Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 18th, 2016

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

What I'm hearing is yes but not yet, Mr. Blaikie.

As chair, I have a motion now in front of the committee. I need to adjudicate, either that or the motion has to be withdrawn.

[The Clerk]

Yes, by unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

You can ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the motion right now or I have to put it to a vote, Mr. Blaikie.

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

I don't have a problem with having it put to a vote. I think it's prejudicial, frankly, to think that an adequate response might come out of the PIPEDA study. One of the issues that's at issue, and we know this from witness testimony to the committee on other acts, is that we don't know if PIPEDA is the right place. To say let's wait on the PIPEDA study when one of the questions the study I'm proposing would have to answer is whether studying PIPEDA would be the appropriate way to go about studying this issue, prejudges where that question belongs.

Yes, I don't mind. It wouldn't be the first time I've voted against the majority, so I don't mind having it come to a vote. My feelings won't be hurt. I think that's probably the best way to decide this.

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

I certainly wouldn't want to hurt your feelings, Mr. Blaikie, so maybe—

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

I have a pretty thick skin so you don't have to worry about it.

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

—if you would agree, maybe if we just amend it to remove “upon completion of the two current studies” or “the two studies we are undertaking”. Would that be satisfactory to you? Thereby, there would be no more timeline that restricts us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Mr. Lightbound, are you asking for a friendly amendment, or are you moving an amendment?

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

I'm asking first for a friendly amendment because I care about Mr. Blaikie's feelings.

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

As I said, I have a pretty thick skin. If you want to move that as an amendment, fine, but we just did have quite an open opportunity to be able to put forward committee business. I think we struggled a little bit to come up with two items, and having three, I don't think, would be unprecedented or overly cumbersome for our committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

We haven't even had a chat with the analysts about the statutory review items that we have as well.

Mr. Jeneroux, did you just say that there was a statutory...?

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

It's June, 2015, according to the bill itself.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

I might have missed that one.

Mr. Lightbound, are you satisfied with that?

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

You're rejecting the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

He's rejecting the notion of a friendly amendment, but you're still entitled to move an amendment.

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

I'll move the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

I have an amendment now and the amendment is to delete all the words after “law”, so the amendment would then read, “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.”

Does anybody want to speak to the amendment?

(Amendment agreed to)

Now we're back to the original motion.

Is there anybody else who would like to speak?

Mr. Jeneroux.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Sorry, I looked away. What was the count on the vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

It was six to two.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

We're back to the now amended motion, which reads, “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.”

Does anybody else wish to speak to the amended motion?

Mr. Bratina.

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

I'm just not quite getting it because there is a Privacy Act and political parties should theoretically have to follow the tenets of the Privacy Act, no?

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

I think what we've heard from witnesses is that political parties are kind of in the Wild West. We are not under the guise of the Privacy Act, which deals with the government.

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

I know that, but if someone has a distinct complaint about something that got out, there is certainly—

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

There is no legal mandate for the Privacy Commissioner to pursue something on behalf of a concerned citizen if they have a question about their own privacy being used by a political party.