Evidence of meeting #28 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pipeda.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC
No, I don't think we will, but I'm curious to see if other members of the committee—and I know Mr. Erskine-Smith has an idea—have other ideas with regard to what this committee could be working on.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Okay, if that's the case.
I didn't hear you actually moving your motion, so it's still there.
Mr. Erskine-Smith.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
I had two suggestions. One would be more timely, and one we could do to fill space whenever.
First, we've heard from the Privacy Commissioner and we've heard from Michael Geist with respect to information sharing and the impact on the Privacy Act, but well beyond the Privacy Act, the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, and the implication of that act, which formerly was part of Bill C-51, but no longer is. The Privacy Commissioner had spoken about how he's trying to get more information from departments. He didn't really have a full update as to the impact of SCISA.
I'm also on the national security committee. We are engaging in broad consultation right now. The minister is engaged in that same consultation, but it's fairly broad. This committee could be fairly specific, drill down specifically to the impact of information sharing, and SCISA in particular. That will be one proposal for now.
Down the road, just to fill a couple of days, I think it would be useful to review the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, specifically section 15 and the practice of sponsored travel. I think it's ripe for change and it's something this committee should look into.
But that's to fill space. I don't think there's a particular timeline—
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
It's under procedure and House affairs. I don't disagree with your intent. I just don't think—
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
I would want to double-check that. I've spoken to the Ethics Commissioner staff specifically about this act and its implications, so I'd be surprised if we don't have something to say on it. But maybe that's right, in which case—
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
The Conflict of Interest Act is definitely us. The code I think is procedure and House affairs.
We'll double-check.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Yes, double-check.
Anyway, if we can review it, let's review it. If we can't, then I don't really care. Let's talk about other things.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC
I like the idea regarding the sharing of information act. As there's this whole review going on with Bill C-51, this committee could perhaps have input to give government with regard to those specific provisions. I think it would be a fairly short study.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
If I understand this correctly, we would simply study a certain portion of the changes that legislation is going to—
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Right. We would study a very narrow focused bit of that and provide feedback. Is that the intent?
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Is there anybody else on that?
Do you guys have some specific wording for a study?
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
We can say we'll review the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, its impact on privacy since its implementation, and whether there are any changes that should be proposed in the course of the government's national security consultation and review.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
This is almost like a privacy impact assessment, as the witnesses were talking about, with the committee undertaking it.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
I'll take that as a motion then, moved by Mr. Erskine-Smith, that this committee undertake a focused study on the impact of privacy under the proposed legislation.
How many committee meetings would you propose for that, Mr. Erskine-Smith, or does that really matter at this particular point?
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
I don't think it matters, but I would say somewhere between four and eight. We can get into it and see how much time it would really take.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
I'm assuming, Mr. Erskine-Smith, that as the mover of the motion you have some proposed witnesses you would be interested in entertaining. Other parties would have to make some efforts to find some witnesses for that.
I don't see anybody opposed to it. Is there anybody who wants to speak in opposition or just make some comments on this particular motion?
Mr. Kelly.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Is it your intention to do this after PIPEDA or to do this instead of PIPEDA?
