Evidence of meeting #36 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 40th Parliament, 3rd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was offence.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you.
Madam Stoddart, thank you for being here.
On page 2 of your report, there are three bullet points. You indicated in your comments that you'd be glad to expand on them. I think you said you had four sub-points under leadership on priority privacy issues. Maybe you highlighted them already, but could you just highlight them for me?
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Yes. The four priority privacy issues are information technology, national security, identity integrity and protection in the online world, and genetic information.
It's a priority for us to try to understand all those areas, which is fairly challenging. They're all highly specialized and highly technical areas. Because they change so much, we have to become conversant with them on an ongoing basis through staffers who are very knowledgeable, but also through experts in knowledge networks across Canada.
In the next three years, we will try to drive relevant outcomes for Canadians from what we know in these four areas. This is still a bit general and we want to flesh it out.
That means we have to ask, in genetic information, what should Canadians know about their privacy rights in relation to genetic technology, genetic techniques, and ongoing genetic ethical debates? Where can they turn to for information? What is the state of our knowledge about privacy in relation to your or your family's genetic makeup?
I think that would be a relevant and useful service to give Canadians. We're not there yet, but we hope to be in the coming months.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
It seems to me that of the four you've listed--as I look at them as a layperson--national security would probably be first on the list. Have you prioritized within that list which one of those four would receive the bulk of your attention or that of your staff as you move forward?
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
No, we haven't, but I think national security has itself, if only because of the parliamentary agenda in relationship to the national security challenges of both public safety and law enforcement. These have been very much before Parliament in the last few years.
So in developing our positions on a lot of the legislation put forward, as well as on new techniques or administrative initiatives like the passenger protect program--that's the no-fly list and so on--and facial recognition technology in airports, which I believe is coming soon, I think events of their own have forced us to make that a priority.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
I have just one last comment. On page 4 of your report, you talk about your desire not to become Ottawa-centric. I think that's a challenge for all of us as members of Parliament as well. We certainly need to know what's going on here, but we want to stay rooted and grounded in our areas.
Following up on Ms. Davidson's question, I'm certainly not interested in creating an empire of bricks and mortar across Canada, and neither do I want to see an additional large group of staff hired, but I'm wondering in terms of decentralization and presence in various larger cities at least, if there wouldn't be some value in possibly thinking about redeploying staff from the Ottawa office to outlying areas.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
In fact, we have started to do that. Some have been redeployed in Toronto, and there are positions opening in Toronto. We've had exchanges with provincial commissions, where people go to other commissions and stay there for awhile. We consult regularly with provincial commissions to make sure that the way we interpret things here in Ottawa for some provinces is the same as they do it in B.C., let's say.
We have weekly meetings with the three provinces that have equivalent powers. These are telephone meetings. Whenever one of the provincial commissioners is in Ottawa, we try to encourage him or her to come in. For example, Commissioner Frank Work of British Columbia came in and made an informal presentation to our office at noon hour about his challenges in running his office. We do try to cultivate those kinds of links.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Just the point that you're meeting weekly is something that probably most Canadians wouldn't be aware of. That's great. That's great to hear.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Well, it's essential, because if we come out with different positions on the same thing and we have laws that are equivalent.... I think we have to do this.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
No. Well, you can move it, but I'll....
Thank you very much, Mr. Albrecht.
On behalf of all members of the committee, I want to thank you, Madam Stoddart, for your appearance today. This concludes the questions. Do you have any concluding remarks or comments you want to make?
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I would just like to ask the committee this. The first committee in its previous form--and probably all the members have changed, except for the Honourable. Mr. Coderre, as I remember--that I appeared before--
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I appeared before this committee seven years ago. The committee has always been very supportive of our work through the years, first in rebuilding the office and then in listening to us and giving us suggestions and so on. As an agent of Parliament, I thank you very much for this positive relationship, and I want to stress that I report to you, so do not hesitate to give me instructions if you feel that would improve my work.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much.
At this point in time, the chair would entertain the following motion. It reads: “That the Committee has considered the proposed appointment of Jennifer Stoddart as Privacy Commissioner of Canada and reports its support for her appointment”.
So moved by Mr. Albrecht. Shall I report this motion to the House?
(Motion agreed to)
Ms. Stoddart, again, on behalf of everyone, I want to thank you very much. We, like you, look forward to our continued relationship and wish you and your staff all the best as you continue your duties. Thank you very much.
[Applause]
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
There have to be some technical adjustments. At this point in time, I'll suspend for two minutes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
I'm going to call the meeting back to order.
This is the second item we have on the agenda.
First of all, I should inform the members of the committee that we intended, of course, if it was possible, to deal with the Google report this afternoon. However, because of some technical issues, we are not able to do that this afternoon. That will be put back on the agenda, perhaps for half an hour at one of the meetings we have scheduled for next week.
Before I say another word, I'm going to ask all cameras to leave the room, please, at this point in time. Thank you very much.
The next item we have on the committee's agenda is the appearance before the committee of Monsieur Serge Ménard, member of Parliament for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. Monsieur Ménard has responded to a written request issued by this committee.
I should point out that as a member of Parliament, he is not a compellable witness. There is a very select group of individuals who are not compellable: members of other legislative assemblies, members of Parliament, members of the Senate, judges, and the Governor General.
But he has, of his own volition, accepted our invitation and he's here of his own volition.
We welcome you, Monsieur Ménard. As is the practice of this committee, we'll allow you up to 10 minutes for any opening remarks you may want to make.
The floor is yours.
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When the affair regarding which you have asked me to appear first came to light, I decided, for reasons that I will explain at the end, that I would give only one interview—to Christian Latreille with Radio-Canada. However, I also made it known that I was prepared to cooperate with all the competent authorities who might wish to investigate the facts, and that is why I am here today.
You called me to appear today to discuss this, and I understand, from the remarks made in the Chamber, that you would like me to explain why I took so long to discuss this publicly. From the minute I was caught up in these events, I understood that, if I talked about it, there would be a media storm such as the one that ultimately resulted, but also that it would be my word against someone else's. The fact is that I had no independent proof that would have made it possible to determine which version was true.
It is also important for you to realize that there was no attempted bribery. First of all, I had not yet been elected, so I was not included under the definition of “public official”, which is broad enough to cover members of Parliament and members of legislative assemblies, but not people running for such a position. Furthermore, I was asked for absolutely nothing in exchange for the money that was offered. At worst, it was an attempt to violate the Election Act. However, as we recently found out, even that attempt does not constitute an offence.
In any case, I had no independent evidence, and that is certainly what commanded my silence. I have seen a few prosecutions for bribery offences in my legal career, but never have I seen any action taken without there being independent evidence to justify the claims of the whistleblower.
Now, these are the circumstances in which this occurred. This happened before I was first elected in December of 1993. I had been the chosen candidate for some time, and I wanted to meet with a lot of important players in Laval, including the mayor of Laval. It seems he was also interested in meeting me. So he asked if we could make an appointment. As a result, I went to see him in his office one evening, I believe.
He was sitting at his desk. I sat down in front of him. We talked about Laval, about a lot of things—about politics, obviously. We talked about his city council, on which there were both sovereignists and federalists, and we mainly talked about issues in Laval. After some time, he asked me to come over to a small table at the side of his desk. He alluded to election campaign expenses. Then he took out an envelope which was sort of half-open and contained a wad of bills. He told me there was $10,000 in the envelope and that he was offering me the money to help me finance my election campaign.
I immediately pushed the envelope away, saying that he must know the law and that this was not an appropriate way to contribute to someone's election campaign. Donations have to be made by cheque, they cannot exceed $3,000, and they must be from voters whose names will then be published. He replied that a petty cash fund during an election campaign could be very useful. I told him that if I needed a small election fund, everything would be accounted for and declared. I added that I didn't want his money. I believe we--
I then saw him turn bright red, beads of sweat form on his forehead, and his hand start to tremble. He picked up his money and I exited immediately or a few moments later.
I asked myself… Basically, I left with the evidence. I knew how this would play out in public, if I were to say anything to anyone. I was absolutely convinced that he would vehemently deny everything, and that he would probably do everything he could to discredit me. I was convinced that this kind of denunciation would lead nowhere. I felt he would probably be acquitted if ever he were charged and that he very likely would never be charged on the basis of such weak evidence. So, I decided not to talk about it.
Coming to the present, 17 years later, Mr. Christian Latreille from Radio-Canada was looking to meet with me. We had a few phone conversations. He wanted to talk about Laval in general, because I had been an elected official for Laval for so many years. I decided to ask him to come and meet with me during the break week. So, he came on a Monday. He started by discussing general matters involving Laval. Then suddenly, he stopped, looked me straight in the eyes, and asked me whether it was true that I had refused to take $15,000 in cash from Mayor Gilles Vaillancourt.
It's true that there was a long silence at that point. And the longer I remained silent, the more I realized that I had already given him an answer because, had my answer been no, I would simply have said no, that's not true. However, I could see that he was well informed, even though the amount mentioned was incorrect. And, seeing that he was well informed, I finally turned to him and asked him how he had found out about this. I had never spoken of it. He told me he had received confidential information from a source he had promised to protect.
I could see that he was very professional, as an investigative journalist, and having secured information from a confidential source, he had to ensure it was true before making that information public. I knew that I had basically just proven to him that what his informers had told him was true. I began by correcting him with respect to the amount: it wasn't $15,000, it was $10,000.
Then I told him exactly what I have just told you. I explained why I had never discussed it, primarily because of a lack of evidence, but also because I knew that the mayor of Laval had committed no crime. Even the offence set out in the Election Act had not been committed, since I had refused the money.
At that point, he told me he had enough information to make what I had just told him public, that I was going to have to respond to that revelation, that I would be questioned in Parliament, by my own party at my office, at a public event, and that I ran the risk of seeing my side of the story come out in bits and pieces, something that he felt was not ideal in terms of presenting my point of view. He said he would offer to interview me, if I liked, and he guaranteed that the entire interview would be broadcast, so that my side of the story would not be truncated and would be made fully available to the public.
I thought about it. I am not the one who asked for time to think about it; he made that offer. So, I thought about it and consulted certain people. I have to say that opinion was divided. Some told me to let the journalist put the information out there and respond afterwards.
Finally, after consulting my last chief of staff in whom I have complete trust, it was decided that the best option would be to do what was suggested—in other words, to tell my side of the story in its entirety to a journalist who would report it correctly, and then not talk about it anymore. That's why I have been refusing interviews with reporters ever since.
Obviously, the notice to appear sent by the committee is different, especially because of doubts raised in the House on this matter.
I said nothing about Mr. Vaillancourt because I was convinced it would go nowhere. On the other hand, my reputation would have been very much in doubt, because he would not have been charged and a lot of people would have interpreted that as my having lied.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you, Mr. Ménard.
We're now going to go to the first round of seven minutes.
Mr. Coderre, you have seven minutes.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I must admit I'm a little uncomfortable today. In fact, I told Mr. Ménard that myself. With no evidence to the contrary, I have absolutely no reason to question his integrity or credibility. In my mind, there was a problem because of the fact that he had been running at the provincial level and was doing something at the federal level 17 years later. However, you, Mr. Ménard, decided to face the storm. So, we are going to play the game and ask questions in order to shed light on all of this, since that is what you want.
First of all, you said you refused the $10,000. Was the money in denominations of $1,000? What exactly did you see?
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I saw different coloured bills. However, the wad wasn't thick enough to contain only $100 bills, nor was it thin enough to contain just ten $1,000 bills. I think I saw brown and pink coloured bills.
Liberal
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
One thing bothers me, but it's not the fact that you refused. In 2006, another candidate who was supposed to become a minister, Richard Le Hir, said on Radio-Canada that he had been offered $13,000 and had accepted the money. There was also an article in La Presse on this. He had used it to buy the chicken. He said he had consulted the Parti Québécois and that it was acceptable. He even said that five or six candidates were going to become ministers. Did you hear about that?