Information & Ethics Committee on June 5th, 2008

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

Go ahead.

[Ian McCowan]

I'm not sure how to respond.

I think there are clear opportunities for us to improve our performance, which I think will lead to, I would argue, increased transparency in the interaction between our organization and Parliament. I think it's a basic building block of any organization. You can always do better.

I'm not sure if that's helping or not, but....

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

The Privacy Commissioner has recommended a number of changes for immediate reform to the Privacy Act. Do you agree that these changes are ones that can be made immediately to enhance the level of privacy protection in the public service?

[Ian McCowan]

As I said at the outset, I'm not sure we're in a position to assist you in that regard. The policy ownership of the Privacy Act is with the Justice Department and Treasury Board. I think it's split between the two, and of course the Privacy Commissioner.

Most of the reforms, as I understand them, the ten of them, are focused on what she sees as changes that would help her with her mandate. And I'm not sure that we're in a position to usefully comment on those.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

You have 15 seconds left.

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

All right.

But you have studied them?

[Ian McCowan]

The ten, yes.

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

Yes, okay.

Without showing your hand from a policy point of view, do you think that this is something our committee could do well to examine more of?

[Ian McCowan]

I don't know that I'm in a position to give you useful opinion. I think any time this committee examines the Privacy Act and debates whether or not adjustments are required is a good thing, but I don't think we have anything, in terms of an opinion, to offer you on this one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

We have Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Am I up? I couldn't hear you, Mr. Chair.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Chair, am I not on the list?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Just a moment, please. I want to check this out.

Mr. Poilievre was the last one. We're now in round five and actually the first speaker is Mr. Hubbard.

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

A point of order, Chair.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Just a moment.

I'm going to recognize Mr. Hubbard, but I've heard a point of order. I'd like to hear it.

Mr. Poilievre, do you have a point of order?

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

Yes.

Mr. Murphy indicated that the chair was losing control of the meeting, and I just wanted to disagree with him on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

That's debate or whatever.

Mr. Hubbard, please.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

It's because of them. They're not respecting your rulings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Hubbard, please.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's only my second time around. I've skipped the other rounds deliberately, hoping that we would get to committee business, which was the other part of our agenda this afternoon. Mr. Chair, we haven't gotten to that.

But for the witnesses, I hope they fully understand that this is a committee of parliamentarians who work together. We're called the committee on access to information--which we sometimes look at, and we hope to study quite soon--privacy, which we're looking at today, and ethics of members of Parliament.

With the ethics concept, of course, the ethics is that we are--

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Chair, a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

A point of order, Mr. Van Kesteren.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

You ruled, sir, on relevance. This has nothing to do with questioning our witnesses to the study that we're engaged in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, please.

I'm getting a bit concerned. People are getting a little frustrated, a little testy. We don't need that. We have business to do.

I want to advise members about a unique situation that has come up. I think it's important for us to be aware of this. It has to do with the role of public servants generally being viewed, as it says here, “in relation to the implementation and administration of government policy, rather than the determination of what that policy should be”.

It's one of the reasons the witnesses who come before us had to declare that they're not in a position to make any clear position statements. It is improper for them to do it. We've put them in an awkward situation. As a consequence, I think their presentation has dealt substantively with the question that was raised by Mr. Hiebert, that we're really concerned that such a high percentage of the complaints have come from this particular area, from the Correctional Service side.

I think the witnesses made it very clear in their opening statement where the numbers came from. I think it was very instructive to have that insight as to the reasons, that there may be some frustration within those who are incarcerated because there is information in their files they're not privy to.

Beyond that, I have been painfully aware, and I think the members have as well.... That's why the questioning has been more about ATIP and access than privacy. But I think we're getting pretty close to the point that we're not being constructive on the work before us.

I know members have been able ask questions of general interest to our witnesses, but my view is that they have not for some time now, for at least a half hour or so, been relevant to the work we're doing.

I'm going to continue with the list and allow members to ask questions, but I'm going to ask that the questions be relevant to our work. I am going to ask members to respect that. Just as a principle, when we do this work or any other work, the relevance should be there, not just using the time because you happen to have it. That's not respectful, either to the witnesses or to all honourable members.

Mr. Hubbard, I appreciate where you're coming from, sir. You have the floor. You have only used one minute of your time. You still have four minutes left. If you have questions for the witnesses that you believe are relevant to the work before us, please continue. If not, I will move on to the next honourable member.