Evidence of meeting #36 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 files.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
We have very limited time left.
Mr. Lightbound, do you have a quick question?
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We've talked about how the act was supposed to be technology neutral. We've heard stories, for instance, of CSEC collecting metadata of Canadians in Canadian airports back in 2010. Those stories were revealed by the CBC. We assume that the explanation that CSEC would have for it is that metadata is not personal information per se, and they can therefore collect it.
Do you think it would be appropriate in the Privacy Act to include metadata so that it will be considered personal information and clearly defined as such?
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Again, I would recognize that we're looking to do a substantive review of the Privacy Act as a broad framework as it relates to all of the governing institutions. I know that discussions around metadata are occurring within the national security consultations.
We're looking at the Privacy Act and managing the potential reform that we're going to undertake to keep it applicable to all of the governing institutions. Having it become specific to individuals, whether it's with security agencies or otherwise, would be challenging when looking at that broad framework.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Just to clarify, Jennifer has informed me that the Privacy Act does not explicitly address metadata, because it was done in 1983, but that metadata does meet the definition of personal information in the act, so it would apply in terms of that.
Noon
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I guess this is the challenge of ever-evolving and changing technology and identification.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Yes. It's not an easy thing to keep up with the technological changes. To write technologically neutral language is going to be one of the challenges that your department is going to face, Madam Minister, and I'm sure the committee is going to provide you with some excellent recommendations.
Colleagues, there is not enough time to start another five-minute question, so I would like to thank the committee members for their excellent questions.
Thank you very much to both our ministers and to the staff for appearing today. This concludes the witness list that we have for the review of the Privacy Act.
Mr. Blaikie, I'll get to you in a second.
I will let colleagues know that we will be reviewing the Privacy Act next week. We will be considering the draft report. We will be getting the draft report tomorrow.
It will not have had time to go through verification of the interpretation of both the French and English versions. Normally the analysts would do that, but in an effort to get the report in the hands of the committee members as soon as possible, before next Tuesday, you will have both a French and an English version, and it will not have yet been verified that the language is the same. Please don't get hung up on that. We'll deal with that next week. The analysts will come on Tuesday to talk about any differences in the language of the report.
Focus more on the content of what is there, and we'll begin those deliberations.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Blaikie, before we suspend, did you...?
Noon
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you. Yes.
Before we get started with the next witness, I want to move the motion for which I gave notice on Tuesday:
That the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, pursuant to Standing Orders 108(2) and 108(3)(h)(vii), undertake a study of the Conflict of Interest Act and other initiatives which relate to the ethical standards of public office holders; that the witnesses invited to appear before the committee in relation to this study include Jon Dugal, Coordinator of Development and Events for the Liberal Party of Canada to testify about his role in the organization of private fundraising events involving Cabinet Ministers; and that the committee report its findings to the House of Commons.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Thank you very much, Mr. Blaikie.
We do have the Information Commissioner waiting, colleagues, so I hope we can deal with this expeditiously.
As you moved the notice of your motion last Tuesday, I asked the clerk to provide me with some guidance on this.
My initial review of it, in consultation with the clerk, is that the motion is very much on the very edge of being admissible, on the grounds that Standing Order 108(2) does not actually apply to the ethics committee mandate, so in order for this to continue before the committee, I need an amendment to the motion that would make the motion more admissible.
Mr. Kelly, is that what you are...?
Noon
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Yes. I have an amendment to the motion, which is that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics
pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h)(vi), undertake a study on certain provisions of the Conflict of Interest Act in regard to public office holders' participation in fundraising activities, and that the Coordinator of Development and Events for the Liberal Party of Canada be requested to testify before the committee on this matter.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Just to be clear, Mr. Kelly, I'll take a look at this.
Mr. Kelly, your amendment is a fairly substantive change to the motion that's currently presented by Mr. Blaikie. The section referring to 108(3)(h)(vii) would appear to make the motion closer to being admissible, because that fits within the mandate of the ethics committee; however, your amendment also changes other significant language here, and I'm going to look quickly to Mr. Blaikie to see if he accepts that the premise of this doesn't substantially change the intent of the motion as he intended it before the committee.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I'm satisfied that the changes in wording don't change the substance of the motion.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Are motions to summarily cut off debate on a motion before the mover has even had a chance to motivate the motion in order?
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I'm asking, as a mover of a motion, do I have the right to motivate my motion before we proceed to vote?
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Well, I assumed that you were going to speak to it. I moved to Mr. Kelly for an amendment. That was the speaking order that I had. I apologize if I didn't give you an opportunity to speak to your motion, but I—
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
My impression was that I would get an opportunity to motivate but that you were intervening quickly on an issue of whether the motion was in order. Presumably, if the ruling was that it was not in order, then I wouldn't have the opportunity to speak to a motion that was not in order. It was important to decide, first of all, whether the motion was in order, before I motivated for a motion that was out of order.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
The motion was likely not going to be in order until I acknowledged Mr. Kelly, who moved an amendment to your motion, which moved the motion more closely back in order. As a matter of courtesy, I checked with you to make sure that the changes Mr. Kelly was making would not substantially change the intention of your motion. We are now discussing the amendment to the motion, so we are no longer actually talking about your motion. Had I ruled, there would have been no opportunity for you to even address the motion, because I would have had to rule it out of order.
Then, on the speakers list, I had Mr. Lightbound, who is now asking for the debate to be adjourned. This is a dilatory motion. There is no debate on this.
As the chair, if I have failed in some way, Mr. Blaikie, I apologize, but as we have a dilatory motion and I've acknowledged Mr. Lightbound, I have to accept.... It's a non-debatable motion, and it has to be dealt with accordingly. I have to take the recording of this at this particular point in time.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Well, then, I would ask that we have a recorded vote at least.