Information & Ethics Committee on April 14th, 2016

[Daniel Therrien]

The fact of the matter is that the rule is unclear, and that leads to uncertainty as to whether the information should be disclosed or not. I think this is undesirable.

Yes, perhaps it could lead to under-reporting in the sense that if the threshold did not exist, all financial institutions would be reportable, so you're correct from that perspective. Still, Canada negotiated an agreement whereby this threshold was adopted. I'm suggesting we should follow through and clarify and ensure that information under $50,000 is not shared.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

I'm certainly not going to dispute that with you, but there could be a better-case scenario rather than always the worst-case scenario in certain circumstances. Either way, Mr. Commissioner, we thank you very much for your time here today and for clarifying this very important issue.

I know that as an MP previously, my office was inundated with many concerns. I was surprised to find out how many U.S. citizens I had living and working in my riding. Some people who had never even worked, as you aptly pointed out, for one minute in the United States were getting tax assessments. It caused a lot of confusion, and there was a lot of frustration on their part.

I'm glad we had some more clarification today at this committee. I thank you for your time, sir.

Colleagues, that ends the part dealing with the motions that brought about this one-day study.

I need a couple of motions to be approved in order for us to continue our studies on the access to information and privacy legislation. I need somebody to move that a proposed budget in the amount of $22,500 for the study of the Access to Information Act be adopted. Could I have somebody move that, please?

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

In the same vein, with the Privacy Act study, we need a motion that a proposed budget in the amount of $22,500 for the study of the Privacy Act be adopted. Could I have somebody move that motion, please?

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

I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you very much. I appreciate that, colleagues.

I think that takes us to the end of our work for today. I'll just simply advise—

Go ahead, Mr. Smith.

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

As we know from the President of the Treasury Board and our previous discussion of the ATI Act, changes are seemingly going to be made in the fall with respect to some items in the mandate letter and in our election platform, and there will be a broader review of the act going forward.

I suggest, so that we have a greater impact at this committee, that at the very least we aim to issue an interim report on the ATI Act by the end of this sitting in June. I propose we stand down any further studies and focus completely on the ATI Act so that we can get something out the door that may then be of use to the President of the Treasury Board when he goes to make changes in the fall.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Mr. Erskine-Smith, I take it you are proposing a change in our current work plan involving both studies. Did I hear you move a motion?

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

I will formally move that this committee study only the Access to Information Act going forward and that we issue a report, be it an interim report or a final report—we can make a determination at a later date—in June to assist the President of the Treasury Board in his amendments to the Access to Information Act in the fall.

I would further move that the subcommittee meet next week to establish a work plan and amend the current work plan to get that done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Just so I'm clear, you're moving a motion to change the work plan now, and at the same time you're suggesting that the subcommittee meet to do the same thing.

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

It's to establish a work plan and come back to this committee with a complete work plan for the end of June.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Your motion is, then, to instruct the subcommittee to meet at its earliest convenience to revamp the work plan and then report back to this committee and adopt it.

We're not going to be able to do that before Thursday of next week, I don't think, which is a slated day, according to motions we already have to do this.

My advice to the committee is that since we have a few minutes here, maybe we don't need to meet as a subcommittee.

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

I'm fine with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Let me just ask the question. Is there general consensus at the table to do this?

Go ahead, Mr. Jeneroux.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Yes, I'm glad you guys are on the page today with.... It seems to have scooped us, the budget there.

However, we do have the President of the Treasury Board coming before us. Before we go down that road, I personally would like to hear at least from him. We have invited him. He's planning to come.

If at that point we see that, yes, he's open to our feedback.... I'm not, I guess, entirely convinced that he is at this point. If that's the case, if he is, then at that point I think we'd unanimously support focusing entirely on what we could do to help him, going forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

What I'm hearing, Mr. Erskine-Smith, is that there's support for either a friendly amendment to your motion or support for the motion whereby the subcommittee would meet and review this motion, with some folks at the table wanting to hear from the Treasury Board president first before we make a determination.

We have general consensus but some technical differences.

Go ahead, Mr. Boulerice.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Although I accept the proposal that we focus our efforts and time on the Access to Information Act, in the NDP, we don't think we need to put on a straitjacket and remove all flexibility in the coming weeks, between now and June.

I would leave it to the committee to make its own decisions without limiting itself.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Mr. Lightbound.

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

Essentially the only thing we're proposing is that until June, instead of having the Thursdays dedicated to the Privacy Act, we study the Privacy Act next session when we return in September. We would allocate our time instead to ATI, because it could be more useful to the government to have recommendations or at least an interim report when we return in September.

I don't think we're changing a whole lot here. We'd just be focusing on ATI so that perhaps we can get something done that is going to be useful in informing the government and the House as it moves forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

For the edification of members of the committee, I have the schedule before me.

We were going to the end of June. We will likely meet 16 more times, providing we sit until the end of the session, which means we potentially have eight more meetings on access to information and potentially eight more meetings on the Privacy Act.

The committee has given me great flexibility, but sometimes we don't get the right witnesses and we move things around. We still have estimates to do as well. I propose that we do the estimates in the week after we come back from the next break week.

I would propose that on one of the days, the Tuesday, we have the two commissioners come in and we'll go through the estimates with those two commissioners. Then on the Thursday we could bring in the other two commissioners and go through the estimates with those commissioners.

Is everybody okay with that? They are booked for the 3rd and the 10th. Both happen to be Tuesdays.

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

Just to be sure, are we still working on having witnesses for the 19th and the 21st of April?

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Sorry; you're right, Mr. Lightbound. Yes, on Tuesday, April 19, we have witnesses coming for the Access to Information Act. We do not yet have any more witnesses for the Privacy Act on the Thursday.

The motion would be easy to adopt, because we wouldn't have to adjust an existing work schedule and we wouldn't have to cancel on anybody.

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

That's even better.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

We do have the Privacy Commissioner coming back, but that's understandable.

Mr. Jeneroux.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

I'm not trying to be difficult here by any means, but I feel that if we do adopt the motion now, we lose that flexibility.

Say, for example, the President of the Treasury Board comes in and gives us the sense that he's going full steam ahead with this, and we're not comfortable that our opinion is going to be heard. At that point I would think it would be more beneficial to us to move on to the Privacy Act versus staying on with the Information Commissioner.

We're only debating about one Thursday. You're saying it's only one Thursday when we're not looking at the Privacy Act, but from our side it's one Thursday that we're giving up the flexibility for the rest of this session and we're not going to look at the Privacy Act at all. On our side of the table, we just want to keep that flexibility open.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

By my records we're giving up Thursday the 21st, Thursday the 12th, Thursday the 19th, and then Thursday the 2nd, 9th, 16th, and 23rd of June.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

I'm saying in between now and when the minister comes.