Public Safety Committee on March 31st, 2015

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you, I think that's very useful. Of course, when it comes to the first part of this amendment about removing the word “lawful”, it does clarify that the broader definitions for sharing are in no way limited by the “for greater certainty” clause.

In the second part—I want to address the second part of the government's proposed amendment here—replacing clause 6, I certainly welcome a change from something that says share to anyone “for any purpose”. I don't think that was a misinterpretation, but a piece of less-than-optimal drafting, if I can try to be diplomatic here. We did not have the Privacy Commissioner before us, but he did send a letter to the committee. The government amendment here doesn't take into account the Privacy Commissioner's recommendation, which deals with the question that was just raised. If this clause, in fact, does not deal with how information is used down the line, what the Privacy Commissioner suggested was that there needed to be a provision requiring the sharing of that information on the basis of written information sharing agreements between agencies.

So, Mr. Chair, I'd like to propose a subamendment, which I have here in both official languages, that would add the words “and on the basis of written information sharing agreements between agencies”, after “in accordance with the law”, in the second-to-last line of the government's amendment. I'll pass that to the clerk. This is, in essence, one of the key recommendations that the Privacy Commissioner gave us in his letter. I believe it's consistent with the “for greater certainty” clause, because the Privacy Commissioner believes that written information agreements are actually required under privacy law. So it fits very well with the “for greater certainty” clause, reminding people of what is already the law, that there should be the written information sharing agreements in place between the agencies before information is shared.

That's the basis of our subamendment, namely, to adhere to the recommendation of the Privacy Commissioner that we received in his letter of March 5.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay, does everybody have an understanding of the subamendment?

Yes, Mrs. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I won't be supporting the subamendment for a couple of reasons. I think there's actually a proposed amendment coming up that touches on this. I'm not sure. I was trying to find it to see what language we used in the amendment, but it is certainly not the intent of the information sharing act to impose on branches or agencies to come up with comprehensive agreements. There may be situations where it's a one-off situation. Certainly it wouldn't be happening in a commonplace scenario. But, again, the purpose of this is to be able to share information pertinent to national security issues, and to be able to do so in a very quick and timely manner.

Obviously, the issue of terrorism has come up before, not only in Canada but also in countries around the world, and so we need to be able to provide the tools and not tie the hands of our agencies by waiting for some sort of document to be able to tell them that they can do this. This act is giving them that authority. Obviously, the Privacy Act and the Privacy Commissioner and others have the ability to review any of the activities that take place under this act.

But for those reasons, the fact that there are one-off situations that may be unique and occur only once a year perhaps, and that certainly there are other situations that could come up very quickly.... That is not the intent of the information sharing act and I will not be supporting the subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Is there further comment?

Yes, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I'm surprised at the government's response to the subamendment. I think it's a very good subamendment. We didn't hear from the Privacy Commissioner, but that was a huge concern of the Privacy Commissioner.

His letter is backed up by a letter from all provincial privacy commissioners, with the exception of the one from New Brunswick. This is a huge concern. The Privacy Commissioner is an officer of Parliament and I think carries a lot of legitimacy. If he suggests that that having written information sharing agreements is important, then I think we as a committee have to accept that fact.

On the motion in general, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

We're on the subamendment.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Okay. Then I certainly support the subamendment and I ask the government members to reconsider. This is an officer of Parliament. It is a legitimate concern.

I know the parliamentary secretary said that there needs to be speed in some of these sharing agreements. We do live in an age of technology. It happens. Speed is the ultimate. It's just as quick to draft an email, and most of it is done that way.

There is no reason in the world why that subamendment can't be accepted by the government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

On the subamendment, Ms. Ablonczy.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Chair, the parliamentary secretary explained why this subamendment is not desirable and would have unintended consequences, but since her explanation isn't accepted, I wonder if the officials could also weigh in and help us to understand what practical effect this subamendment might have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Davies.

[John Davies]

We haven't actually received the subamendment.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

It might be good to have it then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

We will give our officials a brief time to have a quick look at the subamendment.

I recognize that this is not giving them time for deliberation whatsoever. However, we'll let them confer just briefly for a second, and then we will proceed.

Mr. Davies.

[John Davies]

The immediate reaction, based on legal advice as well, is that government institutions don't sign agreements with themselves. They can't bind themselves.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Norlock.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The guiding principles within the act—specifically this is the anti-terrorism act we're dealing with—state specifically that “entry into information-sharing arrangements is appropriate when Government of Canada institutions share information regularly”.

Mr. Chair, I think that all this subamendment would do, quite simply for folks at home, is to just add another layer of bureaucracy, another hoop for people to jump through. I think what I just read is a guiding principle that all government agencies utilize currently. I think this is absolutely duplicitous, and I don't think it's necessary. It's just one additional step that we don't have to go through.

That would be my submission.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

On the subamendment, Mr. Garrison.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I don't think it's helpful for members of the committee to accuse each other of duplicity, and I would ask the chair to keep an eye on that.

The Privacy Commissioner's fourth recommendation is what we're following in this subamendment, and inadvertently Mr. Norlock has just made the case that I made at the beginning. This bill already contemplates that there will be written agreements between government departments, and what a greater certainty clause does is to draw people's attention to that. In fact, it does not add an additional layer of bureaucracy because the idea of written agreements is contemplated in the bill itself.

That concludes my remarks on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]))

We will now go back to the amendment.

Mr. Easter, you have the floor, sir.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're caught in some binds here by procedure. I definitely want the word “lawful” out of this act, but tied in with this amendment is the second clause. I think there are better clauses than the amendment to clause 6 that are coming forward later on in the amendments.

I will support it overall, but I am concerned about how far and what information can be shared, so I would ask the Justice folks about this, with this amendment in place. A lot of the witnesses were concerned about this wording: “or further disclosing it to any person, for any purpose”. I asked some of the people who are in the legal community what that meant, and they said they didn't have a clue.

This, I will admit, does look—or it looks on the surface—like it restricts it somewhat more. Could you explain how this restricts the sharing of information on individuals over basically anything?

[Sophie Beecher]

It doesn't restrict anything. That is the effect of the “For greater certainty...”. What we're really trying to do through this provision is to express that existing rules and existing law pertaining to use and further sharing of information continue to apply as they are. Therefore, the subsequent sharing of information for any purpose to any person would need to occur in accordance with the law.

These rules can be found in statutes specific to an activity, or they can be found in cross-cutting statutes such as the Privacy Act. Also, the charter continues to apply.

Therefore, the effect is that we're not changing the law pertaining to use or further disclosure. We're stating that it needs to occur under existing law, as it currently occurs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you for that.

Madame Doré Lefebvre.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am going to vote in favour of the amendment proposed by the government.

However, I must say that the Privacy Commissioner's recommendations are fairly clear. We tried to improve the amendment proposed by the Conservatives, but I am rather disappointed to see that the government party members were, unfortunately, not open to those changes.

It is important to mention that we studied this issue in committee for hours and we met with witnesses on several occasions. Many witnesses mentioned that the wording used was problematic. I am pleased to see that the government changed its mind regarding the wording of clause 2. That is important and the issue was raised by several witnesses. For that reason, I am going to vote in favour of the amendment.

However, we must not forget that the Privacy Commissioner is an officer of Parliament. He had serious concerns. He made specific recommendations regarding clause 2. It would have been a good idea to listen to one of our officers of Parliament.

Since it is still an improvement, I will vote in favour of the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

All in favour?

I'm so sorry, Mr. Payne. My apologies. I didn't see your name on the list.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

That's okay, Chair. All I was going to say is that we did hear from a lot of witnesses on the word “lawful”, and I think that from that standpoint, we were listening, and we've removed that word.

Thank you.