Evidence of meeting #39 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was requests.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
I don't think they do.
Do you understand the question?
5:20 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Research, Correctional Service Canada
The process is set out in the Privacy Act, not specific to us, such that if an individual has a problem with it, they can follow a certain recourse that ultimately may lead to the Federal Court, as I understand it.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
So they do have access to the Federal Court?
5:20 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Research, Correctional Service Canada
There is a process that has to be followed.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order.
Mr. Hiebert, thank you for the good questions with regard to those recommendations. That's an important issue for us.
Mr. Vellacott is our final questioner, for five minutes. Then before we adjourn I would like to make a statement to the members about where we go from here.
Mr. Vellacott.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
In protecting the privacy of inmates and those in corrections facilities when they make a request for information, you also have to be guarded about what information is divulged on other individuals. If there's a denial, and they don't feel happy about that, and there is a complaint that is entered....
In fact, you indicate there are some 3,500 complaints recorded in that database, and 91% are filed because the department did not meet the 30-day statutory time limit. In that kind of second look at it, you bring in the initial person, but who else do you bring in when this complaint is tabled or rendered, or whatever? Who comes in to look at that complaint within Corrections Canada?
5:25 p.m.
Director, Access to Information and Privacy, Correctional Service Canada
It's the Office of the Privacy Commissioner that conducts the investigation, not us, because the complaint is filed with them.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
So you have nothing to do with it, if a complaint is filed?
5:25 p.m.
Director, Access to Information and Privacy, Correctional Service Canada
Well, they will notify us of the complaint. They will ask us for a response to the allegations, and they will conduct their investigation, which may include reviewing documents and interviewing witnesses.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
But in terms of protecting the privacy of that individual, you will bring in the initial individual and you will get the advice of the more senior personnel as well, in responding to this indication that comes your way? Who will you involve when you're responding to the Privacy Commissioner?
5:25 p.m.
Director, Access to Information and Privacy, Correctional Service Canada
It will depend on the complaint and who in fact was involved.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Okay.
One of the recommendations is that she or he have the ability as Privacy Commissioner to refuse and/or discontinue complaints the investigation of which would serve little or no useful purpose, and which would not be in the public interest to pursue.
Can you comment on whether you agree?
5:25 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Research, Correctional Service Canada
I don't think we're in a position to comment. I defer to the Privacy Commissioner, Treasury Board, and Justice Canada on that.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Okay, I understand and accept that.
Is it not the case that those data protection statutes, the important statutes that authorize those oversight bodies to dispense with frivolous or vexatious complaints, to use the term from law, and so on, also provide that oversight body with the authority to make binding decisions subject to appeal?
5:25 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Research, Correctional Service Canada
I'm not familiar, in a global sense, with the various models that exist for administrative decision-making. I'm very familiar with the Federal Court model, but I can't help you with what models might exist elsewhere around this type of administrative decision-making.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Okay.
From your vantage point, again—and I realize you have your own little slice of things here—if so, then should consideration be given to order-making powers for the commissioner if that proposal were enacted into law?
5:25 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Research, Correctional Service Canada
I'm not sure we're in a position to offer an opinion on either whether it's needed or what exact frame it might take if this committee and Parliament decide to frame it. All I can tell you is that if it's put into the Privacy Act, we will certainly operationalize it and make sure it gets full life.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay, thank you.
I'm going to have to cut it off there. There are a couple of important matters I need to apprise the committee of.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
But there is a point of order, which does interrupt whatever you're in the middle of.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
No, we're finished; the meeting is over. The meeting is going to be over.
I just want to advise the committee that yesterday our regular clerk, Mr. Rumas, had a health incident and had to be taken to hospital, and that's why we have Mr. James Latimer here, who is going to be filling in until Mr. Rumas can return. We also have Miriam, who is also here to assist to make sure that things go smoothly. I just wanted you to know why Mr. Rumas wasn't here.
Flowing from that, you may have read in the papers today that Mr. Pratte, who is Mr. Mulroney's lawyer, did respond to Mr. Rumas with regard to our request for him to appear. You have been sent electronically, and I think it's before you now, the indication from Mr. Pratte, the lawyer, and my response, which I sent last evening. We don't have time to discuss anything further on that particular initiative. I'm told that we may be hearing of some developments very soon.
Unfortunately, we've been unable to get to the subject matter of the second half of our meeting, Mr. Hubbard's motion, but what I'm proposing is that we will continue this meeting, its agenda, at the start of the meeting on Tuesday as the first thing. We will also probably have an update for members with regard to Mr. Mulroney, and then the members may want to give some input on where we would go from there.
No witnesses have been scheduled for Tuesday. We were going to have Madam Stoddart, as you recall, but she has indicated she is not available that day, so we are going to start immediately with debate on Mr. Hubbard's motion. It is pursuant to the committee's order of June 3, resuming debate on the motion of Mr. Hubbard, which has already been moved. Debate was called, but the meeting was over.
That being said, this is our thinking, and I'll be consulting with the members should any developments arise on which I have to make some decisions in the interim, because I want all parties to be aware and part of whatever decisions we take.
Thank you.
We're adjourned.