Evidence of meeting #137 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was household.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC
No, it's just that since we're on the business of discussing this particular topic, I'd like to move the following motion:
That further to the appearance of the Chief Statistician, that the Committee on Industry, Science and Technology invite the Privacy Commissioner, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, TransUnion, the Canadian Banker’s Association, Ann Cavoukian and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
This is so we can have further discussions on this important topic, sir.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Actually, that was a motion we dealt with in committee on Monday, so it's not something we can do.
5:25 p.m.
Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC
No, Mr. Chair, I would simply point out that, first of all, it's a motion relating to this, and it's an invitation, not a study. Also, we have TransUnion included in this, and that was not in the original motion you're referring to.
If you won't find it in order I'd like to know, because then I would like to make it as a formal notice of motion.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Again, the substantive motion was dealt with in committee, so I will rule against that.
5:25 p.m.
Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC
Okay, I'd like to put a notice of motion, Mr. Chair, “That, further to the appearance of the chief statistician, the committee on industry, science and technology invite the Privacy Commissioner, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, TransUnion, the Canadian Bankers Association, Ann Cavoukian and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.”
I would hope that would be translated and that we would have an opportunity to discuss the motion.
Again, I'm not asking for a report. I'm asking for an invitation. I would hope that members would say that more discussion is necessary. Mr. Longfield said the other day specifically that we can't discuss this further until we've heard from the chief statistician.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
You've submitted your notice of motion. The clerk will have that translated.
Unfortunately, today we really don't have time to do anything because there is a second committee that's taking over here. That's what I needed to confirm. It's HUMA. It's all about accessibility and there's a certain set-up that's required here, and they need half an hour to do that. We actually just verified with the clerk that they need half an hour.
Mr. Chong.
November 7th, 2018 / 5:25 p.m.
Michael Chong Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC
Mr. Chair, I just want to support my colleague. Obviously he can't re-present the exact same motion, but if the motion is different, I hope you will rule it in order. I think it's really important that we do hear from additional witnesses on this matter.
When we first established the census in Canada hundreds of years ago, it was entirely for the use of government itself, to raise armies or to collect taxes. With the development of the modern economy the data that StatsCan is collecting, the census data, is used by private sector corporations. Canadians are increasingly concerned about the development of large data being used by companies like Facebook, Google and the banks.
The issue, I think, in front of us as a committee is whether or not it's appropriate for the federal government to use the coercive power of the state to force, compel banks to hand over very personal and granular financial information—
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
You're actually getting into debate. We're not going to get into a debate right now.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
We've accepted the notice of motion that you've put forward to the clerk. It will be translated, and we'll go from there.
5:25 p.m.
Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC
Again, Mr. Chair, could I just have clarity on this as to exactly why you ruled the previous one out of order? It was based on the conversation at the business of the committee here today. It was substantially different, in that we were not talking about a study but about invitations, just the same as the Liberal members did last time.
I can't see why you would rule this out of order. I'd like an explanation.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
I ruled the first one out of order because we actually dealt with the substantive motion in committee business. I can't really have that conversation out of committee business because it's in committee business.
You've put forward a new notice of motion. We'll deal with that as it comes.
As it stands right now, I just want to point out that no motions were passed to get the statistician here. It was an ask for unanimous consent to bring the statistician in and have a conversation with him. That was the ask. It wasn't a motion regarding a study, regarding anything. It was very specific: Do we have unanimous consent to have the chief statistician come in? It was unanimous. Everybody agreed with it, and that's why the gentleman is here today. That's the business we are doing today.
5:25 p.m.
Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC
Yes. Again, that's why I suggested we do something similar. We were just doing the business here, Mr. Chair. It is clearly tied to the business of the committee today, so I can't see why it wouldn't be in order.
That being said, we will prepare ourselves for future meetings where we will be taking a much different approach until we have this issue looked at, and I do hope that colleagues consider that.
Thank you.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
No problem.
On that note, I'd like to thank our guests for coming in today. It was very enlightening, and we look forward to the next time we meet.
The meeting is adjourned.