Evidence of meeting #44 for Public Accounts in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Did we agree on February 19? I thought it was February 24.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
Thank you, Chair.
The following would hopefully appease everyone. It would say, after 2011:
and that the Privacy Commissioner be invited to provide guidance and clarification with respect to any potential privacy concerns the committee may encounter with respect to the disclosure of documents and records requested, including the rights found in the disclosure form for all public sector employees of the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
I will read it one more time, with the chair's permission:and that the Privacy Commissioner be invited to provide guidance and clarification with respect to any potential privacy concerns the committee may encounter with respect to the disclosure of the documents and records requested, including the rights found in the disclosure form for all public sector employees of the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada.
We're basically covering the fannies of the members here and/or this committee in general by protecting them from any potential wrongdoing at any time from overstepping their boundaries. That is the purpose of that. I think it's pretty straightforward, clear, and simple. We are simply inviting that commissioner to come here and give us some advice, the same way as we would invite Mr. Walsh to give us some advice.
5 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
[Inaudible--Editor]...thinking, because you've said. Again, that's why the wording matters. It's to provide advice on “any potential privacy concerns” the committee may have. Does that mean...?
Daryl, are you looking to have the commissioner come in and give us a briefing? Is that all we're talking about? You want that to happen before we go any further?
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Hold on. Before he answers, David is asking a question that I think is important for all of us to understand.
David, again, please.
5 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Yes, I'm thinking...what the hell was the question...? I was asking if the essence of your motion is to have the Privacy Commissioner come in and give us a briefing on some guidelines on how we would approach these things. So my question would be.... What I'm trying to get past is that we're always adhering to the privacy laws. If we have a concern, we go to the experts, as we are going to Mr. Walsh on summonses and our options. So if there's a privacy concern, we usually deal with it. I'm just trying to understand why we would pass a blanket motion like this when we haven't in the past. That's all.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Thank you, Chair.
As a member of Parliament, I support this amendment. I think it's very, very important. I have to say that if I were a member of the opposition, I would want this amendment. I'll explain why I would want this amendment.
Just going back to the public sector disclosure act, it assures people who come forward with a truth or an issue or a concern about the integrity of something happening within their federal workplace that the disclosure process is confidential. This is the assurance they get. After a disclosure about a wrongdoing, made in good faith, your identity and other information provided to the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner “will be protected”--and then it has say this--“to the extent possible under applicable laws”.
That's us: “to the extent possible under applicable laws”. Because it recognizes that Parliament and parliamentary committees can ask for such things.
We saw the previous commissioner--
Sorry, Mr. Chair?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
All right. I won't read the whole thing, but let me tell you what the effect would be. Without this amendment, the effect would be that some very intelligent, experienced, and committed civil servants will simply not bring anything forward to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner unless they want to see their names all over the newspapers three months or six months hence.
Effectively you'd be saying to them: “By the way, you will have no certainty of privacy. Parliament can and may discard this assurance. If you choose to disclose information that you deem important for good governance in Canada, you take your chances. You may be on your own”. That's the message we would be sending to civil servants who might otherwise report things.
As I say, particularly if I were in the opposition, I would want civil servants to report potential wrongdoing. This would kill it. It would gut the act.
Thank you.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Chair, again, if you're ruling on interpretation of the motion, I realize the wording is perhaps a little simpler, but it's still not 100% straightforward.... Is the essence of the motion that, if we pass this, before we hear any witnesses, we will bring the commissioner in to give us a sense of guidelines and we can ask any questions...? Is the reason, if I could ask, that this is being put forward by the government members—Mr. Kramp in particular—because we're dealing with confidential records?
Is it that we're dealing with people who believed they were being protected when they were whistle-blowing, and since we're in that whole world, let's understand what the guidelines are about privacy issues before we start hearing from anyone so that we can stay within the rules when we're colouring? Have I got it right?
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Colleagues, I said we were going to limit debate, and I see us going back and forth all over the place.
Mr. Kramp, the intent has now been asked about a couple of times. It is one where we are talking about relying on a resource, on a specific legislation having to do with privacy. I think all members are conscious of that and they support it. If the intent was to get it on the record, it's on the record.
The intent, as Mr. Christopherson has asked--I think on behalf of everybody--is to have the Privacy Commissioner here. I'm not sure that would have needed an amendment. But to get that across, one of the very first things I can take from this committee today, right now, without having to vote on the amendment or a main motion is that it is the committee's intention that the clerk or the chair ask the Privacy Commissioner to appear before this committee next Tuesday, along with Mr. Walsh, to give us the appropriate guidance on any material we may receive.
Mr. Kramp, if that was your intention, then I think we can do that without having to vote on the amendment. But if it is your intention to vote on the amendment because this is what you want to do, then that's it.
I think we've clarified that. I said I wanted to end everything.
Monsieur D'Amours, you will have to be very brief, and then I'm going to call for the vote on the amendment.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Mr. Chair, I don't understand why we have to include that in the main motion, as amended, submitted by Ms. Faille, when it does not concern witnesses. The motion is asking that we be given specific information. It has nothing to do with knowing whether the information to be provided by witnesses who will appear before the committee is personal or not. The purpose of the motion is to obtain information.
Moreover, my amendment was asking that two points be added, that is that we receive a copy of the letter of resignation and of any agreement that may have transpired between Ms. Ouimet and the Government of Canada. I think that the wool is being pulled over our eyes so that we not obtain some of the information we are trying to obtain. We don't want to hear witnesses, we want to receive information on a specific matter. We want documents. I don't know why they are trying to make us believe that someone will have to explain to us whether or not we have the right to receive certain documents. I am asking that these documents be given to us. It's not complicated. I don't understand why someone should have to tell us whether or not we have the right to have documents or not. We need these documents in this committee.
We need those documents and that's what we request. It was in my amendment, and now I think we should go to the main motion of Madame Faille that includes my amendment.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Well, before we go there, we have to vote on the amendment that's on the floor.
In the spirit of the collegiality that developed about an hour or so ago, I think, Mr. Kramp and colleagues, if those issues arise--and you've already agreed that you'd like to have the Privacy Commissioner here before us to give us some guidance--when the committee receives the documentation, pursuant to her advice, and if the documents provided are in any way--how shall I put it?--compromising, the committee still has another possibility.
In those instances, because we would be asking the Privacy Commissioner to come forward, the committee could go in camera and protect the identity and the personal information. That's yet another option the committee has.
I'm not taking you there. I'm just giving you an indication, Mr. Kramp, of where the committee would be going if we were to do this right now. The committee is going to have to make its own decision. The first decision has to be on the vote on the amendment, unless, of course, you decide to withdraw it.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Chair, I have some sympathy for Mr. D'Amours' concerns, but I've also worked with Mr. Kramp for many years and never has there been any occasion when what he said differed from what he did or what he was prepared to back up, including deals that were in place for months.
But I do understand Mr. D'Amours' concern. Let's be open about it. The concern is that there's an attempt to put in a filter that may deny the committee documents or people that we would otherwise get.
Might I suggest, Chair, in the interests of trying to be helpful, that out of respect for Mr. D'Amours' concerns, we deal with the amended motion separately. Then we can deal with Mr. Kramp's motion as a stand-up or simplify it even further, where we just make the case that we will bring in the Privacy Commissioner at the same time as we're bringing in Mr. Walsh: that we're going to get a briefing on the legality of summonses and what we do with the absent former commissioner and at the same time we would take advice from the Privacy Commissioner on parameters of privacy questions, issues, and documents that we might request.
If we did it separately, that would allow Mr. D'Amours to feel that nothing in here is going to be filtered out, and we would still allow Mr. Kramp to place what is probably an advisedly good move in front of the committee. I hope that's helpful, Chair.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal