Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue No. 59 - Evidence - April 11, 2019
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 11, 2019
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, met this day at 10:31 a.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to Bill C-58; and for the consideration of a draft report.
Senator Serge Joyal (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to our morning session. We will be resuming clause-by-clause 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.
We are in the process of completing our clause-by-clause consideration. Last night, when we adjourned, we were on clause 16.
[Translation]
We have an amendment to clause 16, bearing the name of Senator André Pratte. I am going to identify the amendment so that everyone has the right copy in their hands. This is amendment AP5. Could you please introduce the amendment, Senator Pratte?
Senator Pratte: It is moved:
That Bill C-58 be amended in clause 16, on page 8, by adding the following after line 26:
“(6) An order under subsection (1) that is in effect may, for the purpose of enforcement, be made an order of the Federal Court by following the usual practice and procedure or by the Information Commissioner filing a certified copy of the order in the Registry of the Court.”.
This simply allows the Information Commissioner to have her orders certified by the Federal Court. You will recall that, when the commissioner testified, she twice raised the problem of an institution simply ignoring an order. They do not appeal the order, they do not comply with it, they do nothing. Currently, the commissioner really has no power. This would allow her to have orders certified by the Federal Court. Consequently, they would become court orders, and institutions choosing to do nothing would be liable to be convicted for contempt of court.
This is a power that the commissioner has been requesting for several years. Even if we have rejected the idea of a de novo procedure, the two things are separate. We can still allow the commissioner to have her orders certified, which would give her more weight and more strength.
The Chair: Any comments or questions for Senator Pratte?
Senator McIntyre: I concur with Senator Pratte. Let’s not forget that the commissioner has asked to be able to certify her orders on four occasions. She did so in her letter to the President of the Treasury Board on March 22, 2018, and when she appeared before our committee on October 17, 2018. If I am not mistaken, she repeated it and explained it extensively in her letter of November 1, 2018, in which she provided us with a table comparing the certification procedure and the application for mandamus. Then she repeated it in her recent testimony on April 3.
I think we can all agree that it is one of the most significant requests she made.
Senator Ringuette: As I understand the amendment that Senator Pratte wishes to make, it’s just a possibility for all those orders, not a requirement.
Senator Pratte: Yes.
Senator Ringuette: If we look at the statistics for the last five years, we are talking about eight court cases that could result in one or two orders per year, although the order process is much more rigid and compulsory under the law.
Personally, I see no major objection. This would be a possibility in the hands of the commissioner.
Senator Pratte: Exactly.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any other comments before I call the question? I will then call the question.
All the senators in favour of the motion please raise your hands.
All those opposed?
Abstentions.
The amendment is carried.
[Translation]
Let’s continue with Senator Ringuette’s amendment, identified as PR6.
[English]
We are still on clause 16 of the bill.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: The amendment reads as follows:
That Bill C-58, in clause 16, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 8 with the following:
“the Information Commissioner shall consult the Privacy”.
This is an amendment that has been requested in terms of the relationship between the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any questions? It’s a consequence of an amendment that we had already adopted earlier on.
Any questions or comments in relation to that amendment?
Is it agreed, honourable senators, that the amendment proposed by Senator Ringuette be adopted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Thank you.
We move then on clause 16. Shall clause 16, as amended, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: We move then to clause 17. I have an amendment by Senator Ringuette. I think it’s a consequential amendment also. It’s identified as PR8.1.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: I move that Bill C-58, in clause 17, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 11 the following:
“Deemed date of receipt
(5) For the purposes of this section, the head of the government institution is deemed to have received the report referred to in subsection (2) on the fifth business day after the date of the report.”.
This is a consequential amendment, because we added “report” rather than —
The Chair: The amendments previously carried were PR5 and PR9.
[English]
Any questions in relation to that amendment?
Senator McCoy: I’m just checking Bill C-58. I didn’t hear Senator Ringuette read out the title or this deemed date of receipt. Did we want to have that heading also included in the amendment?
Senator Ringuette: Which I did.
Senator McCoy: I’m sorry. I apologize; I didn’t hear it.
Senator Ringuette: Yes.
Senator McCoy: Okay.
The Chair: Are senators ready for the question?
Is the amendment introduced by Senator Ringuette carried?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Shall clause 17, as amended, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Then we move to clause 21, an amendment that should be introduced by Senator Pratte.
It’s the amendment identified as AP7.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte, would you please introduce the amendment?
Senator Pratte: This amendment should be withdrawn, because it deals with the procedure that would have been established if we had passed a de novo amendment.
The Chair: So you are withdrawing it. As it has not been introduced, you can just withdraw it anyway.
[English]
Shall clause 21 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division.
[Translation]
So we are continuing with clause 24, and another amendment introduced by Senator Pratte. I gather the explanation is the same.
Senator Pratte: Right. It is number AP8.
The Chair: AP8 was an amendment that came out of the main amendment on the de novo procedure.
Senator Pratte: Right. So I am withdrawing the amendment.
The Chair: Of course.
[English]
The Chair: Shall clause 24, as amended, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Batters: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Honourable senators, that completes the study of the clause-by-clause consideration.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Is it agreed, honourable senators, that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make technical and typographical changes and adjustments to the amendments adopted by the committee?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It’s what we have called a toileting of the bill, which allows us to make sure that we will have a bill that is complete in the intention as expressed by the honourable senators in relation to all the amendments, of course, that we have adopted.
Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Before I call that item, I want to draw the attention of the committee whether the committee wants to proceed in camera or to discuss the text of observations in public.
Senator Batters: I think, particularly for this act, the Access to Information Act, which is so concerned with transparency and openness, we absolutely should continue in public. I think that it’s important for Canadians who have now watched this particular bill being studied by this committee for months. This is now our sixth clause-by-clause meeting. I think it’s important that the public and media who are interested be able to see our deliberations on that.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Gold: Uncharacteristically, I do agree with Senator Batters on this point, but I do want us to stay focused on the report and not use these occasions to indulge in partisan rhetoric around the bill or this government, which I think detracts from the good work we’ve done on this bill.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I do not want to correct Senator Gold, but I feel that comment could have been avoided.
Thank you.
The Chair: Let us say how pleased we are at having completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in an atmosphere of cooperation all around the table. As you know, a lot of amendments were submitted. I feel that the debate proceeded in a very senatorial way and I thank senators for that debate. Let us continue in the same vein as we study our draft report. I believe everyone has a copy of the texts.
[English]
You will notice that the proposed changes to the text that has been circulated in the previous days are identified with yellow marks, so you know exactly where the changes to the draft that has been circulated are being made.
I will call the pages one by one. If any senators or the representatives of the Library of Parliament — who have been helping us to draft the report — wish to add some changes, then, of course, we will invite them with your authorization to contribute to the discussion
You have the report in both official languages and you also have possible changes to the report that have been prepared by the Library of Parliament analyst. Those changes essentially reflect the Information Commissioner’s testimony on the de novo review that we had the opportunity to hear, so the report has to reflect that.
I understand honourable senators are ready to proceed. Shall page 1 be adopted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
I want to point out to the honourable senators that at line 10, we will have the list of the amendments that have been adopted, so you know where the amendments are going to figure in the report.
Senator Gold: I was too quick to reject the version offered to me.
The Chair: You should never refuse an honest offer, senator.
Senator Gold: You’re quite right, chair. I’m still learning.
I just want to ensure that the report — and this is around line 27 — highlights the fact that we did interrupt our study for a period, if my memory serves me correctly, to take up another bill. I just don’t want the record to suggest misleadingly that we just —
The Chair: You’re so right that we have already prepared a proposed change that you have on this page. I hope you didn’t refuse that page, because it will be helpful to you.
Senator Gold: Thank you very much.
The Chair: We propose, on page 1, as possible changes, as brought to our attention by the analysts of the Library of Parliament, the third bullet had that the committee consider Bill C-76 — you remember it’s the electoral act — and Bill C-86, the budget bill, between November 17 and December 5, 2018. So that will be added.
You have to keep this page with you, because as much as I will call the pages, I will draw your attention to those changes so you know they are being made.
Is page 1 adopted? Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Page 2.
Senator McCoy: Thank you. I have what I suppose are overarching comments to make about the report, which I could get down to in some detail. I think you have a copy of a few bullets I’ve put together.
First of all, I will ask a question of you, chair. Is it essential that we have this long recital of what she said and what he said throughout the report? Is that an essential factor?
The Chair: That’s what we did in previous reports we have been tabling or adding to bills. In other words, it’s an opportunity for anyone interested in that bill to read through the evolution of the discussions, and how the debate and study was structured. It’s factual. It’s essentially a capacity for somebody to learn the process the committee followed in its study of that bill.
It is not on policy issues or on observations, generally, of what should be done after. That will come at the end of the report, with observations that honourable senators might want to add.
The report is more a recital of what we have heard as testimony, and the testimony highlights honourable senators feel are important. Some of those testimonies and preoccupations of senators have given way to amendments.
That’s essentially the gist of the report — the way the report has been structured and the substance of it.
Senator McCoy: Can I continue, then, with my comments?
On page 2, I find that the key topics addressed by witnesses — an overview of the key topics — does not, to my way of thinking, present them in a way that a reader unfamiliar with the subject would find useful in pointing out the significance.
That’s an overarching comment.
In paragraph 3, on page 2, for example, at the end of line 9 and 10, it says:
. . . the introduction of this bill followed a special report tabled by former Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault in 2015 that included 85 recommendations for modernizing the ATIA . . .
The difficulty I find with that is that Bill C-58 did not follow that report whatsoever — little, if at all. It’s not until you get way down to the end of page 16, line 10:
The Information Commissioner underscored this review is one of the most —
— the one-year review and the five-year review —
— is one of the most important elements of the bill because stakeholders will have an opportunity to take a closer look to improve the many other areas of the act that are untouched but are greatly in need of updating.
The sense of the evidence that we received is, in my view, presented in a way that is distorted, if I can say that. The essential point is not highlighted.
Also, on page 2, if I can continue, that’s sort of a common overall. When I started reviewing it and trying to reorganize the reports, it sort of flowed from highest point of view, such as that comment by the Information Commissioner, to the lesser important pieces of evidence that we heard, if can I put it that way. In other words, I tried to organize it according to the most significant to lesser significant.
I find myself out of time. Without having to take the time of the committee, I thought, is it possible for us just to make the overarching observations rather than having to recite this evidence? But if we do have to recite the evidence, I would put in a request to have it reordered so that some significance could come out of it.
In that case, I would also point out the footnote no. 8, which is the last paragraph on page 2. That’s a more technical point, so I can pause, if you like, following my overarching comments, and then I’ll come back to a technical point.
The Chair: Do you have a precise suggestion or a qualification to propose at line 9 when the report refers to the special report tabled by the former Information Commissioner? This is a fact, as a matter of fact. The bill came after that. I might agree with you that the bill is not an answer to the 85 recommendations of the Information Commissioner, but the fact is that there was a report by the Information Commissioner in 2015 with 85 recommendations.
Senator McCoy: I agree it’s a fact, but the context in which that fact is presented, I think, would lead a reader to imagine that Bill C-58 took those 85 recommendations and produced Bill C-58. That’s not the case. If anything, you have to take that out of that sentence.
I didn’t go and look up the date of that report, but I think it was pre-election.
The Chair: It was 2015.
Senator McCoy: I think it was pre-election, but I don’t know if it was pre-election campaign. I don’t know if the red book pre-dated her report. I don’t know if whether it was September or May 2015.
The Chair: I think it’s 2015. The platform is also 2015, as note 4 at the bottom of the page mentions.
Senator McCoy: I know, but again I didn’t know which one. I didn’t know whether the campaign promise preceded her report. I didn’t delve into it that far.
In any event, presented in the way it is here, where it says that Bill C-58 follows the special report, really does leave the impression —
The Chair: If we say its introduction came after, it’s a reference to the date. If you say follow, a person might be induced to think it is essentially the embodiment of the 85 recommendations. If we say it came after, it is essentially a factual date in terms of time. That’s why I suggest that to better reflect your preoccupation.
Senator McCoy: I might take that whole clause and put it as the introductory sentence of this paragraph and say in 2015 the Information Commissioner published a report containing 85 recommendations.
The Chair: I think we understand your point, senator. I think the analyst got it. The way I have expressed it is essentially a reference in terms of factual date rather than the perception that it is the embodiment of the 85 recommendations.
Senator McCoy: On line 11 it says a government consultation conducted in 2016 fails to make note of the fact, which is in evidence, by the current Information Commissioner that neither she nor her predecessor were consulted.
Again, you’re looking at people who are going to read this report who don’t know the subject and who would never imagine that a government or the civil service would prepare an amending act having 85 recommendations in front of them from the preeminent knowledge holder and not consult her. It has led to, as I pointed out yesterday, for example, her recommendation was having access to information of administrators of justice, administrators of the Senate, administrators of the House of Commons not to the judiciary, senators and MPs and ministers.
I find that it doesn’t do justice, if I can put it that way, to what has occurred in the development of this act. I don’t want to see the wrong impression, and I don’t want to see the Senate being in a position to give rise to the wrong impression.
The Chair: I understand that. Senator Batters.
Senator Batters: I just wanted to make a quick general point here that, further to what Senator McCoy was saying at the start of her discussion, I certainly have seen a lot of legal reports over the last six years and I did find this one in particular was a little bit back and forth as far as quotes from different people. From my point of view, it seemed like it was a little bit heavily weighted toward quotes from the ministers, given that it only comprised three or four hours of our discussion and other witnesses were substantially more. Not like I can point to many to take out, but one in particular that I noticed was going to be just a little bit self-serving in that respect was on page 7, line 5:
In response, the Minister of Justice stated that in his view the bill meets the Supreme Court’s criteria.
I should hope so, because if the Minister of Justice does not believe it does then he shouldn’t bring the bill forward or be here to defend it.
The Chair: When we are on page 7 if honourable senators want to make a suggestion, I will receive it gladly.
Senator Ringuette: I have heard the different comments and if you want to go down history lane on the Access to Information Act, we can go quite a long way. I am a little bit surprised that we are mentioning Ms. Legault’s recommendation, because they were never reviewed by the Senate, per se, and just like the yearly reports coming from her office were never reviewed by the Senate.
It is okay that her report is mentioned there, but to further emphasize that report in our Senate report, I believe that it’s going in the wrong direction. I have extensively studied her 85 recommendations and I certainly don’t agree with a good portion of them. I restate that this committee has not reviewed that report, those 85 recommendations, so why should we emphasize it in our report? What our mandate is and what we are asked to report on is Bill C-58.
The Chair: Can you make a specific recommendation?
Senator Ringuette: In order to accommodate Senator McCoy’s concern, and maybe because I’m francophone and I am reading the English version of it, but I think it would be in order on line 11, that says, for modernizing the Access to Information Act, I would put a period there.
[Translation]
The Chair: I was going to suggest adding a semicolon to each occurrence to indicate the fact that —
[English]
Senator Ringuette: It would highlight the sequence.
[Translation]
The Chair: As I was listening to Senator McCoy and yourself, I was wondering how to structure the sentence so that we do not create the impression that everything came directly before the committee. I think the analysts have a note of that. Are there any other comments on page 2?
Senator Dalphond: I was going to suggest that, if you put in the semicolons and everyone agrees, it’s fine. Otherwise, I would agree with taking out the paragraph about mandate letters entirely, because I really do not need that information. We could start with the following paragraph.
The Chair: At line 20.
Senator Dalphond: At line 20, which indicates that the act was passed on such and such a date, then describes the objectives of the bill. I defer to the wisdom of the group.
Senator Dupuis: I feel that, in order to keep to the same lines as what has been done — I understand that we are not required to do exactly the same thing from one report to the next, but we had decided in the past to provide background information when we wanted to submit a factual report. That is what we want to do here. So personally, I would not take them out because I think the semicolons resolve the matter.
The Chair: Afterwards, as I suggested earlier.
[English]
Senator McCoy, you had your hand raised before I called for concurrence on page 2.
Senator McCoy: Yes, and I don’t — do you want to do it paragraph by paragraph?
The Chair: No, I think that you made the comments where you think that it works because I won’t call all the lines of 18 pages. It’s not a bill, it’s essentially a recital.
Senator McCoy: May I comment on paragraph 2 then? Paragraph 2, line 20, footnote 8. It refers to the quasi‑constitutional right of access. And so then I read footnote 8 as you might imagine, and the comment there is that a quasi-constitutional right implements the constitutional right, in this case the right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
That is not what Justice LeBel said and it is not what a quasi‑constitutional status is.
The Chair: I understand.
Senator McCoy: I think, though, it’s a very important point and it’s one that the justices, when they are giving speeches on this topic, quote. So I went to the decision itself, and I would recommend including a little bit more of paragraphs 79 and 80 of Justice LeBel’s decision.
The Chair: I would suggest in the footnote the specific paragraph of the decision, and from those two paragraphs, the essential lines that define the quasi-constitutional right of access to information.
Senator McCoy: If we want to be of assistance to readers of this report, the Access to Information Act is not an act that people rush to embrace. It’s not a huggable act. Most people have no cause to use it and it’s very precise and complex. So why make all this fuss over it? It’s well explained in clause 80 of Justice LeBel’s decision, and this is the key point Chief Justice McLachlin has repeated so often:
Before the advent of modern government, the mechanisms that embodied these values were subsumed in the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, according to which Ministers were accountable to Parliament for their actions. The sovereign Parliament, and only Parliament, was responsible . . .
Those values she references are transparency, accountability and governance.
And then she goes on in paragraph 81 to talk about the proliferation of agencies and departments.
The Chair: I think my suggestion meets your concern. If we refer specifically to paragraphs 79 and 80 and take the one sentence of paragraph 80 that is to the core point of the definition of a quasi-constitutional right, I think we have met your objective. I think the analysts have taken note of that and I think there is agreement around the table with respect to that.
Senator McCoy: Whatever the committee agrees to.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Would we remove the current sentence, which is in note 8?
The Chair: Yes, of course.
[English]
I think there is agreement. I will remind honourable senators that we will do the review of the draft and then it will be shared between the members of steering committee, as you know, for the last concurrence on it before it is added. There will be an opportunity to make sure that those comments that are being taken note of by the Library of Parliament will be given effect in the review that we are going to make.
[Translation]
Senator Smith: When we had discussions about the amendments, specifically about the Prime Minister’s letters to the minister —
[English]
I refer to Senator Boisvenu, who put forward a couple of amendments. In business, people like to understand, when people leave, what type of severance arrangements exist. And in cases of moving, they would also like to know what is going on, so this can be part of something that you maybe revise as you go forward and you review periods. Severance and moving costs are the key types of things that everybody in Canada can understand.
In accessing this type of piece of legislation, one of the things I noticed, because I haven’t been involved very long in this but I asked for some summaries, is that in the summary page I received from our staff, the issue of trying to get information is difficult most of the time, but when we look at mandate letters from our Prime Minister to ministers, I think it’s important for us to be able to identify a couple of key areas that we are actually going to put in which will give an added value that may not exist today. That’s all.
I just mention that point, not because it was refused by a vote but, from a practical perspective. If there is information that needs to be put in, especially for ministerial changes, whether they stay or go or their key staff stay or go, severance is always there and moving people around the country is always the second point. I just think it’s an important point to bring up. Maybe as you are deliberately moving forward through a review process it will fall into place.
The Chair: That’s what I was going to suggest. Senator McCoy circulated a letter of concern in the observations, and other senators too, and I think in the forthcoming year’s review, we could identify subjects where we want that review to concentrate on. It mentions the concern and reflects concerns expressed through the amendments but have not been resolved.
Senator Smith: I understand that.
The Chair: That would be possible in the observations.
Senator Smith: We’re in a fluid situation, and I respect that.
The Chair: Is it agreed, honourable senators, that page 2 is adopted with, of course, the suggestions made around the table and have been noted? Agreed.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Page 3. Any comments?
Senator McCoy: I’m looking at lines 6 and 7, the sentence that starts: Bill C-58 was presented as the first significant legislative attempt to modernize the ATIA —
The Chair: Which line?
Senator McCoy: Lines 6 and 7 and footnote 11. When you look at footnote 11, you realize it’s the ministers that are making this statement. And you realize that this is — how shall I say this — the position of the government in putting the best foot forward regarding their bill. So I would prefer that sentence to read, “the government presented Bill C-58,” so at least people know. Lots of people don’t bother to read the footnote.
The Chair: We understand that. I think there is agreement around the table in relation to that. You have taken note. Thank you.
Senator McCoy: In starting to look for comments from the 12 and 13, I would ask that the analysts go back and check the testimony from the Indigenous panel and other Indigenous representatives, because they made comments on many sections beyond the fact that their records are held in what we used to call INAC, and that’s a conflict of interest. I know the comment and I’m pretty sure in footnote 13 that one or more of those First Nation witnesses should be included in the footnote. I put that forward for two reasons. One is because they did, I’m pretty sure, though I may be wrong. It also shows a lack of respect if we don’t begin to quote them every bit as frequently as we quote non-Indigenous witnesses.
The Chair: I agree with that. I want to remind honourable senators that Senator Dupuis has a proposal of observation in relation to that, which is rather complete. I think your concern is certainly met by the initiative of Senator Dupuis. We could certainly add the testimony and that note there. Agreed?
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I do not know how we can do this, but when Ms. Maynard testified, she surprised me by stating that neither she nor her predecessor, nor the Information Commissioner or Mr. Therrien’s information advisor had been consulted before the bill was introduced here.
During her testimony, she said that she had a lot of data, research and media material that she could have submitted to us when we studied the bill. I don’t know if we can indicate that after the third line on page 3, perhaps after “rapid evolution of technology.”
[English]
The Chair: It was mentioned. I remember it well myself.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Yes, everyone was surprised that she had not been consulted.
Senator Dupuis: Senator Boisvenu, can you just tell me where you are on page 3?
Senator Boisvenu: I am at “Access to Information.”
The Chair: I assume you are in the middle, line 16 or 17?
Senator Boisvenu: After line 15.
Senator Dupuis: I am not sure if this is somewhere else in the report, but I was wondering if we could not also include the information that the two commissioners, the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner, sent a joint letter to the government. What I mean is that it is one thing to mention that the two commissioners were not consulted before the bill was introduced, it’s quite another thing to say that they held a discussion on the proposals they provided in a joint letter.
The Chair: This is on page 14. If you want, we can come back to this when we go back to page 14: “Privacy Commissioner, related issues” on page 14 in the French version. We will make a note and we will come back to it when we get to page 14.
[English]
I think that the suggestion made by Senator Boisvenu does meet the concern of senators around the table. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you.
Shall page 3 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
We are now on page 4.
[English]
Are there any comments on page 4?
Senator McCoy: Again, footnote 20. Please double-check to see if the Indigenous representatives had a comment and if so who commented?
The Chair: I think that has been noted.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: We heard some important evidence from Stéphane Giroux of the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec, when he talked about abusive redacting. We know that the bill will not impose excessive sanctions when redaction is used to the point where scarcely a quarter of the documents released are usable and three quarters are not usable because they have been too heavily redacted. For journalists, that is very detrimental and it also adds to the delays. I am not sure whether we can add some information to the report on this abusive redacting that the journalists told us about during the committee hearings.
The Chair: Certainly, after the footnote on page 20, at line 13 in the French version, we can add a sentence referring to the concerns that the committee heard about the redaction of documents.
Senator Boisvenu: Exactly.
The Chair: And refer to the evidence from the journalists.
On page 5, Senator Boisvenu, line 24:
A number of witnesses said that federal institution abuse the exceptions provided for in the Access to Information Act in order to refuse access to information requests. They pointed to the need to increase transparency around the use of exceptions.
We could add it there, if you want.
Senator Boisvenu: Yes, that’s great.
The Chair: Are there any other comments about page 4 before I get your agreement?
Senator Dupuis: Can I ask you to repeat the comment that was added on page 4?
The Chair: That’s essentially the reference Senator Boisvenu mentioned about the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes.
Senator Dupuis: Before that, did we adopt something at the top of page 4?
The Chair: In note 20. Would you like to repeat it, Senator Boisvenu?
Senator Boisvenu: It was about Indigenous people. It was Senator McCoy.
The Chair: It is Senator McCoy. Is that okay with you?
Senator Dupuis: Yes, thank you. I am sorry.
The Chair: Shall page 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: Carried.
On page 5, we have the suggestion from Senator Boisvenu. Are there any other suggestions on page 5? Adopted? Okay, carried with Senator Boisvenu’s suggested amendment.
We continue with page 6. Are there any comments?
[English]
Senator McCoy: I have two comments, and one is very nitpicky but it’s one of my nits. I think in my former life I was an editor, I’m afraid. And I’m blessed or cursed, depending on you view it, with an editorial eye. On line 21 it says “e.g.” and there should be a comma after that. That is with the English; I am not sure about the French.
Then I have one other comment.
I’m glad this is on the public record. I’m going to frame that one.
The Chair: It is important. We have to respect the nature of each official language.
Senator McCoy: I have one other comment and it is on footnote 34.
First of all, it’s a footnote that former Minister Brison did not appear to see the necessity of amending new section 6.1. I feel it’s odd to call him “former minister,” we used to say “then minister” but that’s another point. He says he doesn’t see the necessity and then in footnote 4, we are saying it all over again. I think that is putting too much emphasis on the point.
I’m happy to see the footnote identifying where he spoke, but I don’t see why we should be beating it on the head, so I would take out the sentence “he added that the concerns . . . .”
The Chair: Raised by the Information Commissioner?
Senator McCoy: Yes.
[Translation]
The Chair: We are at reference 34, at the bottom of page 6, in the English version.
[English]
Then President of Treasury Board or former President of Treasury Board. “Then” is okay. Any other comments on page 6?
Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We will move on to page 7.
Senator Batters: I’m not really sure what to suggest about that particular sentence on line 5 about the Minister of Justice saying that the bill meets the Supreme Court criteria and that it is legal. I should hope the Minister of Justice would think that so I’m not sure why we need that. You could perhaps shorten it; it’s just very self-serving.
The Chair: I totally agree with you, especially since we adopted the previous legislation in relation to the obligation of the Minister of Justice to certify that an act meets the obligation of the Charter, as you know. But I’m open to suggestions.
Senator Gold: I take the point, but wouldn’t it be appropriate, though, since we allude to a number of witnesses saying it doesn’t meet the test that somewhere there should be an acknowledgment that the issue was put to the minister and he disagreed. It could be in a footnote. You could take that last sentence and bump it up before we describe what the court said. I do not have a specific exception. I feel to take to out, self‑serving though it may be, gives an incomplete picture of what we heard on the subject.
Senator Batters: Perhaps a footnote would be better and just indicating the Minister of Justice disagreed.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: In a short report, we should give readers an idea of what happened, what we heard, because they are not on our committee.
We do not have to do what some groups do, which is to hide the real arguments in the footnotes. That is what we heard from the minister. It’s a fact.
[English]
The Chair: Eventually, we’ll see if the court maintains the opinion of the Minister of Justice. As you know, this committee expressed concerns about the constitutionality of the interpretation. When the court pronounces on this, we can draw a conclusion.
Senator Batters, I understand your preoccupation which seems to be stating the obvious. On the other hand, if there is an argument about the constitutionality of an opinion, to mention that this is the position the minister took eventually might be challenged. It doesn’t mean because the minister stated it that it’s the final word on it. Of course, the legislation stands for its presumption of constitutionality. A further challenge of it might arrive to a different conclusion, as you know.
We can take it as you said, as we say in French, une tautologie, which is to express the obvious. On the other hand, in the context of a conflict, it states the position of the government in relation to the legislation.
Senator Batters: I certainly understand. I guess I just go back to the comment I made earlier. That was the sentence that I thought was most obviously self-evident, namely, the minister saying what is self-evident. As I said before, there are so many occasions in this report where it seems to give a much larger amount of weight to the few hours of testimony of government ministers compared to the substantial number of hours that others testified about. I note that there are some occasions where what ministers testified about is not included in here, including the part where Minister Gould testified and she clearly didn’t have a clue what the differences were between the Senate and the House of Commons. That didn’t make it into the report.
The Chair: Of course. However, as I stated, I think the point is important to mention the position of the Minister of Justice, which is the government, essentially, in support of an interpretation of the act. In any challenge of the act, a party would certainly take note of the position of the government. The government will restate its arguments in a court of law.
Senator Batters: I guess I would say in that respect —
The Chair: No, I totally understood.
Senator Batters: — that obviously the Minister of Justice is always going to stand up for the act.
The Chair: Of course. Although he thinks differently, he has no choice but to stand by the legality of the legislation.
Senator Batters: Yes. I just wanted to make the point — if it stays in, that’s fine.
The Chair: Is page 7 agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We move to page 8. Any comments?
Senator McCoy: Regarding the sentence that starts on line 9, “The Minister of Justice emphasized that these amendments are reasonable. . .” which amendments? The amendments that we put forward to aggregate?
The Chair: I think it’s in reference to Bill C-58 generally, not to the amendments that were introduced by Senator Dalphond. He is referring to the bill as it stood before this committee decided to amend it.
Senator McCoy: In that case, I would like to see the words “in his opinion” added.
The Chair: No problem. I think that’s fair.
Senator McCoy: Then in a footnote —
Senator Gold: To avoid confusion, instead “of these amendments,” the “provisions of Bill C-58.”
The Chair: These provisions.
Senator Gold: It’s clear he’s talking about the bill.
The Chair: Yes, the word “amendments” is confusing. Agreed.
We’ll put “provisions” instead.
Senator McCoy: In footnote 42, I’m not used to using the phrase “national courts” but we are listing the Federal Court, the Federal Court of Appeal and the tax court as national courts. I would have thought the Supreme Court of Canada would be a national court.
The Chair: Of course.
Senator McCoy: So it’s not in the list. Perhaps we better add it.
The Chair: Yes, of course. The only notes the analysts bring to my attention is that the Supreme Court is not a travelling court while all the other ones mentioned are travelling courts. That’s the distinction that is referred to in there.
We could say “our travelling national courts.” The word “travelling” is important to understand.
Senator Gold: Or, “who are serving on those national courts were required to travel extensively.”
The Chair: Yes. We could rephrase the same idea differently. I agree. We’ll take note of that. Thank you.
Are there any other comments?
Is page 8 carried?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Page 9.
Senator Batters: On page 9, the paragraph that starts at line 22 about the “proactive publication of information, parliamentary privilege and scope,” was obviously a portion of this bill that had I considerable interest in resulting after the testimony of the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Karina Gould’s appearance, where, as I just expressed, underpinning this particular part of the bill there seemed to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the differences between the Senate and the House of Commons. Those were, thankfully — six months later — rectified by a government amendment which was further amended here. It seems to me this paragraph, which continues on to the next page, doesn’t really address what came out of this committee dealing with that.
On line 27, it says, “That determination would be final (proposed new s71.14),” but there’s nothing said there about leading from that to how we got to the amendment part of it. I don’t have any wording as to a particular one sentence that would encompass that, but it feels like it’s not sufficiently expressed there. What we have instead is just saying that the determination would be final, even though then we decided that’s not appropriate wording to adequately deal with the difference of the Senate Speaker. Then it quotes from Minister Brison and from the Acting Deputy Law Clerk at the time, who later went to the House of Commons, his opinion. They both basically had the same opinion about that.
I don’t think it adequately expresses the other side of that. It was a considerable part of the discussion at this committee. There was one meeting. Basically, the entire meeting was all about this. I thought the portion dealing with the Deputy Law Clerk’s opinion, given the discussion involved, gave too much weight to that opinion. Those of us who agree —
The Chair: Yes, and not enough about the concern that was raised with the labelling of the bill.
Senator Batters: Yes.
The Chair: You remember, I had the same preoccupation you had in relation to that.
Senator Batters: Of course; absolutely.
One quick typo on page 10. “Counsel” is spelled wrong on page 10, line 2.
The Chair: Yes, of course. I have many senators.
Senator Pratte: On page 9?
The Chair: We are all on page 9.
Senator Pratte: On page 9, and in the spirit of what Senator Batters mentioned earlier about the minister’s quotes, as a former editor, I just think that the quotes on this page are much too long. They get into the small details of this issue, which is important, but half the page is the minister’s quotes. I think we should shorten that considerably, without losing the meaning of his point of view, because we get into the nitty-gritty of this issue.
The Chair: I think it’s been taken note of by the analysts.
Senator Gold: Going back to Senator Batter’s comments, with which I agree, I wonder if we could delegate. I do not have any language to fix this, but just to insert a sentence or two that alludes to the different ways we in the Senate deal with privileges, and some think that this led to considerable discussion and resulted in amendments.
The Chair: I think we will come to a proposal that we will share with steering. As I say, I was certainly one of those expressing that concern. We’ll make sure that those two sentences take into account the views of senators in relation to that.
Senator Batters: I agree. I think that’s the way to handle it. I think if we don’t have that then we kind of miss the opportunity that we have to educate the public, and frankly some ministers, about how the Senate works.
The Chair: I think there should be a sentence that explains that the Senate in relation to that is of different status than the House of Commons.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: In the same vein, I think on page 9, line 29, in English — it’s on page 10 in French — In French, the word “inquiétudes” is used and in English, the word is “concerns.”
[English]
Concerns have been raised that these provisions may limit the exercise of certain rights and privileges.
[Translation]
I think we could make a greater effort to better reflect the concerns of the committee members, since we have seen some confusion between the status of the Speakers of the House of Commons and of the Senate, and what you just added.
We are not worried about that, but we had some concerns about it. I think it needs to be made clearer.
[English]
The Chair: I think the bill displayed an ignorance of the statut de la loi.
It was as simple, as Senator Batters mentioned, it was an ignorance of the different legal positions in relation to the House of Commons and the Senate.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: For me, the question, my concern, is that — You may tell me that it is opportunistic, but some Senate committees are also useful for something, including getting people to think about certain realities. At least we know the reality of the Senate. We were presented with a bill that did not consider the reality of the Rules of the Senate at all. Is that from ignorance or from something else? We do not know the motivation, but I think we have to state it clearly.
Senator Ringuette: Personally, I think we’re starting to complicate things here. The reality is that the Parliament of Canada Act is clear on the issue of the privileges of the Speakers of both houses. They are on an equal footing as guardians of privilege.
When we criticize some people for not knowing all the ins and outs of the Rules of the Senate, I think we are going a little too far, especially in terms of documents like these.
The Chair: I think you know about the elements of the existing act. We have debated them, as Senator Batters mentioned.
[English]
We have almost had one complete session of this committee on this. I think it is important we stand for the privileges of the Senate, which is our role individually and collectively as an institution.
I think we could reflect it, as you say, without attacking, but I think that we have to state it nevertheless. It is, as somebody said around the table, an opportunity to draw the attention that we are —
Senator Ringuette: I would certainly go into the frame of mind that even though the act of Parliament provides that the Speakers are the legal guardians of parliamentary privilege, each chamber has its own rules to deal with parliamentary privilege.
Senator Batters: I think the language that we were just speaking about across the table didn’t sound in any way attacking, but these were not just small points. When the minister appeared in October in front of this committee, both she and the senior official from the Privy Council, I asked them: Both the Senate Speaker and the House of Commons Speaker are being treated the same here, why is that? Because there are actually some big differences. I pointed out the one. I asked, why are you providing the final decision to the Speakers and not making a distinction about the Senate? The answer that came back was that it is because the Speakers have the final decision to make. So they didn’t know that in the Senate there is the ability to appeal to the whole Senate.
Then they gave me another answer, that it is because the Speaker of both places is the administrative head. I said no, that’s not actually the case for the Senate. So they didn’t know. They weren’t tiny differences, they were fairly fundamental. Certainly, we don’t intend to use this as an attack, but I think there’s an opportunity to provide some education about pretty major differences.
The Chair: I think we all share the concern. Senator McCoy, if you want to conclude, because I am looking at the clock and we have had that discussion at length around the table.
Senator McCoy: — I have some other comments on page 9.
The Chair: I didn’t get you. You were speaking —
Senator McCoy: I’m just pointing out there is no reason for them to have known, as I do not know the rules of the House of Commons in the civil service or the government — not the Senate. There’s no reason for them to know. So there’s no reason to attack them.
The Chair: I think we all understand the spirit in which we want to have the report reflecting that concern. Thank you, honourable senators —
Senator McCoy: I have a couple of other comments.
The Chair: Quickly.
Senator McCoy: Other than that I agree with what’s been agreed to so far.
First, the substantive comment. I think that, again, in the interests of educating people, we should make a comment somewhere, as appropriate, of what the difference is between access to information and proactive disclosure. They are fundamentally different. What we have put in place in this bill, as the Parliament of Canada is about to put in place in this bill in terms of proactive disclosure, has nothing to do with access to information in terms that practitioners would understand. That is on the record somewhere, I believe. I think we need to make the point.
For anybody to get up and boast that yes, we’ve opened up transparency because we’ve put in proactive disclosure, I’m sorry, that’s really — the English have an expression, they call it “egging the custard.” That means putting too many eggs in the custard making it too rich. So it’s overstating the case.
The Chair: I think we could have a sentence making the clear distinction between the two.
Senator McCoy: Here’s two picky editorial comments — but it was in French —
The Chair: Do you have another comment?
Senator McCoy: Line 32, I think the word “house” should be capitalized. Footnote 49.
The Chair: Yes, the house. It should be.
Senator McCoy: Footnote 49, the first letter “I” should be capitalized. And then it should be i period, e period, comma. I would appreciate the proofreader of the document going through the entire document for every e period, g period and for i period, e period.
The Chair: We’ll make sure that change is made all through the document. Yes.
Is page 9 agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Page 10. Are there any comments on page 10? Again, I’m looking at the clock. We hope to finish at 12:30, if possible, and there are the observations to discuss.
I’m sorry, senator, if you want to speak —
Senator Dalphond: I’m sure these small points can be referred to the steering committee without the committee being present, because we can go page by page on the footnote.
The Chair: That’s why the analysts are here and very attentive to what is suggested.
Are there any comments on page 10?
Senator McCoy: On page 10, lines 1 and 2, I’m not comfortable saying that we had a lengthy discussion of these matters with the acting deputy law clerk. I prefer saying that we also heard testimony from that person.
The Chair: I agree. We can rephrase that.
Senator McCoy: And then on line 12, I think I got a bit confused over the use of the words, “information obligation.” In compliance with the new proactive publication, in part 2, or something. I thought —
The Chair: To refer to part 2 of the bill. Yes.
Senator McCoy: Then I had a number of comments on the paragraph that is in lines 14 to 21. This is where we come back. This is why it gets confusing, this bill. We come back to a point that we made at the beginning of the report and it seems like we’re going in circles. In any event, we come back to the quasi‑judicial constitutional right of access.
What I’m trying to put across here in my own mind, and I didn’t finish drafting this point, but, first of all, the primary obligation of this act rests on the departments and agencies, not on the Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner is the neutral, arm’s length officer of Parliament to make sure that the obligation, which is on the agencies and departments, to give access to government information, is carried out as intended.
Her primary role is not to assist complainants. Her primary role is to ensure that the departments are, in fact —
The Chair: Fulfilling their obligation?
Senator McCoy: That’s right.
The Chair: Of disclosing information.
Senator McCoy: In the old act, it’s true, she had the right to initiate proceedings in the Federal Court, and she often did that on behalf of complainants, as we heard in particular First Nations, and so that turned out to be pragmatic, but that’s not her primary role.
I think the wording of this paragraph needs to be worked on a bit. I think you’re quite familiar with this act, and I think you could just leave it to you to come up with a more accurate description of it.
The Chair: It has been noted by the analysts. I’ve made notes myself. We will review this at steering .
Shall page 10 then be agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Page 11.
On page 11, there are suggestions to be added by the analysts in reference to the testimony of the Information Commissioner. I invite you to take that into account in your comments.
If you turn the page, you will see in yellow on the back what the suggestions are to be added.
Are there any comments, honourable senators, in relation to those suggestions and, of course, the rest of page 11?
Senator McCoy: Again, I just find that the counterarguments, which have been put forward by the Department of Justice, are overstressed. I am pleased that the changes on this piece of paper have been recommended by the analysts. In the second change, she hopes — this is after footnote 64, I guess — that further discussion on her recommendations will take place when the act is reviewed in accordance with new section 93.
Could we at least identify what “new section 93” means? Do you remember what that is? You’ve been working with this bill for weeks and months. If our purpose is to actually —
The Chair: We could add that without any problem.
Are there any other suggestions in relation to those changes?
Shall page 11 be agreed?
The Chair: Agreed.
We will turn to page 12. Are there any comments on page 12?
Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Page 13. Are there any comments on page 13?
Shall page 13 be agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Page 14.
Senator McCoy: — commissioner —
The Chair: I’m sorry, senator, could you raise your point with me so that I could share it with all the honourable senators?
Senator McCoy: Sorry. I neglected to get my hand up high enough. I do beg your pardon.
Did we say earlier that Senator Boisvenu’s comments were to be fit into this page somehow?
The Chair: Yes. Senator Boisvenu, I turn back to you as we had agreed to do so in relation to the point that you had made earlier.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Are we not going to just add them to the observations?
The Chair: Do you prefer to add them to the observations? Very well. Perfect.
[English]
Okay, is page 14 agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Page 15?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Page 15 is agreed.
Page 16? Before we discuss the observations, of course.
Senator McCoy: One of the things that we talked about when we talk about reconciliation — and trust me, this is not my field and I’m not learned in this subject, but I’ve heard you and others speak eloquently on this issue — about reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, their concerns always come last; they almost always fall off the edge of the table.
I wonder whether it wouldn’t be a gesture, especially given the very good observations that Senator Dupuis has made regarding Indigenous issues, that we put this section — issues affecting Indigenous peoples — higher up in the order.
The Chair: The suggestion made by Senator Dupuis that, in fact, follows the testimony we heard from the representative of the Aboriginal people and from Senator Dupuis herself when she testified, considering her past involvement in those issues, and is more or less a road map for the committee, which will have the responsibility to review the legislation.
Senator McCoy: I agree with you completely on that. But if you look at the list of witnesses that we had, in fact, the Indigenous panel and the senator herself were heard approximately in the middle of our study. Even if you were following testimony in the chronological order, the Indigenous issues would have come up much earlier.
Let me leave the suggestion with you and put it in the form of a question. Is there any merit at all in — the steering committee can comment or mull it over — positioning the section on issues affecting Indigenous people, higher up in the order of testimony that we recite?
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Can I make a suggestion? Following what Senator McCoy just said, I think we could rework the order in which we present certain subtopics, so that “issues affecting Indigenous peoples” goes after “privacy commissioner and privacy issues” and before procedural issues, such as “transitional provisions” or “third party interest.” I don’t believe that it would require a lot of work to rearrange the order.
The Chair: In addition, in practice, we heard them at a stage that was not the end of our discussion, but rather during the discussions on the studies we did on the bill. It would be chronologically more accurate to include them where we actually heard them during our study.
[English]
We will take that as a very welcome suggestion and, of course, with the agreement of the honourable senators around the table.
[Translation]
Thank you, Senator McCoy. Do we have agreement to adopt page 16 before the observations?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
[English]
The Chair: Can we move on observations?
[Translation]
Do you want to go back, Senator Boisvenu?
Senator Boisvenu: I want to go back, because I saw the notes that Senator Dupuis gave us on the Indigenous aspect. I was wondering whether her comments might contain items that could be included in the text.
Senator Dupuis: My idea was for the committee to take note of the government’s commitments. In other words, we heard from a number of witnesses and asked a number of questions and, during the committee’s work — I think that’s what I want to do in the report, whether it’s a fairly strong observation that the committee acknowledges that the government has made some commitments as they have been stated — and I have purposely reflected the wording of the letter from the President of the Treasury Board. So we take note of those commitments, because, at the bottom of the page, I say that the committee will make sure to assess the implementation of those various commitments when the legislation is being reviewed. We know there will be a review of the legislation in a year’s time, and we want to remind ourselves that we did not do all this work on Bill C-58 for nothing. We will have to review the act. In the meantime, commitments have been made and we will want to measure the extent to which the commitments have been met or not. That was the idea.
Senator Boisvenu: I was thinking out loud. I was thinking that if, for example, we had the six observations, of which five are about Indigenous people and one is about other issues, it was as if we had completely forgotten about Indigenous people in our report.
The Chair: Yes, but we agreed to the —
Senator Boisvenu: That’s not what I mean. What I mean is if, for example, we had six observations, five of which were about Indigenous people and one about other issues —
Senator Dupuis: I consider that to be an observation.
Senator Boisvenu: Very good.
Senator Dupuis: Yes, because we have the letter. That’s why I circulated it in advance. The committee received that letter on February 25. We take note of the commitments, that’s what we say in our observation, and we say to ourselves that the commitment has seven points. When we reassess the legislation, we will be able to see whether those various commitments have been implemented or have begun to be implemented, and where we stand. So, it’s an observation.
Senator Boisvenu: I understand.
Senator Dupuis: It’s only one observation.
[English]
The Chair: Can I call the committee’s concurrence with the observations that have been circulated?
Senator McCoy: We are talking about the observations put forward by Senator Dupuis?
The Chair: Yes, we are on that very subject.
Senator McCoy: Very good. I’m entirely supportive, but I do have a question. There are references to page numbers and I’m not sure if it’s the report, Bill C-58 or the letters that were received on February 25.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: In the third line of the observation, I wanted to refer to “as expressed in the letter received on February 25th, 2019.” The interesting thing is that the letter is not dated.
[English]
The Chair: I remember this issue very well.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: It was received by the committee on February 25, as the clerk confirmed. In my opinion, the letter we received on February 25 from the President of the Treasury Board clearly states — However, we can specify that it is page 4 of the letter, in parentheses. I don’t mind.
[English]
The Chair: We could do that for more clarity, if you want.
Senator McCoy: There is a typo in the first line on observation 3. It is a capital “N” on nations.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you.
Senator McCoy: Other than that, I’m totally in support.
The Chair: Would you repeat it?
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: I agree with Senator Dupuis’ suggestion. Will the Treasury Board letter be included as an appendix to the report? I agree, the commitments that have been made —
The Chair: My understanding is that it was added to the minutes of the committee meeting, because clearly, when the clerk or I receive a letter on behalf of the committee, the first thing we do is ask you to agree that it be added to the minutes of the meeting where it is mentioned. So it was added; I checked with the clerk, and it is part of the committee’s documents.
Senator Ringuette: I understand that it is part of the committee’s documents because it was tabled. I agree with Senator Dupuis’ recommendations. To reinforce our support for these commitments, why would we not append the letter to the report?
Shaila Anwar, Clerk of the Committee: We can do that, but it would be quite long. Since it is part of the minutes available to the public, we can refer to it in the report, which will then include a hyperlink to the letter on the committee’s website.
Senator Ringuette: If we can indicate the pages of the letter, why —
Ms. Anwar: If we want to, we can.
Senator Dupuis: We can include it.
Senator Ringuette: Why not? We care about these commitments.
Ms. Anwar: The only thing is that we have received a number of letters, so it’s a little —
[English]
The Chair: The analyst drew my attention to appendix B, on page 19 of the draft report, lines 4, 5 and 6. It’s a reference to that letter. So it’s the first item.
Senator Ringuette: Okay.
The Chair: So it’s not buried in it.
[Translation]
It’s the first one. We included it first. Like you, we are very sensitive to this issue and, when the analysts prepared the list of submissions, it was placed first.
Senator Dupuis: I have a question for you, along the same lines. Do we have the March 13 letter from the Minister of Justice?
The Chair: It will be added, because we have it. We received it after the draft report, but we will certainly update the list to ensure that we are — Yes, because the letter is important, of course.
[English]
Senator McCoy: You will want to add the word “received” in reference to the Treasury Board letter and it’s not dated the twenty-fifth; it was received then according to Senator Dupuis.
The Chair: The letter was not dated and that’s why it mentions “received.”
Senator McCoy: Where does it —
The Chair: “The committee takes note of the government’s commitment as expressed in the letter received on February —
Senator McCoy: I’m looking at page 19 and your appendix B, list of briefs. I see the standard format is that you have received submissions, and you just haven’t said “received.”
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: We don’t see it on page 6. That’s a good point.
[English]
The Chair: It will be corrected. Thank you.
Any other suggestions in relation to the proposal of observations by Senator Dupuis? Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Chair: We’ll continue with Senator Boisvenu’s observations.
[English]
Senator Boisvenu, do you have a copy of those observations?
[Translation]
Could you make sure that all senators — It says “observations” — There is no other information on identity, but they are introduced by Senator Boisvenu. Do all senators have a copy of the proposal?
[English]
Everybody has a copy? I understand “yes” from your signs.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu, go ahead.
Senator Boisvenu: Yes, there are seven.
The Chair: Can we tackle them one by one, because they deal with different topics?
Senator Boisvenu: Yes. I’m not sure whether Senator Smith wants to talk about the first one.
Senator Smith: I mentioned the importance of including severance pay and moving allowance, because those things can change and all Canadians can relate to that sort of information.
[English]
The Chair: That is, of course, an observation on its own. The first one is not essentially with that. I stand it, Senator Smith, if you want to, let’s take the list of the seven points, and I’ll come back to you with that one as being the eighth one, if you want to. Okay? Because at least we have a formal —
Senator Smith: Fine.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: First, the members of the committee denounce or point out the fact that the bill does not implement the mandate letter of the Minister of Justice.
Senator Pratte: That is why I was disappointed with the bill. So I can’t say that I’m against that. However, I think the verb “denounce” is a little strong. We could deplore or highlight, but denounce —
[English]
In English, frankly, I don’t know. It says “take issue.” Is that as strong as dénoncer?
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: We could say “deplore.”
The Chair: In my opinion, “deplore” is closer to what you want.
Senator Pratte: Okay.
Senator Dupuis: Senator Boisvenu, let’s just say I don’t understand the sentence. Can you explain it to me?
Senator Boisvenu: Some items were very much related to the fact that the legislation applies to the Prime Minister’s and ministers’ offices.
Senator Dupuis: Yes.
Senator Boisvenu: In some cases, no. Yesterday, I tabled resolutions and amendments that were rejected. So not all expenditures will be part of those proactive disclosures. Yesterday, you refused to include some categories in the proactive disclosures.
Senator Dupuis: I’m trying to understand. What in the mandate letter from the Minister of Justice is not being implemented, because I’m not grasping it?
Senator Boisvenu: I will read the text verbatim. The letter states the following, and I quote:
Work with the President of the Treasury Board to enhance the openness of government, including supporting his review of the Access to Information Act to ensure that Canadians have easier access to their own personal information, that the Information Commissioner is empowered to order government information to be released and that the Act applies appropriately to the Prime Minister’s and Ministers’ Offices, as well as administrative institutions that support Parliament and the courts.
The Chair: That’s the part of the act you’re referring to.
Senator Boisvenu: Exactly.
Senator Dupuis: Do you mean “does not fully implement the mandate letter of the Minister of Justice”?
Senator Boisvenu: Exactly.
Senator Dalphond: We can add “entirely” or “fully.”
Senator Ringuette: I must also tell you that not all members of this committee agree. Perhaps we could say “some members of the committee deplore”.
Senator Dupuis: “Certain members.”
Senator Ringuette: “Certain members.” The whole does not reflect —
Senator Gold: For several reasons, we won’t finish at 12:30 p.m. It’s important that we finish this work, but I will have to leave for another meeting. I don’t agree with the vast majority of these observations. I won’t be here to vote. I would ask that we find a way to describe the support in the same way, so as not to give the impression that everyone agrees. I absolutely do not agree. I have many questions that still concern me, particularly with regard to the Norman case.
The Chair: I will put each observation to a vote.
Senator Gold: I won’t be here to vote. We have spent a lot of time on details that were perhaps — There is a more effective way to “freshen up” the text.
Senator Dupuis: Can we agree to proceed quickly? We know everyone’s position. I think we can deal with the seven points in five minutes.
Senator Boisvenu: We can show the same support that we showed in relation to your observations.
Senator Dupuis: I have no objection. I can support or not in five minutes. We have had a lot of discussion, and we’re ready to proceed.
The Chair: I take the suggestion that the mention “some members” reflects the opinion around the table. Some members of the committee deplore the fact that the bill does not fully implement the mandate letter of the Minister of Justice.
[English]
Agreed?
Okay, second one.
Senator Batters: Is it appropriate to say a “majority of members,” because “certain” sounds like just a few, maybe? It seemed like it was a majority, because Senator Pratte was on side.
The Chair: Could I say “a number of senators.” It doesn’t mean minority or majority. It says a number of senators.
Senator Batters: All right.
The Chair: If you want that, that would be a way to handle it. Thank you.
[Translation]
Let’s go to point 2, Senator Boisvenu, keeping in mind that we have limited time to finish.
Senator Boisvenu: Yes. “The main advocates of the bill — the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner — were not consulted before Bill C-58 was introduced.”
Senator Ringuette: The report already says that.
The Chair: We would include it in the body of the report, senator.
Senator Boisvenu: Okay.
[English]
The Chair: That will be in the text of the report, senator.
This has already been treated and it will be reflected in the body of the report.
[Translation]
The Chair: Observation No. 3.
Senator Boisvenu: “One of the most important concerns heard during the committee’s hearings was the extended delays in the access to information regime and excessive redactions. The question of whether Bill C-58 will improve delays or reduce redactions remains a concern.”
I’ll remove redactions from that sentence because it is discussed in point 4. I’ll talk strictly about deadlines.
Senator Dupuis: But it’s already in the text.
The Chair: One senator at a time, please.
Senator Boisvenu: Could you give me the reference, senator?
Senator Dupuis: On page 5, line 26, it says that we wanted to add the issue of redactions.
Senator Boisvenu: I’m talking about delays.
Senator Dupuis: Yes, and we talked about the extended deadlines. Mr. Analyst, where did you include this for us?
The Chair: On line 26 in French, on page 5. In addition, with regard to deadlines, I believe that they were also referred to in the body of the report.
We will check the report to make sure it isn’t redundant.
On page 4, we talk about “delays, backlogs and resources.” We could make sure, of course —
Senator Boisvenu: What line are you on?
The Chair: Line 7 on page 4.
Ms. Anwar: Line 7, page 4.
Senator Boisvenu: Line 7.
The Chair: Yes, line 7 on page 4.
[English]
It’s the same in English.
Several witnesses underscore the importance of addressing the excessive time it takes for a government institution to respond to Access to Information requests.
[Translation]
It’s pretty clear to me.
Senator Boisvenu: Okay. We’ll leave it because it’s already been integrated into the text.
The Chair: Redactions have already been integrated into the text.
Senator Boisvenu: So I’ll go to point 5?
The Chair: Yes, point 5.
Senator Boisvenu: “Senators fear the destruction of some key documents, especially if an office holder is at risk of being the subject of a criminal investigation. We were surprised to learn that there are no longer any guidelines for the retention and production of documents at this time.”
This is research that was done by our colleague Senator Carignan.
Senator Pratte: I would just like to know this: Which witnesses told us that there were no longer any guidelines on the retention and production of documents?
It may have been mentioned, but I don’t remember it. It seems to me that it would have struck me if we had said so. It only says “Senator Carignan” in brackets.
Senator Boisvenu: It’s in the October 31, 2018 testimony of Monique Dumont, a consultant with the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec, who referred to the Cinar case.
Senator Pratte: I am not sure that it can be concluded, based on the testimony of a consultant, that there are no longer any guidelines on document retention at this time. Honestly, I don’t know, but I would be surprised if there were no directives on the retention and production of documents by the Government of Canada.
Senator Boisvenu: I asked the department officials the question, I don’t remember which organization they belonged to, and none of them could confirm whether there were any conservation criteria. They did for administrative records, but they couldn’t confirm that there were conservation criteria.
Senator Gold: You’re right, but the fact that these people didn’t know and were unable to confirm this fact doesn’t mean that there is no such thing.
Senator Pratte: I object to this observation. We will comment on observation No. 5.
The Chair: If the senators are ready to vote.
[English]
All those in favour of the —
Senator Batters: One further point on that. If the government officials who are sent here can’t provide us with that type of confirmation about something like that on a bill — Senator Boisvenu indicated that he asked about something, a witness had testified about, and then the government officials couldn’t confirm something different. Either it’s the case that the appropriate officials are not being sent here, or they should be better armed with information to answer important questions on this bill.
Senator Ringuette: I’m sorry, but the interpretation of the testimony yesterday of the specialists is being somewhat distorted. The question was with regard to keeping the documents for 15 years. She said — and we can return to her testimony — that different institutions have different rules, but all have a rule with regard to the keeping of the documents. Therefore, I hope that we continue on the vote on this and —
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I will contradict Senator Ringuette. I asked her the straightforward question, namely whether she was sure that there were conservation criteria for political records. She replied that she did not. She said there were criteria for administrative staff, public servants and deputy ministers, but when I asked her if there were retention criteria for so-called “political” documents with respect to voluntary disclosure, she said no.
The Chair: Moreover, the way observation No. 5 is worded does not distinguish between this information and the other information.
Senator Boisvenu: Reference can be made to the so-called...
Senator Ringuette: Can we proceed to the vote?
Senator Boisvenu: I can introduce an amendment. Take your time, Senator Ringuette. There’s no rush.
Senator Ringuette: We had started voting.
Senator Boisvenu: You’ve made about thirty proposals, and we’ve had the patience to listen to them all.
The Chair: Honourable senator, if you’d like to propose what you are suggesting —
Senator Boisvenu: We can refer strictly to voluntary disclosures, because that is what we were referring to in question period.
The Chair: What you are proposing would be included at the end — There is the first part of the sentence, so, “Senators are concerned about the destruction of certain key documents, especially if an office holder is at risk of being the subject of a criminal investigation.”
Then there is the following sentence: “We were surprised to learn that there are no longer any guidelines on the retention and production of documents covered by the voluntary disclosure provisions.”
Senator Boisvenu: There we have it.
The Chair: We will proceed to the vote.
[English]
All those in favour of the observation as amended by Senator Boisvenu, please raise your hand.
All those opposed? The proposed observation is defeated.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I recommend that it be recorded as a minority observation.
The Chair: Minority observation.
We are continuing with paragraph —
Senator Boisvenu: Mr. Chair, it is 12:30 p.m. We propose finishing our work here.
[English]
The Chair: I have a proposal to adjourn. There are only three more observations to move.
Senator Batters: Just because the Senate will start its sitting at 1:30 today, we were supposed to have this meeting only to 12:30. I have certain things I have to do before we start sitting today. Who knows if it will only be five minutes? It could be half an hour. You are ready to vote even though you’re all independent senators and you have just received these?
Senator Gold: Let’s vote. I also have a meeting, Senator Batters, that started a minute ago. I think we have a responsibility. We worked hard on this bill and it’s an important bill. We’re at the very end, let’s not delay it any further.
Senator Batters: It’s not a matter —
The Chair: Senator McCoy, quickly.
Senator McCoy: I would concur with the extension. I’m hoping to make some points myself.
The Chair: We’ll deal with this.
Senator McCoy: I would only concur if it gives me some time to add some observations.
Senator Batters: Then we have to leave.
The Chair: We’ll do it quickly. I will have to put the question to a vote. Because, of course, I am bound by the will of this committee.
All those in favour of continuing to complete the study of the three observations as put forward by Senator Boisvenu and give a chance to Senator McCoy to make her own observations?
All those opposed?
All those who abstain?
So we will continue.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu, we are continuing with observation No. 6.
Senator Boisvenu: “Committee members are concerned about the latest developments in the Norman case; senior Canadian military officers have allegedly used codes to evade the application of the Access to Information Act. Senators are concerned that the bill does not address the problematic use of codes to circumvent the application of the Access to Information Act.”
I would remind you that an amendment has been proposed to this effect and has been accepted by the committee.
[English]
The Chair: Any other observations?
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: I voted in favour of the amendment tabled by Senator Boisvenu on this subject. Is the issue not now resolved? We have amended the legislation to make it a quasi-criminal offence.
[English]
The Chair: Are senators ready for the question?
All those in favour of the observation No. 6, as proposed by Senator Boisvenu please raise your hands.
All those opposed?
The observation is defeated.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: It’s a minority observation.
The Chair: We are now moving on to observation No. 7.
Senator Boisvenu: “The Minister of Justice testified at the very end of the study. This has affected the right of parliamentarians to receive relevant information to amend the bill.”
Senator Gold: I am opposed to this amendment. It is true that the Minister of Justice testified near the end, because there was a change of minister, but I do not think his presence affected us in the way described in the observation. We have drafted an amendment on only those aspects of the bill for which he is responsible.
[English]
I would vote against this.
Senator Batters: On this particular one, yes we started studying this bill in what month? October?
The Chair: Yes, October. With a suspension, of course, as we stated this morning.
Senator Batters: For just three meetings, that extension was over a short period of time. During that entire time, we did not have a Minister of Justice appear in front of us. It was normally the case, under the previous government and all other governments that I’ve been advised about before that, that the minister dealing with the bill appears near the start of the bill or sometimes. Usually at the very start of the study of the bill because that’s the most appropriate way to get the information about the purpose of the bill and the high level things so that we can better dig into it.
I think this particular observation is necessary because this has become too much of a trend in the last three and a half years. I think it’s important to set out how it impacts our study of the bill to have the minister at the very end, after we’ve heard all of these different witnesses. It is difficult.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: If the committee wants to blame the former Minister of Justice for not appearing despite our repeated invitations, I agree. If we want to blame the current minister, who appeared immediately after his appointment, I object.
I propose an amendment to say that we blame the former Minister of Justice for not appearing before the committee.
The Minister of Justice, in his testimony, said why this violated —
[English]
— because the former minister was not coming.
The Chair: We could rephrase the observation and the way that —
[Translation]
— the committee regrets that it did not have the opportunity to hear the former minister at the beginning of its work. However, as the honourable senators mention —
[English]
We heard the new Minister of Justice almost immediately. We should make a distinction not to appear too — I think it’s a fact that we didn’t hear the former Minister of Justice, but I would not, as Senator Gold has mentioned, include the present Minister of Justice, who has in fact been very diligent to come here and to be open to amendments and whatnot.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: There is a cause and effect element here. If the Minister of Justice had appeared, the new Minister of Justice would not have done so. The new Minister of Justice appeared because the other one was not there. We must not forget that the reason we didn’t study this bill in a reasonable time was because we were always postponing the meeting because the Minister of Justice did not want to appear. If it had been introduced on time, this bill would have been considered much more quickly.
[English]
The Chair: Senator, I offer you a way to resolve this point, which, in my opinion, is factual, and to restrict our observation to that.
[Translation]
Senator McIntyre: We are talking about the presence of one Minister of Justice and the absence of the other, as Senator Dalphond mentioned. We are talking about presence and absence here.
Senator Dupuis: I think what you’re suggesting is that we regret that the former Minister of Justice did not appear before the committee, despite several invitations — which is a fact. It should also be noted that the current Minister of Justice testified immediately after his appointment.
The Chair: Exactly.
[English]
Senator Gold: That might not meet the objectives of this recommendation.
Senator Batters: I think what you were saying before, Mr. Chair, is a bit more precise way of dealing with this. We don’t have to get into the nitty-gritty of that particular part because, frankly, if we did — and I note that the new Minister of Justice appeared at the very hour that the former Minister of Justice was testifying in front of the House of Commons committee and probably welcomed the distraction. I think to avoid that whole topic, it’s probably a bit better to word it as you were suggesting earlier, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: That’s what I thought was a fair fact.
Senator Batters: Yes.
The Chair: To try to resolve, of course, with the concurrence of the honourable senators. I’m here to try to help you move forward. I’m looking at the clock always.
Senator McCoy: I would just raise the point that I think this committee is moving dangerously close to a political hot spot, an issue that is still causing reverberations throughout the country. I don’t know why you would do that. This is the Senate of Canada.
The Chair: Yes, but when this committee studied the remediation agreement it had five or six observations in relation to the absence of the Minister of Justice. It was stated in a factual way. I think that it was important for the sake of all those who were interested in the remediation agreement to look into how this committee studied this issue, because we were the only committee of Parliament that studied it. It was looked into and referred to the question, observations that we made.
To recognize the fact as I have stated it, in my opinion, is not outside what I will call good behaviour as a committee. If I could use that word.
[Translation]
Senator Gold: What wording would you suggest, please?
The Chair: The committee regrets that it did not have the opportunity to hear from the former Minister of Justice at the very beginning of its work to enable him to understand the objectives of the bill.
[English]
Okay? Agreed? Thank you, honourable senators.
[Translation]
I’ll now go back to Senator Smith —
[English]
— with your observations that you wanted to make in relation to the information about the cost of moving and severance pay.
Senator Smith: It’s just a suggestion that as an example —
[Translation]
It is important to have an illustration or example of two points that the public will like, which will give meaning to access to information. You know, with time and government renewal, hopefully more points will be added to clarify the issue and give a better perspective to the general public.
[English]
That was the idea behind it. You could tie it in as an extension of the first sentence.
Senator McCoy: Which first sentence?
Senator Smith: It was actually in the report. Do you remember, I brought it up, at page 2, where I thought that the mandate letter may not clearly be adhered to? It’s a good example of a mandate letter from the Prime Minister to a minister, where the minister has an obligation when there are changes put into that particular department, these two elements, as an example, need to be highlighted so the public can get an understanding of exactly what it is. That was the idea.
The Chair: Are there any comments?
Senator Smith: I didn’t want to complicate anything. I just thought, as a business person, that’s what I would assume as a business person. The first thing I want to see when you change your department, when you change personnel, is how much it cost you. There are two things: severance, moving or any other expenses.
The Chair: That’s the essential element, in fact, of the two amendments that were introduced yesterday by the Honourable Senator Boisvenu.
Senator Smith: Please forgive me, sir. I’m what they call a newbie.
The Chair: No. You are most welcome. We need support around this table.
Senator McCoy: The severance was not approved. Only relocation was approved.
Senator Pratte: I wanted to highlight that there was an amendment and it was defeated. So I don’t see how the committee could then have it as an observation if it defeated an amendment on that precise point.
The Chair: Are there any other comments? Senator Boisvenu.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: It could be a minority observation.
Senator Dupuis: I thought that, in all the months spent studying these issues, we had long been asking for the texts to be tabled and circulated. We are working with something we have in front of us, but we don’t know what we’re talking about exactly, and we don’t know where we are going to add it.
I think we’ve been clear in the observation that was adopted, and that is enough. In my opinion, Senator Boisvenu’s first observation is clear. We don’t need to start now to give examples of what would be acceptable to one group of citizens and not to another. It seems to me that we’ve completed this step, and the subject is already covered in the first observation, which we have already adopted.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any other comments before I call a vote on this objective?
All those in favour of it being an observation that would refer to the fact that the proactive disclosure doesn’t cover severance pay and cost of moving, please raise your hands.
All those opposed? All those who abstain?
The amendment is carried.
It will be in the way that I have stated it, Senator Smith, if you allow me that. Of course, steering is the only one to —
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: What is the outcome of the vote?
[English]
The Chair: The result of the vote is 5-3 and one abstention.
We move to the comments of Senator McCoy. Again, I’m looking at the clock.
Senator McCoy: If I could draw your attention to the four bullets at the bottom of the page.
The Chair: The document has been circulated.
Senator McCoy: My point is I would have thought we would make some observations that would guide —
The Chair: Could you come closer to the microphone, Madam Senator?
Senator McCoy: Yes, of course.
I thought we would make some observations that would help guide the review, particularly the next review of ATIP. That’s what the bottom four were intended to do.
The second bullet in that list has been addressed in Senator Dupuis’s observations. Let’s take that one off the table.
The points that I would have liked to have seen made, one is our recognition that the funding or the resources — I’ve said underfunding, but the resources, the capacity, is low. I would like to see us recognize that point.
I think that any help that the civil service can get in recognizing their dilemma is deserved. We should at least extend that observation, that they’re facing that challenge.
I leave the wording up to the steering committee.
The Chair: Are there any comments in relation to that point?
Senator Ringuette: I haven’t seen any witnesses saying that they were underfunded. Actually, the Information Commissioner testified the other week that she had received an additional $3 million for next year.
Senator McCoy: There is testimony. And I’m sorry, I don’t have chapter and verse in terms of the departmental and agency staffing, for example.
In any event, I think it’s a fair point to support our civil service. They’re doing what they can do. I think it would be desirable to support them, especially since this is such an important function.
Senator Dalphond: I look at the four bullets at the end of the document, and I think the last one should be the one we should be recommending, that the government work with the commissioner to bring the legislation into line with the best practices as they recognize internationally. This will, of course, include proper financing. I think that will be part of it.
I noticed that in the last budget there was an increase of the budget for the Information Commissioner.
Senator McCoy: Yes, I understand. I do notice the funding for the commissioner, but the fact is the Department of Immigration, for example, is under-resourced. It’s not a question of people there. It’s probably a question of technology. That’s the part I’m concerned about.
I’m happy to roll it into that final bullet, if you like. If we want to pay attention to the final bullet and say, “including the proper amount of support.”
The Chair: Proper funding.
Senator McCoy: Proper funding or proper resourcing to make sure it’s big enough to include technology.
The Chair: That is what I want to suggest also.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Senator McCoy, would you have any objection to the following? Say the following in the fourth point: “Work with the Commissioner to bring legislation to best practices, including sufficient resources to ensure the exercise of the quasi-constitutional right . . .”
In other words, we don’t want them to tell us that they will give more resources than next year; we want them to adjust funding so that we can ensure the real exercise of this quasi‑constitutional right of access to information.
[English]
The Chair: I think that would be fairly stated if we can go that —
Senator McCoy: Yes. I think that’s going along in the right direction, just as long as we make sure it’s not just people, it’s technology. I leave the wording to the steering committee.
The Chair: I think we have the idea. Is there a consensus around the table in relation to —
Senator McCoy: I want to come back to my —
The Chair: Yes, of course. One at a time, Madam Senator.
Senator McCoy: Fair enough.
The Chair: It’s bullet four. Do we agree with the substance of bullet four: Work with the Information Commissioner, based on her 2015 report, et cetera, with, of course, the suggestion made by Senator Dupuis in relation to proper funding to support the right of access to information?
Senator McCoy: Guarantee, I think she said.
The Chair: Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Next one — I’m looking at the clock again —
Senator McCoy: This is bullet number 3.
The Chair: Indigenous, I think —
Senator McCoy: We’ve covered Indigenous.
The Chair: We have covered it with the observation. Bullet three, the last one.
Senator McCoy: This is the trial de novo. I think we should make an observation. I know it’s covered in the report —
The Chair: In the report.
Senator McCoy: But I don’t think we said anywhere that the amendment was withdrawn because it was pointed out that it was a pragmatic issue of being able to properly construct the function.
I know we’ve put in the report that the commissioner says it would be ideal, but I think it’s a major point. We should make the observation that our preference would have been to amend, but we withdrew on the basis that it was not pragmatic to proceed at this time, but we definitely want to see it covered in the review.
The Chair: I think the body of the report, if I may quote:
While her preference — “her” being the Information Commissioner — is for a judicial review model, she acknowledged that such a change would involve greater legislative reform. She hopes that further discussion on her recommendation will take place when the act is reviewed in accordance with new section 93.
Senator McCoy: I agree with that. But I’d like to say that the committee agrees with her.
The Chair: We could add a sentence to that.
Senator Pratte: The committee agrees.
The Chair: Yes. We could add that. It was to suggest that because it’s already in the body of the report.
Senator McCoy: Fair enough. Then I am content and I will say no more.
The Chair: Honourable senators, is it agreed to adopt the observations and minority observations?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed, honourable senators, that the steering committee approve the final version to take into account today’s discussion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Is it agreed that today’s observations be appended to the report on the bill?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that the chair report the bill, as amended, and with observations to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Can we file the report with the clerk while the Senate isn’t sitting?
[English]
The Chair: No, we cannot, unfortunately.
In a nutshell, what we are going to do, with the help and contribution of the analysts — and I will use this opportunity to thank personally very much for their assistance — is that the steering committee will review the draft of the report and the observations, and we will make sure that they are in sync with what we have agreed with around the table this morning.
We will make sure, after that, that it be translated, and you will understand there is a task that is quite monumental. I hope, on your behalf, to be able to table the report when we resume sitting in the Senate on Tuesday, April 30, to make sure that we could proceed with the agenda of this committee for the future sitting.
Thank you so much, honourable senators. I’m grateful to have had an opportunity to work with you on this bill. I think we’ve done a monumental task of being able to come forward with a bill that is, I should say, substantially improved. It’s with the concurrence and cooperation of all sides of the table. I would like to thank everybody personally, wholeheartedly.
[Translation]
Thank you, honourable senators.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you for being a mollifying chair. It’s helped everyone to make progress together.
[English]
Senator Smith: Thank you, sir. Good job.
The Chair: Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)