Evidence of meeting #19 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was commissioner.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Okay. I didn't realize I was on the list, but thank you.
In regard to recommendation 9, the Information Commissioner notes there are no penalties associated with delays at present. Do you believe penalties for delays in response are appropriate, and if so, what would they be, who would enforce them, who would be the person who would be receiving the penalty, and would the penalties be included in the Criminal Code?
5:20 p.m.
Executive Member, National Privacy and Access Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
I don't know of any statute, really, that has that manner of penalty, whether they be fines or whatever. What's involved in recommendation 9 is just allowing departments to have a longer period of time when it's essential, other than the two grounds that exist right now. If the approval of the information for the extension beyond 60 days is required, if you didn't give that approval, then presumably they'd have—whatever—those few more days to actually process the request. That seems to be how it works in most jurisdictions, although there are binding order-making powers, typically.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Right, so there are delays at present and there is an opportunity to extend the delays for whatever reason. If the delays went on and on, would you think it would be appropriate for a penalty to be put in place eventually?
5:20 p.m.
Executive Member, National Privacy and Access Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
Well, I think the commissioner now has report cards for every department, and I think that's been effective. You heard from the minister, who's apparently done very well in his report card lately. I think there are a number of tools one can use. This particular one will put a timeframe, which is not currently in place, of 60 days in which you need approval, so that means you'd have to go to the commissioner and actually ask for approval beyond the 60 days. It might be a step a department wouldn't want to take for fear of being refused, and that may encourage them to expedite processing requests.
There are sometimes very good reasons that a request cannot be processed expeditiously.
5:25 p.m.
Vice-Chair, National Privacy and Access Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
My apologies, but I'm going to have to depart in order to catch a flight.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
As a matter of fact, there is a vote. The bells are going to ring at 5:30, and our meeting is going to have end in any event.
Why don't we just cut it there?
Your presentation, commentary, and additional commentary of other things to consider are beyond the call of duty from the CBA, as usual. I'm delighted you were able to spend some time with us. I know everybody is going to have to disappear momentarily, but on behalf of the committee, thank you kindly for your presentation and information. I know we will have you back again one day on one of these acts we're involved in. You're excused now.
I have one thing I want to discuss with the committee before the bells ring.
We didn't get a chance to get on to the other item on our agenda about the other matters for consideration under the Privacy Act. The researchers, however, have updated their draft report for consideration of all the other stuff we've done. That's going to be circulated to the members. On the other items on the issue of training and resources, they've already written up some stuff here. Obviously training and resources is the whole Treasury Board issue, etc.
Other witnesses have suggested a couple of things. On the order-making powers and the duty to let someone know their privacy rights were violated, etc., we have an interesting predicament. It's useful to know these are for consideration, but they were the views of a party. The other witnesses were unaware of them, and we don't have any commentary to give to it. Right now the researchers are recommending that we take note of these items and when we look at the Privacy Act again these are matters we would have to want to carry forward.
What you see on these items here will likely be the same in the next draft, and that will be circulated to you. The reason I want to get you a new draft is that, as you know, next Monday the Privacy Commissioner is coming before us to give us her last views on this whole process we've just gone through. If you have your latest draft in front of you as she's going through her rebuttals or additional arguments for things she would like to see, you'll be able to note them. I don't know how long that's going to take on Monday, but if we're finished with a half hour left we may very well go in camera to give further direction to the researchers about updates, modifications, etc., to the draft you would have in front of you. We'll push that forward as time permits.
Looking a little further forward, on Wednesday we have Mr. Marleau on his estimates. The following week Madam Stoddart will be here on her estimates. On the 27th we'll have Mr. Marleau on our draft report on the access. It's the same process we went through on the privacy with the quick fixes. We'll go through it in camera, kick it around a little bit, etc. We'll go through that same process and move it forward as we make progress in getting to a draft report and ultimately incorporating everyone's comments and getting that tabled in the House, I hope.
We are going to be belled out.
Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
In referring to access to information and the draft, this wasn't in the recommendations, but it's an issue that has been raised in almost every one of our sessions. It's an issue that as a member of Parliament I have a grave concern about. It's this whole business of amber-lighting and whether we should have something in our draft that recommends that this process of amber-lighting for a member of Parliament's access to information requests are not acceptable and something that should not take place. I know it's not a written policy, but it's a policy that a number of people said has evolved and exists. It's something I think colleagues should be quite concerned about.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
We have a lot of time. We haven't even started the process of reviewing the quick fixes or any other items. You might want to bring that up when we deal with the draft report. You may want to develop it and how it fits in. Everyone can do that. When we do a report I don't think we will restrict ourselves to the items specifically raised to the extent that witnesses have raised things. The minister asked us to give our views and tell what we've heard. Let's add to the body of knowledge about what the state of the union is in terms of the current act and what the state of the art is in terms of the access.
The bells are now ringing. There'll be no further business.
The meeting is adjourned.