Evidence of meeting #33 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was carroll.
A recording is available from Parliament.
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
It looks like we are asking for unanimous consent to change the name of the mover of the motion and put Ms. Borg's name instead. Do we have unanimous consent to proceed in that way?
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
The motion is now in Ms. Borg's name. So she does not need to present a two-day notice of motion. We can discuss it today. You should read it to start with. Then we can discuss when and how the study can be undertaken.
NDP
Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
The motion reads as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics calls the Privacy Commissioner of Canada as well as the provincial and territorial privacy commissioners to testify with regard to concerns expressed in a joint resolution published on April 2, 2012 regarding the application of privacy protection laws to the Canada-US perimeter security action plan, and that the committee reports its findings back to the House.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you.
The only thing I am concerned about, having read it, is about our bringing in all the provincial privacy commissioners. I don't know if we necessarily need to do that at this point. I'm offering this as an amendment because I think it's important that we hear from the commissioner, because this joint resolution is a good document. It is interesting and a lot issues are being raised. We are talking about increasing security and increasing trade, and how do the privacy rights of Canadian citizens play in to it, because we have two very different regimes. I think this might open up further study down the road if we have questions out of it.
I think if we're going to do the work of this committee, we need to be apprised of these issues when they come forward. They've just released this document. It would seem incumbent upon us to at least hear from the main or national privacy commissioner. We could invite the others if they wanted to participate by teleconference. I would like to hear what they have to say, and then we can reflect on that as a committee on whether further follow-up needs to be done.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate Mr. Angus's comments.
We did want to have a conversation about this, which is why we wanted to bring it forward. It would seem to me, and one of the things the chair will recall I indicated, that we need to have a little more discussion as to where we want to see this go and what we want to see undertaken with it. My initial reaction or feeling is that the specific agreement with the United States is probably more appropriate before the foreign affairs committee, since that's where this is being considered at present, or certainly where it should be considered.
Rather than calling a vote on this today, which we can force, I wonder if the NDP would be interested in having some additional conversations about this to determine exactly where we want to go on it, so I can have a better understanding as to what Mr. Angus has proposed as an amendment. Perhaps we can have some discussions between now and Thursday or, indeed, next Tuesday. We have a schedule here for a while anyway. It's not urgent.
As I said, my initial reaction to the motion, the way I read it, was to recommend it for the foreign affairs committee—or perhaps Mr. Masse, as the critic in your party for borders.... But perhaps in the interim we can have a conversation about it. I move that we set this aside for the time being to allow the parties to discuss it and determine whether this is the right or wrong forum, and give me and the members on this side some indication as to exactly where you see it going.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
We have been asked to take a little more time to decide which committee should consider this matter. As I understand it, the Privacy Commissioner is quite closely connected to our committee, but, if I see that we are not ready to vote on the motion because she is not quite prepared, or that members of the committee have not had prior discussions, we could see what we can do about it.
I give the floor first to Mr. Angus.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you.
I can't say what was in the mind of our chair when he originally came up with this, but I feel this issue is for our committee because there are many issues at the foreign affairs committee in terms of perimeter security, which is a huge undertaking. The Privacy Commissioner has expressed a concern that the issue of privacy was not going to be looked at, which is in the purview of our committee.
We had tried not to be too definitive in the motion so that we would not create a sense among our Conservative colleagues that we're coming in here with a fixed agenda. We've been meeting with a number of people who have various pieces of the puzzle, but we felt that perhaps the first thing would be just to hear from the commissioner. Then we can decide as a committee whether or not this requires further steps and further witnesses. That's why we did not throw in any other witness names.
So if you want to hold off on this until Thursday and we can talk meanwhile, we'd certainly be fine with that. We do need to find areas within our committee to provide something positive to Parliament and to the public. Certainly the issue of privacy in these deals is something that I think we can work on together. So if we want to find time to talk, we can come back Thursday and discuss it more and people can think about it. I'm perfectly fine with that. I think my colleagues would support that.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
We are agreeing here to give the two parties a little more time to get together and come up with a motion that is worded in a way that suits everyone. Do we have a specific date for that discussion? Perhaps it could be May 1 st. We would have more time to discuss it in the second hour, that is, after Ms. Shepherd appears to talk about the main estimates. So we would have up until that date to come to an agreement before moving forward along those lines.
As I see nothing further on the agenda and as our time has expired, I thank you for your attendance at the committee and I will see you at the next meeting.