I take it that the speakers list is a new one that we have before us now.
As always, thank you, Chair, for your instructions at the beginning of the meeting, and thank you for allowing us to remember what a privilege it is for us to be here in this hybrid setting. It's the staff, interpreters, clerks and all of the wonderful IT staff who allow us to be here to exercise our parliamentary duties, and indeed to continue on, even under these most difficult circumstances.
Earlier this summer, in the previous session, the committee sat. It was actually in person, under somewhat similar but equally stressful conditions. I'd like to take this opportunity, since we have some new members who have joined us, to talk about some of the issues concerning the spirit and intent of the motion we have before us. Indeed, I'd like to bring the committee's attention to the mandate. I think I will switch to French here because that gives me a chance to practise my French.
It is important to understand how this committee has evolved. I consulted the website to get an idea of the history of the studies it has undertaken.
Initially, the approach was to bring witnesses before parliamentarians during investigations. That meant that parliamentarians were investigating the behaviour of their colleagues. Later on, legislation was rightly enacted and a code of ethics was established to govern the conduct of parliamentarians with respect to conflicts of interest. At the same time, a commissioner position, at arm's length from Parliament, was created to enforce the code, receive complaints, explain members' responsibilities and, of course, render judgments following investigations.
I emphasize that the commissioner is independent of Parliament. I believe we will have an opportunity to talk more about this. This is a key principle of ethics in the institutional environment. If parliamentarians investigate other parliamentarians, the conflict of interest is clear.
In addition, Parliament gave this committee a very important mandate, and it is always helpful for us to review it:
The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics reviews, among other matters, the effectiveness, management and operations as well as the operational and expenditure plans relating to four Officers of Parliament: the Information Commissioner; the Privacy Commissioner; the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner; and the Commissioner of Lobbying. It also reviews their reports, although in the case of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the reports concerned relate to the Commissioner’s responsibilities under the Parliament of Canada Act regarding public office holders and reports tabled pursuant to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.
I think those are two important elements that we will need to discuss in view of the motion before us today.
The mandate continues:
In cooperation with other standing committees, the Committee also reviews any bill, federal regulation or Standing Order which impacts upon its main areas of responsibility: access to information, privacy and the ethical standards of public office holders. It may also propose initiatives in these areas and promote, monitor and assess such initiatives.
It's very important that we discuss the last two sentences of the mandate. Actually, you might think that this means the committee can study anything in any manner, but it does not. My interpretation is that the committee can look into any legislation or any issue related to access to information, privacy, or the establishment of ethical standards or criteria.
The last sentence talks about proposing initiatives in these areas, and it is here that something is clearly missing. No one would have believed just five years, let alone 10 or 15 years ago, that devices like our telephones would be used to not only do extraordinary things in our day-to-day work, but also collect personal data. Who would have imagined that we could do so many things with computers?
I've been in the workplace for a long time. When I started in the banking sector, nobody had a computer. Only one teller had a small computer, with a green screen, and we could use it to get customer account balances.
Who would have thought that all the personal, financial and confidential data in our smartphones and computers would ever be available, but more importantly, that people we don't know would have access to it? This is an example of an issue that perhaps those who wrote the mandate perhaps did not foresee about 15 years ago.
Thank goodness they included that sentence in the mandate, because that is how this committee was able to form a supercommittee of sorts in the last Parliament with our colleagues in Great Britain. I believe some of my colleagues took part in that. It was truly a source of pride to see Canada able to take the lead on the issue of the tech giants controlling people's personal data. Again, that was really not foreseeable five or 10 years ago, in my opinion.
So that is what I have to say about the mandate itself.
As we discussed this summer, the committee is studying these matters, which are very sensitive to Canadians, and studying them, in a large sense, to make recommendations to different government ministers. We are working in conjunction with our four commissioners: the Commissioner of Lobbying, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner and the Information Commissioner. This is the work we are doing, I submit to you, Mr. Chair, not studying the private business of individuals who are in no way connected to the work we do here in Parliament other than they happen to be related to a member of Parliament who either happens to be a minister or the Prime Minister. The fact that we have chosen a public life is one thing, but I think we can agree as parliamentarians, as we all have families here, that this is not something we would have expected our families to be subjected to.
I would like to refer the committee to the part of the Conflict of Interest Code, where we have the definition of who is considered a family member for the purposes of this code. It is in the section for definitions. It states:
(4) The following are the members of a member’s family for the purposes of this code:
(a) the member’s spouse or common-law partner; and
(b) a son or daughter of the member, or a son or daughter of the member’s spouse or common-law partner, who has not reached the age of 18 years or who has reached that age but is primarily dependent on the member or the member’s spouse or common-law partner for financial support.
That is the definition we have in our code, and members will recognize that. It's in an appendix of our Standing Orders.
I'd also like to point out that any information obtained by members of Parliament should not be used in a way to further their own interests. I take you to “Rules of Conduct”, subsection 10(1), which states:
(1) A member shall not use information obtained in his or her position as a member that is not generally available to the public to further the member’s private interests or those of a member of his or her family, or to improperly further another person’s or entity’s private interests.