Information & Ethics Committee on June 4th, 2026

[The Clerk]

I sent it to them, but I can send it again.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I would like the interpreters to see what we're talking about.

We'll suspend for a minute.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Can we let the witnesses go? I had the last round of questioning anyway.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Ross and Mr. Gear, I will let you go. I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for being here and participating in this study today.

I'm going to suspend for a minute to make sure the interpreters have a copy of what we're debating.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're back.

On the motion by Ms. Chagger to resume debate on the Privacy Act, for the benefit of members, we have shared the motion in both languages. The motion was put on notice on March 27 and moved on April 13. That's just for clarity.

I'm going to call a vote on the resumption of debate and ask Madam Clerk to call the roll.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0)

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're resuming debate on the motion.

I don't see any hands.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Can I talk about it?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes, Ms. Chagger. Go ahead on the motion.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

It's been interesting to have some of these conversations, and it's neat to be part of this committee.

I believe, especially after the witnesses we just had from the Treasury Board, that reviews and modernizations are needed of some of the acts that this committee is responsible for. When it comes to the Privacy Act, I think it's been nearly a decade since it was last meaningfully examined at committee, and that's well before the rise of AI and other modern technologies that now fundamentally shape how personal information is collected and used.

I noticed that we were supposed to have a committee business debate for this second hour, and it seems like there's no shortage of work for us to do. If we can get a few stakes in the fire so we can have witnesses come and the studies can proceed, I have no problem talking about committee business. However, I think we're well aware of the work that we need to do.

It's also important for us to have an understanding of who is left to appear with regard to the Lobbying Act versus who's not. I know a number of witnesses were suggested to you, Mr. Chair, whom this committee put forward. Perhaps we can get the status on who's replying and who's not responding so we can see how many more meetings are needed for that. Then we can do another study.

I'm pretty confident that we can have a couple of studies happening at the same time. I know that the Treasury Board has launched a review of the act, and with our government committed to modernizing its operations, we believe it's essential that committee members first receive a thorough briefing on the Privacy Act. This should include hearing from Treasury Board officials, the Privacy Commissioner, relevant departmental officials and other commissioners, so I would entertain that conversation.

I think this is something we can resolve rather quickly. Perhaps we can suggest witnesses so that you, Mr. Chair, can keep the committee moving with ample discussion on matters that are relevant not only to the work we do here but to Canadians.

With that, I'll say that I'm pleased to see all committee members supporting the resumption of this debate, and I look forward to seeing it flow and move forward quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Chagger.

The purpose of committee business tonight is to update committee members on where we are at with the Lobbying Act, so when we get to that point, we'll be glad to update committee members.

Mr. Bonin, you have the floor.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have two comments for my honourable colleague.

First, Ms. Chagger, I don't know if you want us to start this study immediately, but one of the committee's priorities is the report we received about our study on artificial intelligence. It's important that we finish that work before moving on to a major study. You seem to agree. That's good.

Second, if I understand correctly, the motion for the study that you're proposing currently says no more than 10 meetings. Ten meetings is huge. I understand that this is an important file, but if we spend 10 meetings on each of the many important files this committee has to manage, it's going to take us a lot of time.

Would you be agreeable to reducing the number of meetings a bit?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

There's a question for you, Ms. Chagger, so I'm going to you for a response.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To your comments, Mr. Chair, I was not aware of the update. If I had known that that was the update we were providing, I would have probably travelled with a different approach. Next time, if you have any insights as to what you would like to discuss, I would welcome that information.

Mr. Bonin, the way the motion reads is “not greater than”, so 10 meetings would be the maximum. I am more than fine with fewer meetings. I haven't talked to my colleagues, but if we can be efficient in the use of our time in having witnesses appear, then we can at least get to some of the work we need to do. Even when it comes to the draft reports that we need to review and submit, we might want to get some of that stuff presented and possibly have some action on it.

I welcome having a lot fewer than 10 meetings. I just want to get work done. That's why I'm here.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

Monsieur Bonin, go ahead.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I therefore move an amendment to your motion, Ms. Chagger, that we devote no more than six meetings to this study.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

On the amendment, we'll go to Ms. Chagger.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

I have no concerns with the amendment, Chair, and I have confidence in the work that you do. I look forward to hearing other comments, but for me it would be dependent on which witnesses are being presented and whether they have to appear on their own or we can have panels. Perhaps we would be able to do it, but I have confidence that you and the clerk will be able to see how many meetings are needed.

That's why I believe the motion—I can't put words in Ms. Church's mouth—was proposed the way it was. I know sometimes it's hard to get witness schedules and so forth, depending on who it is. That's where I'm coming from. If we need the time, then we use it. If we don't need time, and we can get it done in even two meetings or three, I would like it.

I think that it needs to be a meaningful look at the review. It's over a decade in the making, and the world has changed a lot.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Chagger.

We're all experienced around here. We know what happens. Members put their lists in, and we try to accommodate all the parties by having their witnesses appear.

There was a discussion on that at the beginning of the session, when this session started, and it was a preference of committee members to have no more than two on a panel in any given hour, not three, four or five, because it was felt at the time—and the majority of the members agreed with this—that there was more opportunity to ask questions if there were two rather than more.

There have been exceptions, obviously. Some people come here with three people, so we put them on the panel for points of reference, but generally the practice is to have two witnesses per panel per hour. That's what we strive to do, and that's what the clerk strives to work towards.

Ms. Church, go ahead.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On the amendment, I was going to seek a friendly amendment that maybe we could have no more than eight meetings.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

There are no friendlies. It's a subamendment if you choose to do that.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Then I will make my case for—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The subamendment is for eight meetings. Is that correct?

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Yes, it's a subamendment to have eight meetings.

I really appreciate my colleague's comments about making sure that we are managing the business of the committee and tying up some of the reports that we have under way.

When it comes to privacy, we are, first of all, squarely within the mandate of this committee. As my colleague set out, we are a decade or more overdue in terms of an update to a very technical, important piece of legislation. I am certainly aware that the Treasury Board Secretariat has launched a review of the Privacy Act, so this is an opportunity for the committee to have input into the work that government is going to do around that legislation. This is a moment for that.

As a result of all those things, I think you're going to find that there is quite a bit of demand for people to present to this committee so that we have a chance to hear the expertise on this act in order to provide a solid report and input, including from the commissioners themselves, who are the tip of the iceberg on this.

I have no illusions that this will get done in the next month before we break for the summer, but I think we should allocate a slightly longer time frame for it in our meeting schedule if we're realistic about the kind of contribution we want to make.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Church.

I misinterpreted that, Mr. Bonin. If you agree to amend your amendment so that it proposes no more than eight meetings, a subamendment won't be necessary and we can vote on it.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I agree.