Information & Ethics Committee on May 13th, 2014

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

It varies from committee to committee, but I've always.... Even when we're interviewing witnesses, I don't ask the witnesses or the committee members to go through the chair. Unless we want to adopt that as a rule of this committee, it hasn't been our past practice

But Mr. Calandra is right that Mr. Adler has no obligation to answer any questions put to him. He can contribute as much or as little as he likes to this committee. He was here as a witness before, and that would have been the time you could have put questions to him and expected an answer.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Mr. Ravignat, are you finished?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you.

Is there any further debate on amendment NDP-7?

(Amendment negatived)

Still in clause 7, we move to amendment NDP-8 in the name of Madame Borg.

Madame Borg, would you like to introduce your amendment?

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

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have previously discussed the privacy implications of the website posting of previous political positions. Several agents of Parliament said they had concerns on this point because the declarations would really be online and accessible to everyone. I have already read these remarks by the Office of the Information Commissioner, but I am going to read them again because I find them even more relevant to the context of this amendment. They read as follows:

Declarations of past political positions raise privacy concerns in that it requires the disclosure of personal information without any nexus or connection between this disclosure and their ability to perform their functions.

We are obviously talking a little about redundancy here, but it is as though we had to post our CVs on the Internet. I am not even required to do that as a member. Yes, I discuss my experience on the Internet, but I do it willingly because I think it appropriate to tell my fellow citizens what I previously did. However, I think that asking agents of Parliament to put that kind of information online is going too far.

The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that this information does not have to be posted online and that it is provided in another way. That is what I am proposing. This is simply to address privacy concerns. There are consequences when you post information online. I do not think it is appropriate to require agents of Parliament to put their CVs online. As a result of their positions, they are not even entitled to hold partisan positions in any case. I believe we should consider the impact that situation would have on privacy.

That then is what I am proposing. I hope my colleagues will support it, but I believe it is already a lost cause. I have unfortunately lost my optimism.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Madame Borg.

Is there any further debate on amendment NDP-8?

(Amendment negatived)

Still on clause 7, we are on proposed amendment NDP-9 under the name of Madame Borg.

The floor is yours.

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

Thank you.

I would like to address more or less the same concerns.

The purpose of my last amendment was to eliminate the need to make these declarations online. I am asking instead that they be made to Parliament. This would rule out all privacy concerns. I have said it once and I will say it again: there may be serious privacy consequences for anyone who is asked to post a CV online. Furthermore, this process is not necessarily useful. We have said it once, but I will say it again: this bill causes problems where there are none. The question as to whether or not declarations are made online has never been a problem. Taking action to address these privacy concerns is simply a matter of common sense.

Whatever the case may be, that is what I am proposing. I hope we can secure the support of all members.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Madam Borg.

Is there further debate on amendment NDP-9?

Mr. Ravignat.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

It seems to me that the decision to post a CV online is up to that person. Preparing a bill that essentially provides that a CV must be published online leads me to ask the following question: Where do we stand? To what extent will the government control people's lives? My colleague knows a lot of things. He knows them far better than I. I believe that the violation of this person's privacy is a fundamental issue.

Mr. Chair, we are studying the subject. We realize how easy it is today to steal someone's identity. Many witnesses have told us that. We are living in a new digital age, which means that private information such as, for example, where we have worked, what our professional experience was, how long we were in a position at a given place, circulates. This is information that we normally find in a CV. Basically, all of it can be used to violate a person's privacy and steal his or her identity.

It seems to me that a government's first responsibility is to protect its citizens from wrongdoing, including identity theft and privacy violations. This is merely another example that shows us that Mr. Adler, working on the government's behalf, has unfortunately not considered the bill's consequences. Seriously, Mr. Chair, we cannot decide from one day to the next to interfere in the lives of public servants at any level whatever.

He should have done some thinking and probably heard the Privacy Commissioner's opinion on the bill. It would have been useful to know what she thinks of certain measures and their potential impact. That is why I support the amendment, which I consider well intended and which would help strengthen the bill.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Mr. Ravignat.

Is there further debate on amendment NDP-9?

Seeing none, I call the question.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 7 agreed to)

(On clause 8—Written Undertaking)

Moving on to clause 8, we have notice of a proposed amendment by the Conservative Party.

Ms. Davidson, on amendment CPC-4, for a statement....

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would move that clause 8 be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 5 with the following: 8. Every person referred to in section

and then it would continue on as written.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Ms. Davidson.

Is there any further debate on amendment CPC-4?

(Amendment agreed to)

Is there any further amendment or debate on clause 8?

Madam Borg.

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

Once again, I would like to refer to the lack of definitions. This question has been addressed by many witnesses. Despite the Conservatives' attempts to make us believe that there was a definition of what constitutes doing something in a "partisan manner", there is none. This is very much a concern, particularly because there is already a similar definition. It may conflict with what appears in the Public Service Employment Act, and that concerns us.

The Conservatives would have us believe that the expression "partisan manner", or "façon partisane", is defined, whereas it is not. We tried to define it by means of our amendment, but it was unfortunately negatived. That is why we will vote against clause 8 of the bill. We cannot simply support a measure that would permit a witch hunt because we have no definition of what constitutes something that is done in a partisan manner. That is our main concern, and we have tried to correct the problem by the amendments we have introduced. They have been negatived. We will therefore vote proudly against clause 8.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Madame Borg.

Is there any further debate on clause 8 as amended?

(Clause 8 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 9--Holder of a position in the office of an agent of Parliament)

Are there any amendments to clause 9?

Mr. Calandra.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Sorry, Mr. Chair, I have no amendments.

This is just to advise the committee that, on the advice of Mr. Adler, the Conservatives will be voting against clause 9 and clause 10.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Okay, we'll have to deal with them as they come.

Thank you for that information.

Is there any further debate on clause 9?

Charmaine Borg.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have something else to say, but first I would like to let Mr. Adler give us an explanation of the reason why he wants to withdraw certain clauses. Why did he introduce a bill that included them? What has brought about his change of mind?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Is there any further debate? Is that your comment or your question, Madame Borg?

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

I asked him to respond.

May I continue speaking?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Yes, you can keep the floor if you like, but seeing no response from the other side, you might want to just make a comment on clause 9.

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

I believe that was a well-intended question, but let us move on.

I am pleased to know that the Conservatives will be voting against clause 9. We have also discussed a number of concerns, particularly with the fact that it might lead to a witch hunt. That thought does not come out of nowhere.

Mr. Del Mastro is being investigated by Elections Canada. The Hon. Pierre Poilievre attacks Marc Mayrand and several members seem to think that agents of Parliament are opposed to them for some unknown reason. Clause 9, like clause 10, could enable individuals who feel targeted—they would not be targeted; they would have violated the act and might perhaps have trouble believing it—to investigate allegations of vaguely defined partisan conduct. This is a major concern.

We risk promoting a situation in which individuals responsible for ensuring that parliamentarians, the government and election candidates obey the rules might be attacked because they have identified someone who may have broken the law. Consequently, we are completely opposed to clause 9. I am at least pleased to know that the Conservatives, despite their wish to reject all our other amendments, will be voting against this clause. I am very satisfied with that. Unfortunately, there are several other problems with this bill. We have not managed to correct them. Even if we had been able to make certain amendments, there are so many problems in this bill—

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Excuse me, Madam Borg, we have a point of order.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

On the point of order, the government members, on Mr. Adler's advice, have already identified that we will not be voting for clauses 9 and 10. Unless the NDP and Liberals are intending to support it and are making amendments—and I don't actually see that they have any amendments.... I'm confused as to why we're debating clauses that seem to have the unanimous consent of the committee to be withdrawn.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

That's not a legitimate point of order. All of the clauses are debatable, whether they're amended or not, prior to their going to a vote. I have to rule this as not a point of order.

Madam Borg still has the floor.