Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2007

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

I am moving my motion. I just thought I'd make that comment in light of the comment you made a moment ago.

Yes, Mr. Chair, there's little doubt that a review of the Privacy Act is desperately long overdue. The Privacy Act hasn't been significantly revised since before the dawn of computers, and certainly well before the explosion of the Internet. The Privacy Commissioner indicated to this committee at our last meeting the urgency with which we need to address these issues. There have been a number of high-profile issues such as identity theft, no-fly lists, the sharing of data across the border, and RFID technologies, just to name a few of the challenges we're facing to personal privacy.

I therefore move my motion asking that this committee examine these issues. We've looked at the private sector with PIPEDA, but we have not looked at the public sector Privacy Act in quite some time. There's an urgent nature for us to investigate these matters. I hope all members will support this motion to investigate the Privacy Act in light of the implications this has for our constituents. People are calling our constituency offices complaining about identity theft and access to flights. We're looking at technology that would track the motion of consumers in shopping malls and throughout communities. These are all very concerning to constituents because their privacy is at stake. There's an urgent nature to this. The technology is moving so quickly that if we don't get our hands on it, it's going to get completely out of control.

So I would ask all members to support this motion to address the Privacy Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, Mr. Hiebert, for that. It's very important....

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Yes, this is a motion. It is debatable.

I have Mr. Hubbard first on the list, and then, Madame Lavallée, you will be second.

Oh, I'm sorry, the name was not on the list, but I'm told that your hand, Mr. Martin, was up before Madame Lavallée's.

So we'll have Mr. Hubbard, then Mr. Martin, and then Madame Lavallée on Mr. Hiebert's motion.

Please, Mr. Hubbard.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Very briefly, Mr. Chair, we certainly would support this motion. It's my understanding that after this morning's meeting the steering committee will organize the activities of the committee. With that, we would justify that we'll be in good hands, and we would certainly support the study of the Privacy Act. It's been a long time in its being, and it's time for it to be reviewed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Mr. Martin, please.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Hiebert raises some very good points about the necessary work that should be done to review the Privacy Act. There was a bill introduced yesterday on identity theft, which may in fact end up at this committee. We don't know. We're not sure who's going to deal with it. My only reservation is that if we do support Mr. Hiebert's motion, it would be with the codicil that we would be opening the Privacy Act perhaps after the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, perhaps after other choices we make as well. I know I have a motion in to study the Access to Information Act, which I believe needs work even before the Privacy Act.

I don't know how we would move an amendment, but I would ask Mr. Hiebert if he would consider an amendment to his motion, which I haven't seen, actually, circulated. I don't know exactly what it says. If you would consider an amendment that if we do vote in favour of Mr. Hiebert's motion, we undertake this study after the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, and possibly after other priorities as well....

The subcommittee can set that out, but I don't want Mr. Hiebert to misunderstand my voting for his motion, that I think it should be the first order of business.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you for your input.

We now have Madame Lavallée.

You have the floor.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I agree that the review of the Privacy Act is of great importance. Last year, we reviewed the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, and we gave it all the intention it deserved. It was a very interesting exercise, in fact.

We have several things on the go at the moment, starting with the very important motion that we have just passed. We also have a meeting scheduled with people from the Department of Justice. We must consider the request made to the minister about a new Access to Information Act. At the steering committee meeting this week, we made a list of all our active files. This committee began a report on the torture of Afghan detainees, but did not finish it. It seems to me that, immediately after finishing the study of the motion that we have just passed, we could finish that report. I am not going to go through the whole list that we made at the steering committee, but we can come back to it. It would be an excellent idea to add this study to the list. We can decide on the priority to give it later.

I would like to move an amendment. I do not know exactly what wording would be acceptable, but the amended motion could read like this:

That eventually this committee commence a study that would have as its purpose a comprehensive review of the Privacy Act.

The amendment is simply to add the word “eventually” to the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

That's probably a truism, isn't it?

Thank you for your input.

Now we have Mr. Hiebert on the list of speakers.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I simply want to respond to Mr. Martin's comments.

Let me be clear. The motion I'm moving is that this committee commence a study that would have as its purpose a comprehensive review of the Privacy Act, period.

The legislation that was introduced yesterday dealing with identity theft deals with the criminal aspects of identity theft. In my understanding, that particular legislation will be going before the justice committee. But there are other aspects to identity theft, to no-fly lists, to the sharing of cross-border personal information, to RFID technology, that fall within the Privacy Act and are of an urgent nature.

Technology is moving very quickly. We heard from the commissioner earlier this week about the urgency of addressing these issues because of the impact they're having on our culture and on our values.

There's clearly an impetus to investigate these matters. I appreciate the support that's been offered by Mr. Hubbard and the Liberals. I think there is an urgent nature to this. I would ask all members to support it, and we'll leave it to the steering committee to decide in what order we deal with these issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you very much.

We have—it's being circulated to you now—the report of the steering committee, which met between noon and one o'clock on Tuesday after our initial meeting on this matter. Mr. Hiebert will be pleased to know that one of the areas of priority is undertaking a review of the Privacy Act.

I have no further speakers. I'm going to put the question on Mr. Hiebert's motion:

That this committee commence a study that would have as its purpose a comprehensive review of the Privacy Act.

All those in favour...?

I'm sorry?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I moved an amendment to add the word “eventually” to the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, Madame.

I had no speakers on the list. I'm prepared to hear an amendment if you wish, but so that we do it in order, please get the attention of the chair or the clerk to get the floor to make a motion and we'll put you on the list. I have great respect for you. I don't want to frustrate your right to put motions.

If it's okay with Mr. Hiebert, I'm going to entertain Madame Lavallée to pose an amendment to your motion.

It is your right.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Chair, perhaps you did not hear, but earlier, I moved an amendment to add the word “eventually” to the motion. It is an adverb. I suggest adding the adverb “eventually” so that the motion reads:

That eventually this committee commence a study that would have as its purpose a comprehensive review of the Privacy Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I apologize to you, Madame. I recall your saying that. I didn't understand that you were posing it in fact as an amendment, but it certainly is in order.

There being no debate, I will call—

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

I would speak to the amendment, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Lavallée is simply trying to stall the efforts of this committee to address this matter. By adding the word “eventually”, she's adding a tone or suggestion that this should take place at some point in the distant future, and I don't think that's how Canadians expect us to deal with these matters.

The legislation in question has been in place for a very long time. It has not been amended in nearly 21 years. It's urgently needed. These things are changing very quickly. The technology is not even at our doorsteps; it's being implemented and applied to our society. It's changing our culture and our values, as was stated by the Privacy Commissioner. I do not understand why she doesn't recognize the urgency with which this needs to be addressed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

I now have Mr. Thibault on the list, followed by Mr. Asselin.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If I understand correctly, this committee's normal procedure is to make motions on the matters under study, as Mr. Hiebert has done. The steering committee puts all the studies and motions in priority order. We have two to discuss today. Decisions of that kind of decision are made by the steering committee.

I do not know if Mrs. Lavallée's motion is necessary. All parties are represented at this committee, after all. A priority order can be set. Otherwise, each time we make a motion on a study or on any other project, we run the risk of bypassing all the others.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Asselin, s'il vous plaît.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Chair, Mrs. Lavallée's amendment to Mr. Hiebert's motion is relevant. We feel that Mr. Hiebert's motion is interesting, but it is not a priority. Our priority today is to debate the duly presented motions on which we have already voted. Those motions are first in line.

Mrs. Lavallée added the word “eventually”, and Mr. Hiebert's motion can certainly be eventually placed in the list of priorities for the committee's future work. But I am sure that you will agree, Mr. Chair, that motions that have been duly presented and voted on this morning are the committee's priority.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you very much.

We now have Mr. Wallace on the amendment.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I fundamentally disagree with the Bloc approach on this. We've set up a process of having the steering committee look at the priorities. If Madame Lavallée's motion said this was a priority or we should look at it immediately, that would change the motion.

Her amendment is irrelevant because it doesn't have any effect on the motion itself. Saying “some time” or “eventually”--that's what all motions are until the steering committee reports back here and we decide. That is why I'm not voting for it.

I don't know how the chair can even rule it in order. It's not even in order. But if it passes it will have no effect on how things are going to be done here in this committee. If they want amendments in English to have relevance, they have to have a purpose, and this one doesn't have a purpose.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, Mr. Wallace. I did rule the motion in order, the member made it in good faith, and the committee will decide.

I'm going to put the question now on the amendment of Madame Lavallée that the word “eventually” be included at the very end of the motion that was submitted and circulated to all.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Now I'll put the question on the motion of Mr. Hiebert, as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to)