Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on June 13th, 2006

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I blindly trust you to have the documents in French.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I'm a woman; I don't trust blindly.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

But I want to see them.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I think the subamendments have now been distributed to members of the committee.

Mr. Poilievre, do you have any other comments?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

It should be pretty straightforward. The committee already voted for an identical subamendment, so I imagine they'll be comfortable and enthusiastic in voting for it again.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, let's find out.

(Subamendment agreed to on division)

(Amendment as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 182 as amended agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We now move to new clause 182.1, which is on page 144.17. It is a government amendment, G-45.5. It is the same as NDP-18.10.

Could I have a mover, please, Mr. Poilievre?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I will withdraw it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

All right. Amendment G-45.5 is withdrawn.

Mr. Dewar, on NDP-18.10.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I so move.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It's inadmissible.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I knew it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Do you want me to read it?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'll fill in the blanks myself, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay. You don't need it.

(On clause 183)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're going to move to clause 183, NDP-18.11, on page 144.21.

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

With a certain trepidation, I move that Bill C-2 in clause 183 be amended by replacing line 23 on page 124 with the following:

22.1(1) The Privacy Commissioner shall refuse

and after line 29 on page 124, adding the following:

22.1(2) However, the Commissioner may not refuse to disclose any record that was created by the Commissioner or on the Commissioner's behalf in the course of an investigation conducted by the Commissioner or under the Commissioner's authority once the investigation is complete and all related proceedings, if any, are final.

It is so moved.

Perhaps the expert panel can enlighten us on this.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Chair, I have a subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Subamendment, Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I'll read it quickly, then I will explain, if it's not clear, what the intent of the subamendment is. Then I have copies to distribute to all members as well.

It's mainly adding the following to the opening portion of the motion and replacing lines 23 to 29 on page 124 with the following.... We're adding a paragraph here and changing one word in the first paragraph. So proposed section 22.1(1) would read:

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

Then we add subsection (2), which reads:

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

Colleagues, basically what it's saying is that while the investigation is ongoing, the commissioner shall refuse to disclose any information. But once the investigation is completed, he shall not refuse a request for any information.

In my opinion, it's strengthening the clarity of the act, because you don't want to jeopardize an ongoing investigation by providing confidential information while the investigation is still ongoing. But once the investigation has been completed, all information would be provided.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That makes sense. We'll distribute these. Do you want to wait?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

The other thing I should mention, Mr. Chair, is that you'll notice when you receive copies, the word “may” in the original amendment by the NDP has been changed to “shall”, so there is an obligation that they “shall” not disclose information requested during an investigation, but they “shall not refuse” once the investigation has been completed. So it's “shall“ rather than “may”.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well done. We'll distribute these, and then Mr. Owen has a few words to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay, gentlemen. Have you concluded, Mr. Lukiwski?

Yes, Mr. Owen.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

Perhaps the legal staff can help us on this. I'm worried about the reference to “any personal information” in proposed subsection 22.1(1) and then the impact on proposed subsection 22.1(2), in that the central principle of the Privacy Act is to protect personal information. I'm not sure how that overriding obligation would affect personal information collected during an investigation. Would that be self-defeating to the central purpose of the act?