Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 26th, 2009

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Perhaps building on the work that my colleague has done in reviewing the transcript, I say to Mrs. Simson, through you, that one of the concerns I have--and this is a little bit by way of review--is that “profound disappointment” brings finality to this. I'm just not sure we're there. I think not only is it premature, but we have an opportunity, if not an invitation, to develop more fully some of the things that I think this committee has been asked to discuss.

I notice in a letter dated October 9 from the minister that he does in fact recognize the importance of the committee and its relationship with respect to the 10 recommendations that were put forward by the Privacy Commissioner. And I just want to address an issue here. There was a quote from that letter by Mrs. Simson. It says, “We assure you that we will continue to work closely with the office of the Privy Commissioner.” My sense was that it was brought up in the context that there was going to be no deference to the work that we've done or the work that we do.

Importantly, the small paragraph before it I think brings context to that. It says “Finally, your committee recommended that we work more closely with the Privacy Commissioner.” So in following, that sentence is really attached to that. Whether it should have been read in one paragraph...it's not for me to comment, certainly, on how people put letters together, but that's what it means.

I just want to encourage us to take the opportunity to understand that in no way do I take from this letter that the minister hasn't given serious consideration to the work the committee has done in terms of the recommendations. Nor does he dismiss in any way the important work that we could continue to do in this regard. This letter, in finishing, acknowledges the important work that we've done and the direction we've given the minister. That is, “your committee recommended that we work more closely with the Privacy Commissioner”. That came from our committee.

That's in an effort to understand, he says here, the intent of a number of her recommendations that we did endorse. So we've been doing a lot of activities here, and I just want to make sure that before we get to this kind of language that brings finality, and to a certain extent politicizes perhaps too prematurely what we've been asked to do here historically and what we may be asked to do as a committee moving forward.... I think my colleague who spoke before me, by going through the transcript in such an intrepid way, sort of speaks to the importance of the work the committee's doing in this regard, and we ought to just continue to do that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Dechert, please.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I'd like to say that I appreciate Ms. Simson's suggestion that she would entertain a tabling of her motion to allow the committee to request a further response from the minister. I think that's constructive.

The other thing I want to point out is that I agree with the comments Mr. Wrzesnewskyj has made in his review of the transcripts, which clearly indicate that the minister is open, is interested in what we do here, and welcomes any suggestions that arise out of our deliberations. It's because of that background, as Mr. Wrzesnewskyj pointed out, that when I read the letter, I read it a little differently, obviously, from the way some of my colleagues across the way read it.

Ms. Simson suggested that she didn't see any request from the minister to do further work. In fact, I just want to point out the second paragraph of page 3 of the letter, where he says quite clearly:

Further consultation with government institutions and agencies that are responsible for the security as well as the health and welfare of Canadians would be required to ensure that the Privacy Act does not restrict the flexibility or pose additional barriers to information sharing.

Further on, in the next paragraph, he says:

It is crucial that careful consideration be given to the impact changes to the legislation may have on the operations of government institutions which are subject to the Act.

Given those statements, and against the background of the things the minister himself said in person at this committee and in the other letter regarding the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act suggestions, he's making it very clear to me that he appreciates the work we've done thus far and has read them carefully, and that what he'd like us to do is more spadework in the areas in which he sees some concerns. He's asking us to meet with other government officials to hear some more testimony on what impact those quick fixes might have in those areas.

I think this is a very clear invitation to us to do further work. I think it would be helpful to the government, and it's what we're elected to do, so I'd be very pleased to support your suggestion, Mr. Chair, that we ask for a further response and that we decide to do some further work on this very important issue.

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Ms. Freeman.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Earlier, you suggested that we write to the minister asking for a report in which he responds to each of our recommendations. I know that maintaining a dialogue with the minister is very important, as you mentioned earlier, as is our continued work to move issues forward. I am mindful of the fact that our work is very serious, that we represent many fellow citizens in our two nations. I think it is important to ask the minister for a response, as you suggested, to each of the committee's recommendations.

It was my understanding that Ms. Simson wanted to postpone moving her motion and suggested that we write to the minister. So I move that we vote on sending the minister a letter and postponing Ms. Simson's motion. Could we vote on that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I'm sure we can; whether we may is something else. Let's hear from the other members, and we'll consider how we bring this to a conclusion.

I have Mr. Siksay, Mr. Del Mastro, and Mr. Wrzesnewskyj left on the list so far.

Mr. Siksay.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank you for a very helpful suggestion. I believe it is important to do all we can to maintain a positive relationship with the minister on this issue, even though I am disappointed in his response.

I think Ms. Simson has made a good point, that he doesn't suggest further work in his response on the Privacy Act. Unfortunately, he didn't express appreciation for our work either in that response. I think he could probably be a little more encouraging in his responses to the committee and a little more positive as well.

You've made a very helpful suggestion about writing to him to get specific responses on the recommendations the committee made. I think it might be important to ask him as well to respond to the quick-fix recommendations that the Privacy Commissioner made, which we didn't support or had further questions about, because I think it's important to know what he thinks of her very serious suggestions too. I would like to suggest that this also be part of your letter to the minister.

I have to say, Chair, that in the back of my mind I fear we're being stonewalled on this issue; that there isn't a determination to move forward on it. But you've made a very helpful suggestion and a conciliatory one, and while I want to make sure that Ms. Simson's motion remains in the back of our mind for future consideration, I strongly support your suggestion to write to the minister.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move an amendment to the motion that I think embodies what the discussion has been here in the last number of minutes. Perhaps members would just give me a moment to do so.

I'd amend the motion as follows:

That the Committee write to the Minister of Justice to express its desire for a more comprehensive response of its 10th report, entitled “The Privacy Act: First steps towards renewal”. Specifically, the Committee requests that the Minister address--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

All right, I'm going to stop it there.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Point of order, Mr. Chair. Ms. Simson said that she did not want to move her motion. We cannot amend a motion that has not been moved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Just so people understand, Ms. Simson indicated that she would be prepared to do that. She has not made a motion that her motion be stood until we do our other work. So it is still on the table and it really is amendable.

But, Mr. Del Mastro, an amendment to a motion can't be a whole new motion. The way you're reading it, on its own it would exist. If you're going to propose an amendment to Ms. Simson's motion, you're certainly entitled to do so. I'm not sure whether it is necessary right now, but you have rights. But it should be something that you can actually write down. It should go something like, after this word, let's strike these words, or add whatever.

I think you understand what I'm saying. You're into prose rather than a motion, so I would be a little bit careful about this. But if you have it in writing, we'd certainly want to entertain it.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I assure you that I have amended the motion that was before me. It may reflect substantive changes to the motion, but an amendment can reflect substantive changes.

I'm operating with goodwill, and I think if the committee hears the motion out it will be satisfied with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Well, let's hear it. Would you start again?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I'll start again from the top:

That the Committee write to the Minister of Justice to express its desire for a more comprehensive response of its 10th report, entitled “The Privacy Act: First steps towards renewal”. Specifically, the Committee requests that the Minister address each recommendation made individually and provide background for his caution and concerns. The Committee further requests the Minister does so expediently so that work in this area can continue to be undertaken without delay.

We can discuss the amendment. It's not a new motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Just a moment.

I am ruling the amendment out of order because it is substantively a new motion pursuant to a discussion or a suggestion that was put on it. It should be a new motion, because there are elements there that I'm sure the members would like to speak to.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I request that we stand Ms. Simson's motion at this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Do you so move that the Simson motion be stood?

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Exactly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

All right. That's a valid motion.

Is there any discussion?

I'll put the question.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Just for clarification so I can understand what we're being asked to do, are we pulling it back?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We are not going to further consider it at this time, but it's still alive. It's still there.

(Motion agreed to)

That's unanimous. Now we have a clean slate and we have had a discussion about the possibilities.

If I may say so, the Simson motion came out virtually parallel to the motion that we passed and reported to the House on the access report, the 11th report. We have similar problems there. In my own view, the frustration of the committee has been that we didn't get a specific response to specific recommendations.

It's the same minister; there has been the suggestion that these letters look very similar in terms of their parallelism. I'm wondering whether we want to carry it a little bit further. This is just for consideration: that we might be able to address both.

What I'd like to suggest is that our work on access as well as on privacy may be in the same quagmire right now. Maybe we should ask for specific responses to the recommendations. We don't need a big book, but we could ask to be given an idea whether we are on the right track. We need to have some commentary on each of these, and what we'd like to do is then have a meeting with the minister. Let's have a conversation.

We could do it in camera. It's going to be extremely difficult and might take a long time for him to respond in writing, if we ask where we fit into this, where our role really is; if we say that we don't think he's waiting for us to come up with a whole new piece of legislation, but that we do have a role to play, and so do the commissioners and their people and the minister's officials, etc. There's a lot here.

I'm broadening it a little. If we're going to do this, we may actually help ourselves. Quite frankly, I would be happy to get a response from the minister in time for our return after the Christmas break, because I would like him to have the chance to consider where we've been on both of the two reports.

Did members get a copy of the November 25 letter?

I want to give you a basis as to why I'm suggesting this. I know we're shifting over now to access to information. As you know, we passed a motion to express our disappointment and to ask the minister to table a new Access Act by next March 31 and appear before this committee by this November 30. This is the last meeting.

Yesterday I received this letter. It came to me personally without a carbon copy. We have it here; it has been translated. I think the last sentence really is the key. It says: “Once you have undertaken and completed a full, in-depth study of access reform and consulted all stakeholders, I will be happy to appear before you to discuss your findings.”

It gives me pause, because this is a question on which I'm not sure we have a consensus as to whether we can do that. It's almost suggesting that it's up to us to do a draft act. If he wants us to do his job or the commission's job or whatever, that's interesting. But I think I really want to know what he's asking us for, and this is not specific enough for me. That's why I'm suggesting that we really have to meet with him.

So I'm asking the committee whether or not they would find it appropriate that in my letter to the minister we embrace both reports and both studies, because they have the same questions, or we could do separate ones on each, but that we say that we do want to have a meeting with him to discuss our role before we embark on any new projects related to either of those acts.

Mr. Del Mastro, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, and Mr. Dechert.

I'm in the hands of the committee. I think this is the last round. Let's see where we are.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

When I tabled my amendment, it was ruled out of order, but I believe I could reintroduce it as a new motion, provided the committee accepts. I would openly admit that the motion I am tabling does not have notice, but it can be considered by unanimous consent. I'd ask the committee to provide unanimous consent. I think the motion that I brought forward reflects the goodwill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

That's not necessary. The matter is on the agenda of this committee. It's before us right now. Members at the table can make motions.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Okay, wonderful. I'd like to introduce the motion that I discussed earlier. I can restate it for the benefit of the members, if you like.

That the Committee write to the Minister of Justice to express its desire for a more comprehensive response of its tenth report, entitled “The Privacy Act: First Steps Towards A Renewal”. Specifically, the Committee requests that the Minister address each recommendation made individually, and provide the background for his caution and concerns. The Committee further requests the Minister does so expediently so that the work in this area can continue to be undertaken without delay.

That's the end of the motion.

In your letter to the minister, Mr. Chair, I would suggest it's entirely reasonable for the chair to add an interpretation of what you consider is meant by “expediently”, and what delay could be caused. I think if you were to suggest that you think it's reasonable that you'd receive a response after the Christmas break, you could reasonably conclude that it was an expedient response.

I think this response would form the basis for further review by the committee, and potentially an appearance by the minister. But I do think understanding, first of all, what are the specific concerns on each recommendation is entirely reasonable for the committee members to want to know, and I think once you receive that, you can then determine, ultimately, what the next steps are for the committee. But I think the response will hopefully provide the background for you to understand what the next steps would be.

That's the motion I put before the committee. I think it reflects goodwill.