Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 15th, 2011

[Rob Walsh]

--in other contexts, as you know, there's a difference between avoidance and evasion, a very significant difference. I don't know, in this case, whether it's proper to characterize the facts as being...one of avoidance or evasion. All I can say is that it is the committee's call as to how it wants to characterize the facts so far.

You used the word “obligation”. There is no obligation on this committee, in my view, of a legal nature requiring it to wait for the formal step of a service of summons to be effected upon her. I'm just saying that's the usual expectation that would happen.

There would be the risk of a negative public perception of the committee if you were to proceed in disregard of that--or in disregard, in the case of privacy, of the principles articulated by Madame Bernier. It's all a matter of how well the proceedings of this committee are perceived and whether the committee continues to enjoy the respect of Canadians generally by the way it carries on its proceedings. That's what I'm talking about.

You can use the word obligation if you like, but it's obligation in that context, not in the sense of a legal obligation. It's your call as to whether you think more steps have to be taken or whether you think enough is enough and you're going forward. Then, later, it will be the House's call as to whether it agrees with you on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Mr. Walsh and Mr. Bains.

Mr. Dreeshen.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

In your testimony, Ms. Bernier, you were speaking about the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. I just wanted some clarification on one part, where you said--in reference to section 44--that information should only be disclosed when it's required by law and not when it's authorized by law.

I'd like to know what you meant by that.

[Chantal Bernier]

Well, there is a different threshold: “authorized” by law gives more latitude; “required” by law shows that there is absolutely no discretion to disclose.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you.

If disclosures are made, then, with the assumption that only the public sector integrity office would be privy to that information, would any of the people who would have made a disclosure have any right to legal action against PSIC, or Parliament, for releasing the information?

[Chantal Bernier]

I'm actually not sufficiently familiar with the disclosure act to be able to tell you what consequences there could be. I don't know if my colleague is familiar with it.

We administer the Privacy Act and, as you know, the private sector privacy act as well, so I can really only speak expertly to those two acts, not to the disclosure act. The only reason I mentioned it is that it's an interesting contrast in terms of the thresholds of confidentiality.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Okay.

Nathalie, did you have something?

[Nathalie Daigle]

A complaint could be made to the Privacy Commissioner, though, if there was a disclosure that was made possibly against...if personal information was disclosed contrary to the Privacy Act. So the commissioner could always investigate such a complaint.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Okay. Thank you.

You were just about to finish off answering Mr. Young's question that he had asked earlier. Did you have any further comments with regard to his question?

[Chantal Bernier]

We have absolutely no information as to how much it would inhibit disclosure or not. We really are not privy to any such study or analysis on that. We have no statistics on that at all.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

May I make a comment, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Yes, you may.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

This is what I was asking: in your view, if a public servant were conflicted and were considering reporting the conflict in the interest of the government and in the interest of Canada, and they thought their name might appear and become public in some unrelated manner, how likely would they be to make that report--in your view?

[Chantal Bernier]

Then I repeat what I said earlier on, that clearly that was Parliament's concern and that is why they have put the threshold of confidentiality so high.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Madame Bernier.

Merci à tous les collègues.

I'm going to now clear the room to go in camera.

The law clerk and his staff can stay behind, but only the law clerk and his staff--along with, of course, members, and one staff apiece.

I want to thank Madame Bernier, Madame Daigle, and all their staff for the time they made available.

[Chantal Bernier]

Thank You.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you.

[Proceedings continue in camera]