Evidence of meeting #3 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was trudeau.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair (Ms. Rachael Harder (Lethbridge, CPC)) Conservative Rachael Thomas
I will call the meeting to order.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
I'll acknowledge the hands that are up if you'll just give me a moment. I would like to lead with a statement.
I would like to provide a short summary with regard to the mandate of this committee. One of the observations I made during our last discussion concerning motions was that there seems to be some confusion around what exactly this committee exists to do.
Given the title of this committee, I think it can be assumed that we have the ability to look at anything having to do with ethics or anything having to do with privacy, and that actually isn't the case. I'd like to take a moment to describe exactly what the mandate of this committee is, if you'll indulge me, and we will move forward from there.
You have a document from the analysts. I have discussed this further with them. It is a document called “Background Information”, which was sent to every single one of you. “Work for the committee” is the subject. Within that, the mandate of this committee is described, including the four commissioners and what they exist for.
The first page within that document describes how matters can come about or come under study by this committee. There are two ways. One, issues can be referred by the House of Commons, such as, let's say, a piece of legislation. We would have the responsibility of studying that. The second way things can come to this committee, of course, as you know, is through members of the committee. You can put forward motions and then we would accept them or not accept them for study, based on the will of this committee.
With regard to the mandate, the committee actually studies and reports based on the four commissioners who exist. Of course, the commissioners are the Information Commissioner of Canada, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
Based on the document that the analysts have provided, which I'm going to briefly go through, if you'll indulge me, paragraph 108(3)(h) of the Standing Orders says that the committee's mandate is to study matters related to the officers I've just listed: the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada and the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
Pursuant to the Conflict of Interest Act, matters related to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons are studied by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. That's an important distinction to understand. There are times when it is appropriate to bring matters to this committee, and there are other times when they are actually best sent elsewhere, for example to PROC, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Further to this, when we look at the mandate of the four different commissioners, we can see that the Information Commissioner of Canada helps individuals and agencies that believe institutions have not respected their rights under the act. The Information Commissioner of Canada ensures that the rights of federal institutions and concerned third parties are respected. The commissioner ensures compliance with access to information. I leave that with you.
The mandate of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada covers the personal information-handling practices of government institutions and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, PIPEDA, which deals with how private sector organizations protect this information.
This is an important distinction, if I may take a moment to stop here. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada is not restricted to public office holders only, nor to federal institutions. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada, under PIPEDA, can take on the responsibility to look into private sector matters. The scope of privacy is larger than that of the other three commissioners, and that's an important thing for this committee to be aware of. Where we have a fairly small mandate, perhaps, from the other three, privacy expands it.
The third one here is the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada. Derived from the Lobbying Act, this is to ensure transparency of the lobbying of federal public office holders. This is with regard to lobby groups, of course, being held accountable in terms of the way they are lobbying public office holders, but then, of course, public office holders are also held accountable with regard to whether or not they receive gifts and such from a lobbyist. That's important for the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada.
The mandate of the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is to administer the Conflict of Interest Act, which applies to federal public office holders, and the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, which governs elected members of Parliament. You have public office holders, which would be ministers, the Prime Minister, etc., and then you have, of course, the other act, which governs elected members of Parliament—for example, those who are around the table today. The act and the codes set out a number of obligations and prohibit various activities that involve conflicts between private and public interests or have the potential to do so.
I am going through this very briefly here, but if you have not already done so, please take the time to read through this document. Please take the time to understand what each of these commissioners is responsible for and to understand the different acts that give direction to these commissioners.
As chair, it is my responsibility to determine if a motion falls within the purview of this committee. To the best of my ability, I will consult with the analysts and I will make decisions accordingly, but my reading of the scope within the framework provided here is more narrow than some of the motions I currently have on the table. I offer this as a reflection piece to the committee.
I ask that you consider the mandate that has been outlined for you by the analysts. I also ask that you use that as a guideline when you put forward motions to this committee. This will help us in terms of a streamlined process. This will help me as the chair to honour the wishes of this committee to the best of my ability. It will also ensure that we are doing work in a productive manner.
I am going to hold the floor for one more moment, if I may.
With that, I would suggest that this committee hear from the four commissioners. Mr. Angus moved a motion during our first meeting, and it subsequently got withdrawn. I would like to offer a friendly proposal to the group, if I may.
We have several motions on the floor for studies, and of course we will move forward with those, but it will take a bit of time to set up the witnesses to come. While we're working on that and getting those witnesses lined up, and while we're preparing to take on those studies, my suggestion is that we take the next two meetings, let's say, and hear from these four commissioners, giving them one hour each to come to the committee to deliver a presentation and a summary of their mandate and giving us the opportunity to ask them questions. This would help us to better understand exactly what it is that each of them does and what our mandate is as a committee.
Again, what I would be proposing to you is that each of these four commissioners would have the opportunity to come before the committee for one hour each, and we would have the opportunity to ask them questions after they deliver their 10-minute remarks. Then, after hearing from the commissioners, we would of course continue with our first study, which will be decided by the subcommittee later today.
Would I have the approval of the committee to move forward with this? Is there anyone who would object to this?
Mr. Angus.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair, for laying everything out and then completely stealing my thunder on my motion.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I've lived with slights all my life, and I can live with this one.
I think it's fundamental that we have the commissioners. I don't know if they all have to come at once, because if we are drawing in witnesses, there are going to be gaps. It's going to be difficult for our clerks to move them in, because they can also be busy.
The only amendment I would make is that we invite them as soon as they can come. I don't know if we actually should have to vote on it as a motion, because if we're not listening to the commissioners, what are we doing? I would suggest, having been on this committee for eight years, that we can hear from the Commissioner of Lobbying in an hour and the Information Commissioner in an hour.
For the Privacy Commissioner, I would say two hours, because they're dealing with big things, and if we're going to deal with the facial recognition study, we're going to need more time. I think Monsieur Dion has really laid down his ground rules. He's much more present than the previous one. I think giving him two hours would allow us to really find out what he does, because he has a lot to say. I think that would be fair, and I would leave it to the clerk to find that out.
I also want to add that Clearview AI has been hacked, so the importance of us getting onto the facial recognition technology when we have billions of photos, they have a client list.... I just wanted to let people know that they've just been hacked.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
Okay.
If the committee is in agreement with that, then I think we could move forward with putting the commissioners in place at their earliest convenience. I feel that the earlier we can listen to them, the better, because they really do set the tone or the mandate for this committee. I feel it is very important for us to hear from them.
Again, at the will of the committee, I am more than happy to accommodate the times you've outlined, Mr. Angus.
Mr. Barrett.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Once you've concluded, Madam Chair, whether or not your test of the room has been successful, then I have an item of business that I'd like to address.
Liberal
Michael Levitt Liberal York Centre, ON
I thank you, first of all, for your overview. For those of us who haven't been on the committee for eight years, that was helpful. I am certainly in agreement with hearing from the commissioners. Obviously we're in a constituency week next week, but then we're back.
I want to speak to the point that the hon. member across the way made regarding the Clearview story that just came out in the media, regarding a breach of their client list and the implications of that. We all agreed around this table the other day that this was an exceptionally important study, looking at the issue of facial recognition for a number of different types of individuals, including racialized Canadians. I think the story that has just come out makes it all the more important.
I don't want to take away from the work of the subcommittee this afternoon, if it is meeting this afternoon, but I think there is a timeliness to being able to establish some scope for the study and being able to start taking witnesses. It's going to take a little while to get it up and running, but I think we should be doing that work ASAP and getting the ball rolling. If it's possible, coming out of that meeting today, I certainly want to suggest that it should be a primary focus as we start doing the studies that have already been put on the floor and accepted and adopted by the committee.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I agree with Mr. Levitt. We haven't discussed it, but it's very important to speak with those commissioners of Parliament. It's important that we give each of them an hour. The only reason I'm not suggesting two hours is that it would require another meeting, and I'd like us to get to the study on artificial intelligence.
Depending on how the discussion with the commissioners goes, I see no problem with inviting them to come back, if we think it's worthwhile. They'll be back, in any case. We'll be dealing with motions involving them, so they'll be before the committee again.
I'd like to get to a study right away. Not only is it important, but it's also pressing.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Madam Chair, on a point of order, I was trying to determine a good time to raise this. I don't want to take away from the importance of what's being discussed, but at the same time I think the gravity of what's being discussed necessitates the reminder, for lack of a better word, that there was a rule of order, I believe, passed regarding webcasts or televising the committee. Certainly, I know it's available by audio.
My point of order would be that I would encourage the clerk to make all efforts possible, especially on the Hill.... I don't want to suggest that that's not the case, but certainly as we are dealing with issues of great importance to this committee and to the country, such as safety and privacy and the integrity of government, I think it's very important that, whenever possible, that be respected.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
Thank you, Mr. Kurek.
The clerk has informed me that she has put in her best effort and, unfortunately, this week we were just not able to televise this meeting. However, for future meetings, we should be in rooms that are either televised or have the option of webcast, and so that accommodation should be made.
Of course, because that is a motion that was passed during our first meeting as a committee, it is the clerk's responsibility to do her best, and I have every confidence that she does.
Mr. Angus.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you. I don't want to disagree with my new friend over there.
This committee is very new. I know one thing about members of Parliament—we know all the answers, and then we're going to jump into a big study. I think it would be a big mistake to say, “Well, we could hear from the Privacy Commissioner, and then we're going to handle all the important stuff.”
What the Privacy Commissioner does is cutting edge. It's been recognized around the world what this office has done. To give them an hour, I'm sorry, is wasting our time, because the number of questions that are going to be asked is going to be very limited. It's the same with Mr. Dion. He is really trying to reshape this.
This is not to disrespect the Commissioner of Lobbying, because we're going to need time to deal with the Lobbying Act—it's going to be very important—or the Information Commissioner, but there are two portfolios right now that I'm asking my colleagues for. I've been up to speed, and I have met with them a hundred times, but they really are going to lay the groundwork for us. If we don't take the time now, I think we're going to waste a lot of time in committee arguing about what we should and shouldn't be doing, when they will help lay out some ground rules. So, I think it's reasonable to take two hours to hear from each of them, because we're still going to take time to develop our witness list for facial recognition.
This is not going to be a straightforward thing. We're going to need to get the right people. We need to do this in a proper manner. We can jump in, but there are still going to be gaps. I would appeal to my colleagues to give them the time, to let the clerks figure it out, and we'll start putting our witness list together and we'll get down to business.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I completely agree. Before we meet with experts, conduct a study or prepare an analysis based on the committee's or the subcommittee's recommendations, we need to speak with the four commissioners, who have the necessary knowledge.
Will two hours be enough? I don't know, but we certainly need to take the time to do things right. Then we'll know what's what. Don't you think?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
If I may, one option is that, if we feel that two commissioners require two hours each and two commissioners require one hour each, we could agree to do two three-hour meetings. That would allow us to move forward with our first study in a timely fashion but still receive the thorough briefing from the commissioners that we feel is necessary.
Mr. Levitt.
Liberal
Michael Levitt Liberal York Centre, ON
It's my feeling that trying to change the timing of the meeting is going to be problematic. I have the foreign affairs committee, and the subcommittee of procedure and agenda for that, and I know we all have a lot of that. If we can work within the confines of the scheduled timing, I think it's going to be better. It's going to be really hard to try to find an opportunity to add hours to the committee.
Liberal
Liberal
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I don't have a lot of hair, but it all turned white, and it was from having to sit at these committees.
