Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 25th, 2013

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Boisvert.

The distinction between the role of member of Parliament and that of minister is an interesting issue. In the news, we have recently seen that the Minister of Finance got his knuckles rapped. There was some confusion on that.

Mr. Giorno, I have a question for you about sanctions. You have said a number of times that the legislation did not have teeth, that there were no consequences, no penalties. In the past, monetary penalties or imprisonment, like in the United States, have been discussed.

Could you give me one or two other examples of sanctions that could be imposed on public office holders?

[Guy Giorno]

Looking only to the Canadian experience with which I'm more familiar, Mr. Chair, there really are three sets of options.

There's an administrative monetary penalty regime. As I said, it's newer but it's increasingly common in Canadian jurisdictions for this sort of infraction.

There's the standard offence and penalty prohibition, which provides for either a fine or a jail term. That requires charges by the police, prosecution, and fining or imposition of sentence by a judge.

The third sanction we see in some legislation, including some provincial legislation of this nature—very famously, the case involving the mayor of the City of Toronto—is legislation that provides the penalty of vacating a seat.

In the Canadian context, these are really the three choices, streams, or avenues that Parliament can choose from to enforce laws of this nature.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Giorno.

Mr. Chair, I will share my remaining time with my colleague Ms. Borg.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you very much.

You said that the government had failed in modernizing the Conflict of Interest Act. The same thing is happening with another act.

In that context, I would like to move the following motion:

That, in response to the public concern over recent data breaches that have affected more than half a million Canadians, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics conduct a study relating to mandatory reporting to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of incidents of data loss or breach as well as providing the Commissioner with appropriate order-making powers, and that the Committee report its findings and any resulting recommendations for modification to the Privacy Act of Parliament.

Mr. Chair, it has been noted that data breaches affected more than half a million Canadians, which is a huge number. The Privacy Act dictates what action departments must take in the event of data breaches. Unfortunately, that act has not been amended since 1985, when the Internet was not as widespread. There were no USB keys that could be lost either. As a result, I think this committee should look into the situation of the people who were the victims of those data breaches. It is crucial that the legislation be reviewed. I feel it is this committee's responsibility to do so, given that this is a privacy issue.

I would like all the members of the committee to support this. I feel it is our duty, as members of Parliament and members of this committee, to review this act.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Since Mr. Boulerice was the last speaker on the list, I am going to allow the witnesses to leave the room, as planned.

Since your time is up, we are going to debate the motion. So let me suspend the meeting for a few minutes.

Once again, I would like to thank the witnesses for joining us and for their contribution to our study.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Order, please. We will resume our meeting.

Ms. Borg has introduced a motion. So the members of the committee can debate it. I have three people on my list, starting with Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate my colleague's bringing forward this motion. It's one that has been considered, of course, by the human resources committee.

Obviously, our government believes this is an unacceptable breach with respect to this personal information. While all indications are that it hasn't fallen into the hands of those who would use it for inappropriate purposes, we believe this is an unacceptable breach and something that needs to be reconciled. That's why the minister has acted as expeditiously as she has on this matter.

In terms of this issue, there are a number of elements that will tie into the study that our committee has yet to conclude. As well, I know that the human resources committee is looking into this exact matter. But I think there is some subject material, as it relates to our study, that is in the context of that. We've dealt with that in camera, so I'd like to move the continuation of this discussion in camera and make a motion to do so.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

We now have a motion before us asking that we continue the meeting in camera.

There has been a request for a recorded vote. There is no debate on this motion.

So I am going to let the clerk record the vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

We are going to suspend the meeting for a few minutes before we move in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]