Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 15th, 2011

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

You mentioned the Privy Council Office but it would also apply to any other requests. We are being told that the quantity of documents makes it impossible to provide them and that there is so little contact between Privy Council Office and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner that we should not expect much information. However, according to reports, there are so many documents that it appears there was a huge volume of correspondence between the two.

I understand if you do not feel it appropriate to comment on what I have just said.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Please finish your question so that the witness may answer.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

This is unacceptable. Could you address the consequences?

[Chantal Bernier]

In the case of unjustified disclosure, those persons whose personal information has been disclosed could complain to the Commissioner and we would investigate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you.

Mister Kramp, you have the floor.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

To Madame Bernier, I'm concerned with not just now; I'm concerned also with the future. I'm concerned about the perception, about a potential cooling that might be in force among people who thought they had an absolute level of protection.

We've heard--from Mr. Walsh, and through previous letters, and from you--that there might be some circumstances, under the purview of a committee decision, to override that disclosure, to basically say that obviously the common good dictates, which means the absolute level of protection is not there.

Is there a fear that this perception might keep a number of people away in the future from being a whistle-blower, from coming forward, knowing that any disclosure that they do sign is not absolute? There is no complete protection. People beyond the signature of that document can arbitrarily, for valid reasons, change that.

[Chantal Bernier]

I will not pronounce on what was the intent of that legislation, since this is not the legislation that we administer. But I don't think we even need to go that far. I think any violation of the right to privacy is consequential. It erodes a sense of trust in government in general.

So even strictly on the basis of the Privacy Act, we would have concerns in any disclosure that would not be compliant with the Privacy Act.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

To Mr. Walsh, Standing Order 108 is not codified, and I'm concerned. Could either a misuse by committee or a mistake in invoking the standing order have the potential to become a precedent for future Houses or the public to rely on?

In other words, whatever we're doing here with this entire process, does the fact that it's not codified in Parliament have the potential for becoming de facto case law?

[Rob Walsh]

Mr. Chair, the issue of precedent primarily arises in terms of House business in relation to rulings by the Speaker. It is always an argument that something happened a certain way once upon a time and that should be taken as a precedent, but that's a matter of debate.

To my knowledge, there is no binding rule about precedent based on a particular practice or action taken by a committee or a House at one point that binds a subsequent House, or the same committee at a subsequent time, in looking at a similar situation. They might or might not choose to follow the previous actions.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

So you can allay potential fears I have that any action we do here will not prejudice another decision down the road.

[Rob Walsh]

One way of putting it is that subsequent committees are at liberty to take corrective action.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Good point.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Ms. Faille, it is your turn.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I have one last question for the Assistant Privacy Commissioner. The Auditor General reported that, in her opinion, the Commissioner had breached the Privacy Act. What action did you take? Did you investigate these infringements?

My motion does not list you as one of the people from which we have requested correspondence. However, I do not think that any of us here had considered asking you to testify on this issue. Did you take action? Did you investigate the allegations?

[Chantal Bernier]

We have not received any complaints with regard to the Auditor General’s allegations. Were we to receive complaints, we would of course investigate.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Did the Auditor General’s report not ring an alarm bell? Do you not think that you should perhaps conduct an investigation?

[Chantal Bernier]

Of course, it was very concerning. However, we feel that the Auditor General’s was sufficiently comprehensive as to have resolved the issue. Consequently, we do not consider that it would be a good use of taxpayer money to undertake another investigation in addition to the Auditor General’s already very robust enquiry.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

You will, therefore, not be taking steps against Ms. Ouimet?

[Chantal Bernier]

No.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

That leads me to my questions for Mr. Walsh. I am currently following ten or so cases before the Federal and Superior Court. It seems to me that there are times when witnesses are not available and courts do not rule them in contempt.

Mister Walsh, I was wondering whether it would be possible to research the issue, perhaps with Justice Canada, to ascertain whether compelling Ms. Ouimet to appear before the Committee – or even deciding to move up the date of her appearance - could end up compromising the Government’s strategy if she has already been subpoenaed to testify in a different Crown case.

I do not know whether you see what I am getting at.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Please, keep your answer to no more than 30 seconds.

[Rob Walsh]

I think I understand the crux of your question. Testimony to a Committee could indeed undermine a witness involved in a court case. In principle, testimony before a Committee is not available to be used in court proceedings.

By the same token, witness’ counsel would be concerned that a witness might say something before the Committee that could be used by someone else ...

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Do we know...

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Ms. Faille, I am sorry but your time is up. Mr. Shipley, you have the floor.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Walsh, what is Parliament's obligation? When we've asked for blanket information and requests of papers and records, what is Parliament's obligation to ensure the privacy of the individuals whose information may be disclosed?

Secondly, Mr. Walsh, when a committee deals with that sensitive information--as this committee will, if it happens--and it's obtained under the Privacy Act, how have they proceeded in the past? I don't know if you can answer that or not. I think we've always got to be concerned; we talked about our legal obligations. What do we have to be mindful of?

To Madame Bernier, the committee has asked for sensitive documents. How do you think they should be distributed? Is there a better way? Should there be a hard copy? Who keeps track of those copies? Do we get them only when the committee is in session? Can they go through an e-mail process in which we receive most of our information, it seems? Or is it something that we should only receive here, we view it, and at the end of the day, when everybody leaves, we hand it back?

Those are just some thoughts, but for those three questions I'd appreciate answers.