211 (1) Despite sections 90.18, 90.19, 90.2 and 90.21, the information to be published in accordance with those sections relating to the Court of Appeal of Prince Edward Island and the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island may be published in a single document.

(2) Despite sections 90.18, 90.19, 90.2 and 90.21, the information to be published in accordance with those sections relating to the Supreme Court of Yukon, the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories and the Nunavut Court of Justice may be published in a single document.”

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith moved, — That Bill C-58, in Clause 38, be amended

(a) by replacing line 8 on page 46 with the following:

“Chief Justice of the affected court, having consulted with the Registrar, the Chief Administrator or the Commissioner,”

(b) by replacing line 15 on page 46 with the following:

“90.11 to 90.13 and 90.15 to 90.21 if he or she determines, after consulting with a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal or a judge of a superior court other than the Supreme Court of Canada, as applicable,”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Nathaniel Erskine-Smith and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.

Clause 38 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

Clause 39 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 1.

Clause 40 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 2.

On Clause 41,

Mona Fortier moved, — That Bill C-58, in Clause 41, be amended by deleting line 26 on page 48.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mona Fortier and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

Clause 41, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

Clause 42 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.

Clause 43 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 2.

On Clause 44,

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith moved, — That Bill C-58, in Clause 44, be amended by replacing lines 25 and 26 on page 49 with the following:

“tion 30(4) of the Access to Information Act even if that complaint was made before the day on”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Nathaniel Erskine-Smith and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Clause 44 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.

Clause 45 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 2.

Clause 46 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.

Clause 47 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.

On new Clause 47.1,

Michel Picard moved, — That Bill C-58 be amended by adding after line 24 on page 50 the following new clause:

“47.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 3.01:

3.02 Paragraph (j.1) of the definition personal information in section 3 applies only to records created on or after the day on which that paragraph comes into force.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michel Picard and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 2.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 48 to 52 inclusive carried severally by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 2.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 53 to 63 inclusive carried severally by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

The Title carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.

The Bill, as amended, carried on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Frank Baylis, Emmanuel Dubourg, Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Mona Fortier, Michel Picard, Raj Saini — 6;

NAYS: Nathan Cullen, Jacques Gourde, Peter Kent — 3.

ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

ORDERED, — That Bill C-58, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.

At 5:01 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.



Hugues La Rue
Clerk of the Committee