Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 18th, 2016

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

And whether or not it needs to be regulated in law....

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Indeed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Is that satisfactory wording? Okay.

Mr. Lightbound.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I was thinking there are a number of witnesses who have stated that they are not sure whether political parties' personal information on Canadians should be included within PIPEDA. That might fall within the ambit of what we're going to study when it comes to the PIPEDA study. It could also be a section of our study.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

It may. In my opinion, what has become clear is that there's a lack of clarity on where exactly that falls. In some of the research on this, some people say the Privacy Act might be the place to do some aspects of it, others say PIPEDA might be the place, and others say the Elections Act might be the place to do some aspects of it.

That's why I think having an independent study, or a study independent of any particular piece of legislation, makes sense. This would allow us to not be restricted by the scope of any particular existing act. We could therefore answer the questions as to whether, in the committee's judgment, regulation in this area is necessary; where it belongs, if it is necessary; and whether it should be in a new act or an existing act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

We've heard the terms of another motion for a proposed study to happen after the study on PIPEDA and SCISA.

Is there anybody else who would like to speak to the motion?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I'll just say it's a good idea based upon the testimony we've heard. Given that it's far enough away, I have no problem committing to it. However, if other timely matters arise, and we think we should deal with them, those should take precedence in the interim.

I think PIPEDA is another one where we could do it two years from now, and it would make no particular difference. This is the same thing. If issues arise and we want to deal with them, SCISA being an example, unless there's a legislative timeline where we have to review PIPEDA.... My point is that there are a lot of good ideas to study. This is one of them. I am happy to commit to it, but if there are timely things we want to deal with to have input on government decision-making, I think those should take precedence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

What I'm hearing from Mr. Erskine-Smith is yes, but not necessarily on the specifics of the timeline.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Yes.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

To sum up, Mr. Erskine-Smith's answer was yes, but not necessarily yes. That's what he indicated. I think I'm in the same boat. I think we'll actually learn a fair bit through PIPEDA, and there may even be a recommendation through that.

In terms of committing in the long term to some of this, I agree with Mr. Erskine-Smith that there's a lot of information and interesting stuff to come out of PIPEDA that we should consider as well, so I support going down that road, but yes, it's a ways off. If it's flexible in the motion, I guess we'd support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Mr. Bratina.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Would there be any value in seeing what comes out of PIPEDA and then taking...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

I think that's what Mr. Erskine-Smith alluded to as well, which is that based on what we're going to study, it might be a recommendation in our review of PIPEDA. But Mr. Blaikie's point is that it is a unique enough item that it might still be worth studying in its own right after that.

Because we don't know what's going to happen during our PIPEDA review, we can't make the determination right now, but we do have a motion on the floor. That doesn't mean that if it's not dealt with through PIPEDA we couldn't change our minds later on and not do the study. We have that ability as a committee.

For the time being, I need some direction on whether or not to add the proposed study by Mr. Blaikie to our work plan.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Could you repeat the motion, Mr. Blaikie, as far as you remember it?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I'll look to the clerk so that I don't create multiple versions.

[The Clerk]

Here's what I noted, and correct me if I'm wrong. The motion is that the committee undertake a study on privacy with regard to federal political parties and whether or not changes should be made to the law upon completion of the two other studies agreed to.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Does that work? I'm open to flexibility on the wording around what the exact nature is of what we'll be studying, but the idea really is to come up with a recommendation on whether there should be a new law or whether an existing law should be changed in order to regulate the use of private information by federal political parties.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

That's encapsulated here, a change in the law or to put in a new law or an amended law or whatever.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

My only concern is one that Mr. Erskine-Smith has shared, which is that we might be enlightened through the study of PIPEDA in terms of what needs to be done, or whether it requires a formal study or not, or if we have enough information gathered. I just find that we're committing to the formal study, which could very well change after we've heard from our witnesses on PIPEDA.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

It's very unlikely anything that comes out of the PIPEDA study is going to supersede the need to deal with the issue as its own issue.

In the testimony we've heard already, we've heard that it's an awkward fit within PIPEDA. It may be that there's a remedy within PIPEDA. That's not the only thing we're going to be considering during the PIPEDA study. I doubt that this issue is even going to come to dominate it, because there are a lot of other important issues within PIPEDA.

I don't share that concern to the same extent that somehow what's happening with the PIPEDA study is going to supersede the need to look at this as its own issue. I don't see any harm in committing to looking at it as its own issue. If it is the case that in PIPEDA we hear from witnesses we haven't already heard from who say that PIPEDA is the absolute best place to do it and here's how to do it, and if we're all agreed that it's the best way to do it and we have a recommendation that says, “Here's something we should be doing in PIPEDA with respect to the private information of Canadians and federal political parties”, then so be it. At that point, I think the committee could change course and say that this motion has in fact been superseded by the PIPEDA study.

I don't think there is any concern now—and there certainly isn't on my part—that somehow this motion isn't warranted simply because we might come up with a solution from witnesses, some of whom we have already heard from. I'd be interested to go out and hear more witnesses on this topic, but from what we've heard, PIPEDA may well not be the place to do this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Mr. Blaikie, in my discussions when we get witness lists and the clerk comes to me or anybody else for direction on what witnesses to bring, if I know that we have a study on the books to look at and a witness comes forward who is going to testify primarily on private information with regard to political parties, I would probably defer that person to that study rather than include them in the PIPEDA study. Do you know what I'm saying?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

It would be nice for me to know one way or the other if we're going to do both. It makes the management of witnesses a lot more predictable and easier to do.

Mr. Saini, did I see your hand up?

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I just think that right now maybe we should wait for the study to unfold, to see whether or not information is derived from that study that would be useful in answering this question. If it's not, then we can always look at the motion later, as opposed to trying to hypothetically guess what may or may not emerge. Something may emerge. Something may not emerge. At least this way, in regard to the witness list, if we feel that this is something that we want to study under PIPEDA, we can create a witness list that would answer some of those questions, because a lot of the witnesses, whether you call them within PIPEDA or outside PIPEDA, would still be there.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

I agree with Mr. Saini.

Just looking through the stuff prepared by our analysts in terms of statutory reviews, the Lobbying Act is due to take place, 2015. Phase-ins were mentioned as part of the minister's response back to us on the previous study that we did, so I appreciate the spirit of where Mr. Blaikie is coming from, in terms of wanting to schedule our work so we know where we're going, but I think it's a little premature at this point in time to go down that road.