Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 15th, 2011

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have a quick intervention that I'd like to make. I've been trying to get your attention for some time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

For the last 10 seconds.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Perhaps we could proceed as follows: in the open session with Madame Bernier, we may also address a question to Mr. Walsh, and Mr. Walsh is the person who decides whether or not he thinks that is something he can answer in camera or out of camera. Perhaps it should be Mr. Walsh who makes that decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Saxton, thank you very much for your intervention.

I think I'm going to go immediately now to the speakers list.

Mr. Bains, you begin.

I'm going to try to keep this speakers list to a series of very brief questions, so each round will be three minutes, please.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Okay. I will be very brief, because I'm trying to share my time with my colleague.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Madame Bernier is the subject of our conversation.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Absolutely.

According to the presentation that you made this afternoon, you said that the public interest needs to be served, and particularly when we're looking at privacy issues. In light of the fact that this committee has a mandate to examine the Auditor General's report in trying to find all the appropriate information, is the public interest being served from the work the committee's trying to do?

[Chantal Bernier]

The definition of public interest of course rests with the committee. There are parameters that should guide us. Those parameters include, for example, the consideration of harm to a person, the consideration of health and safety, and so on. There are parameters put in place.

What is most important to recall is that the public interest, in the case of an invasion of privacy, must clearly outweigh that invasion. That is within the discretion of the committee to assess.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

The second question I had was with regard to your own comments here. With respect to the goodwill that's been demonstrated by this committee and others, you note that in the work done by this committee on December 14, requesting information about 228 disclosures of wrongdoing, members did not seek the names of the individuals.

In your opinion, we have demonstrated good judgment and goodwill in the past, correct?

[Chantal Bernier]

Yes. We applaud that decision.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

So we more or less have defined those parameters, we've exercised those parameters, and we've demonstrated that good judgment in the past.

[Chantal Bernier]

That is certainly the conclusion we draw from that decision.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. D'Amours, you still have a minute and a half.

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

My first question is for Ms. Bernier. I may develop this theme further in later rounds. I would like to start with a comment. Perhaps the Assistant Commissioner could help me out here.

If we look at page 2, second last paragraph. Perhaps I missed it but I think you might have forgotten to read this paragraph when you switched from French to English. You skipped directly to the following paragraph, which begins with “Privacy…”

“Privacy does more than protect the individual.”

The paragraph you omitted begins:

In relation to section 8(2)(c), we recognize Parliament’s authority to compel the production of documents that may contain personal information…

I may be mistaken but I do not think that we have addressed this paragraph.

[Chantal Bernier]

Indeed, I wonder whether the copy I made my presentation from is the same as the one distributed to Members.

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

Mister Chair, if Ms. Bernier cannot find the text I referred to, she can answer my question in the next round. That would be quite acceptable.

[Nathalie Daigle, Acting Senior Counsel, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada]

That is right.

[Chantal Bernier]

There is a paragraph missing in my copy. My apologies. I would imagine this happened during the merging of the French and English passages. I will refer to the copy you have. The paragraph that begins: “In relation to section 8(2)(c), we recognize Parliament’s authority …” is crucial. Thank you for pointing that out.

In fact, I believe we have distributed a letter we sent on August 9, 2010 to the Member at the time, Mr. Murphy, in which we specifically recognize that Parliament has the authority to demand the production of documents and files. This letter also recognizes that the Privacy Act allows for the disclosure of personal information to Committees.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Ms. Bernier.

Ms. Faille, you have the floor.

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

My question is for the Assistant Privacy Commissioner. Earlier, you referred to a motion tabled by this Committee asking the Privy Council Office and Treasury Board Secretariat among others to provide us with the information reported by Ms. Ouimet. Could you help us here?

Why would the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner report wrongdoing in her correspondence with the Privy Council Office or Treasury Board? More specifically, why would specific public servant whistle-blowers be named in this correspondence?

Normally, the correspondence we have requested be produced should not contain this information. I suppose I am asking you for your assurance that this type of problem will not arise in documents provided to the committee. Normally, any specific names contained in correspondence between Government institutions should be blacked out by the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada. If any names slip through it means that the Office has failed to do its job properly. I hope that you are confident about the documents that are to be submitted to us. If all the names have been blacked out then the Commission will have met its legal obligations.

I have a question of a more specific nature I would like to ask you. Earlier, Mr. Walsh mentioned an unfortunate incident in 2003 involving your Office. Unfortunately, it was not dealt with through the available Parliamentary process. You are here today with your legal counsel.

How would you have managed that situation? We are facing a similar set of circumstances with Commissioner Ouimet. If you had been summoned to appear before the Committee, what would you have done? Which organizations would you have approached?

[Chantal Bernier]

Thank God, I was not at the Office at the time. Consequently, I do not really know what took place, apart from, like you, what I read in the press. It would be totally inappropriate to make a judgment on issues that I am not at all familiar with.

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

Nevertheless, these types of situation do arise. It might be worth giving it some thought just in case it happens again. Of course, it is to be hoped that it does not.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Ms. Faille.

Mr. Christopherson, you now have the floor.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

Thank you very much. That was a very concise, clear, understandable presentation. I appreciate it.

I'd like just a little clarification on the fourth-last paragraph. I think I know what it means, but I'd like to bump that up to I know what it means. It says:

Section 22.2 of the Privacy Act, which was added as a result of the creation of PSIC, states that the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner shall refuse to disclose personal information requested under subsection 12(1) of the Privacy Act (access requests) that was created in the course of an investigation. This is a even higher threshold than our own investigations at the OPC.

Can you just expand on that a little for me. Exactly what does that mean?