[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, September 26, 1996
.1104 
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: In accordance with Standing Order 106(1), your first item of business is to elect a chair. I am ready to receive motions to that effect.
Mr. Godfrey (Don Valley West): I'd like to nominate Sheila Finestone.
.1105
Motion agreed to
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Clerk: I declare Mrs. Finestone duly elected chair of the committee and invite her to take the chair.
The Chair: Thank you. Could you move into my riding please?
Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for the confidence expressed. I look forward to continuing the hard work that all of you have put in to date, and in which I've been very privileged to be involved.
At this point we have the formal election of two vice-chairmen.
Do I have to read all of this?
The Clerk: No.
The Chair: Can I have a nomination? Yes, Nick.
Mr. Discepola (Vaudreuil): I would like to propose the name of Andy Scott for vice-chair.
The Chair: Thank you.
Yes, Réal.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard (Hochelaga - Maisonneuve): I move Mr. Maurice Bernier.
The Chair: If there are no other motions...
[English]
Yes, Sharon.
Mrs. Hayes (Port Moody - Coquitlam): I'm sorry for having just blown in, but are these nominations for vice-chair?
The Chair: Yes.
Mrs. Hayes: Could I nominate Deb Grey as vice-chair, please?
The Chair: If acceptable, we'll proceed for the first nomination, and the vote will be based on the timing of the nominations. The first nomination received was from Nick Discepola for Mr. Andy Scott. All in favour of the election of Mr. Andy Scott?
Motion agreed to
The Chair: So moved. Mr. Scott is first vice-chairman.
The second nomination on the floor was Monsieur Maurice Bernier.
Mr. Godfrey: I have a point of order. I assume you'll only have two votes.
The Chair: That's right, we do.
As I was saying, the second nomination received was that of Monsieur Maurice Bernier. All in favour of Monsieur Bernier as vice-chairman?
Thank you. I declare Monsieur Bernier elected as vice-chair. We now have two vice-chairs.
Mrs. Hayes: Could I call for a recorded vote on that second vote?
The Chair: With pleasure.
[Translation]
All those in favour of Mr. Maurice Bernier, member for Mégantic - Compton-Stanstead, a beautiful area of my country, please say yea.
[English]
Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 2
The Chair: We have elected two members as called for by the by-laws of the House. We have our two vice-chairmen.
In light of the fact that we have new members, we are going to reconstitute the steering committee. May I have a motion that the chair, the two vice-chairs and one other member appointed by the chair, after the usual consultation with the whips of the different parties, do compose the subcommittee on agenda and procedure?
Mr. Godfrey: I so move.
The Chair: It's moved by John and seconded by Monsieur Bernier.
Mr. Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Is there any debate? Can I ask a question on that?
The Chair: I'm not sure. It's really a much more laissez faire committee, but go ahead.
Mr. Strahl: The way the motion reads, this would be the chair, the two vice-chairs and somebody else. There is no assurance that it will be someone from the Reform Party.
The Chair: No, that's not accurate. Who that person shall be is at the discretion of the chair, after consultation with the whip of the party. In the past, it was Mr. McClelland of your party, and at this point I would presume that would be given consideration. I will consult with the whip of my party and will advise the leader of your party about the decision of the whip.
Mr. Godfrey: For that position, do they have a sporting chance?
The Chair: Yes, in my view.
.1110
Mr. Strahl: Okay, but my point is that I think the motion should assure the third party a position on that steering committee.
The Chair: I will not agree or disagree. I will discuss it with the whip of my party and according to parliamentary tradition will take his guidance and advice and will then get back to the whip of your party.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic - Compton - Stanstead): Despite the lack of enthusiasm shown by our friends from the Reform Party at my election as second vice-chairman, we support the idea of having a member of the Reform Party on the steering committee.
The Chair: I will take that under consideration and I thank you for your support. It's also clear on our side of the room, but I don't have the right to accept that at this point. I'll go do my homework and get back to that as soon as possible. Agreed?
[English]
Are you satisfied with that? I think you can see there is a fair consensus around this table, notwithstanding that I'm sure you believe in the rule of law and in the following of parliamentary procedure, so you will allow me that right. I will then return and discuss it with you. Thank you.
Mr. Strahl: I'm not sure that it's parliamentary law that the chair has to consult with the whip of the government to -
The Chair: This chair will follow what's written on my piece of paper, and that comes from the agenda procedures and the whole procedure for elections of committee chairs that is found in Beauchesne's. I will give you this as a reference if you wish, with the greatest of pleasure. It's subtitled Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, with Annotations, Comments and Precedents, and it's the sixth edition.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: We don't really have to go to the Supreme Court, Madam Chairman.
The Chair: I would always go to the Supreme Court if it were a matter of my country, your country, our country.
[English]
Oh good, we have Warren here now. Mr. Allmand, welcome.
Mr. Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): Sorry I'm late.
The Chair: That's quite all right. We have just completed the nominations for chair and the vice-chairs. Andy Scott is vice-chair, as is Mr. Maurice Bernier. We have just had a further discussion about the steering committee. There is a request that we consider having a member of the Reform Party on that steering committee, which would be in accordance with the history of this particular committee. According to the rules that I have been given, and according to Beauchesne's, I will consult with the whip and will proceed while giving due consideration to the precedents that have been set in the past.
This is the founding meeting, and there are three matters that I want to bring to your attention. Firstly, I find it a bit regrettable that all of us were not able to attend the Industry Canada consultation on privacy and data. The new members were not aware of it, but the old members were aware of the invitation. It was an extremely interesting day for those of us who have been looking at the issues of personal privacy following our three round tables, and at the extent of valuing human rights in the interest of both the fact that we've signed many declarations and international covenants which cover privacy rights, and the fact that Canada is a bit lax in moving in that direction. I learned a great deal from that day with Industry Canada.
Subsequently, there were two days of the most fascinating discussions by international privacy commissioners and legal experts from fifty-some countries around the world over a two-day period. I must say that the speeches were really riveting. I am presently having the speech by Ursula Franklin transcribed and then translated into French and English. I'm sure you know her, John and Warren, although I don't know if the rest of you know her.
[Translation]
Ms Franklin is a strong-willed woman interested in privacy and the rights of all citizens, both men and women, in a democratic society. She has always been vigilant in protecting human rights.
.1115
Her comments came after two days of speeches made in Japanese, German, French and English by great states people. She looked the consultations over and emphasized matters concerning the man and the woman on the street. In her opinion, those people need protection if they are to live suitable lives without state interference in their private lives.
[English]
She gave a most stunning overview of individual rights in a society that collects data and has all kinds of information about you. We used to have jokes about Big Brother watching you - well, believe me, Big Brother is watching you every step of the way.
You have all been given the annual report of the privacy commissioner. In it is a very interesting fact sheet that will be sent to your offices, as you've all received the privacy report. It's called ``Privacy Facts: A Day in the Life of....'' and ``How to Help Build your Super File''. There is also another one, which is
[Translation]
a matter of privacy: the social insurance number. Who has the right to ask for it? What lists is it allowed to appear on? Can we
[English]
insist that you must furnish this kind of information?
I have sent you the documents along with the provisional study that flowed from the three extraordinary round tables we were privileged to hold in June. I've had this document prepared for you by Susan Alter and Nancy Holmes.
Bill, Nancy and Susan, would you care to join us at the table?
This is Bill Young, who has been seconded to the special task force on disability, and Nancy Holmes and Susan Alter, who are from the law and government division of the library. They have worked very hard on the proposal you all received. I hope you will study it very carefully. I would like your feedback and input, and the letter I sent you indicated that.
At the next meeting I would like us to have the first of the discussions to look at embarking on this study, a ground-breaking first in Canada that will assess the impact of modern technology on the privacy of the individual, which is defined as a fundamental human right in various international documents and covenants that we have signed and have not fully respected to date. The historian is sitting over here, so if I make any mistakes...and the conscience of the party, with a lot of knowledge of our history, is sitting over there. I am referring to the Hon. Warren Allmand and Mr. John Godfrey.
You're welcome to join us if you'd like.
I'd like to point out that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights both contain explicit privacy protection. I am going to send you this summary that was presented to the Beaudoin-Edwards committee on privacy, which will give you some indication of how important the issue of privacy really is. The study done by the privacy commissioner will also give you some indication of the conception Canadians have that they are entitled to...and do not have any interference in their private lives and the reality of that.
.1120
It's important to look at that and to look at the study we are suggesting we undertake, which will focus on privacy and technology in the workplace and physical surveillance in public places. When we concentrate on that study on physical surveillance and privacy, we will be exploring new territory - a ground-breaking study for the House of Commons.
Mr. Allmand.
Mr. Allmand: Does this committee have jurisdiction with respect to privacy? I ask that because when I was with the justice committee, the privacy commissioner had his estimates reviewed by that committee and the privacy commissioner reports to Parliament through the Minister of Justice. Maybe things have changed because they have too much to do. Do we have jurisdiction in this committee?
The Chair: Yes, we do. He reported to us and we have done the estimates of the privacy commissioner here.
Mr. Allmand: Oh, so it's been changed. What about freedom of information?
The Chair: It's the human rights aspect that we will be examining, Warren, and that falls under our mandate for human rights. I'm sorry - I thought we had done.... We didn't do any of the estimates.
Mr. Allmand: So freedom of information does not fall under this committee?
The Chair: No. It is an issue we're in the process of discussing with the whip and the House leader because there is some confusion as to where jurisdiction lies.
Mr. Allmand: As you may know, the access commissioner and the privacy commissioner share the same offices and have a lot of the services in common.
The Chair: Do you mean John Grace?
Mr. Allmand: John Grace and Mr. Phillips. While they are two different commissioners, they share services. They are at the same address. There's even a report recommending that they be merged into one.
Anyway, I don't want to waste time. I just wanted to make sure we have jurisdiction.
The Chair: We're not looking at the jurisdiction of the privacy commissioner or the access to information commissioner. We are looking at the aspect of human rights as a fundamental right that we find under the charters we have been signatories of in the international arena, and the impact on Canadians as a human right. If you read the study proposal I've sent, the first undertaking is the definition of a privacy right and the definition of a human right as it flows from privacy.
Mr. Allmand: I don't have the document yet.
The Chair: You will be receiving it. As you were just named the other day and it is our good fortune that you're with us...you'll see where it is.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: Mr. Allmand's comment is very relevant. I understand that there can be an internal discussion, within government, amongst yourselves, the chair of the committee, the whip and other members of our committee to find out what our terms of reference might be in this matter of new technology.
I quite agree that, at first sight, what we're most interested in is to find out the impact of new technology on human rights. I think nothing is to be excluded at the outset, even the right to information, if I have understood Mr. Allmand correctly. We'll discuss all this together.
I skimmed through the document. In passing, I find it very well prepared. It raises several questions and we could always add more.
The Chair: You're perfectly right. In that respect, I have sent the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Trade and the Minister of Labour a copy of our proposal to make them aware that we are beginning an examination of human rights and that we might want to ask them to come here as witnesses at some point to broaden the discussion.
.1125
[English]
I really believe it would be counter-productive right now for me to embark on a request for any input. I would like to do that at the next meeting. There are, however, two items that I really believe you have to know something about. The first relates to the conference on disability that we voted for.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: Madam Chair, you mentioned the symposium organized by Industry Canada. I was there for part of the morning only. I could not take in all the discussions. However, I did make sure to ask the organizers of the symposium to send us the minutes of the conferences.
Could we ask our secretariat to get those minutes as soon as possible so we might use them in our discussions. Is that possible?
The Chair: Thank you. I should have told you that all documents available will be sent to your offices.
Mr. Bernier: Yes, but I would like to have a follow-up done so we can get them as soon as possible.
The Chair: It would be most helpful in whatever discussions may follow. So the documents will be sent as soon as we get them.
I would like to deal with another item on the agenda. We decided to go to Toronto from October 7 to 9 for the National Conference on Disability and Work.
[English]
on disability and work. I would ask Bill if he would remind us of the undertaking and the fact that we are going to be holding an open meeting at that time and there will be people from the international world discussing the issue of work and the disabled. I believe it would be helpful, Bill, if you would focus in what is anticipated for us and what they hope we will be able to do.
Mr. Bill Young (Committee Researcher): The conference happens over three days: from Monday, October 7, until Wednesday, October 9.
Prior to the adjournment of the House last spring, the committee agreed to hold a hearing at that conference as part of its program. Therefore the organizers of the conference have booked an hour on the third day, from 8:30 a.m. until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, October 9, for a hearing of the standing committee, which is advertised in the program as part of the conference itself.
Within the past week I have been in touch with them and asked them what they felt the committee could usefully do at this conference. They would be -
The Chair: The document was sent to you, and it's on page 23.
Mr. Young: They would be willing to set it up however you would like, but on the idea of disability and work, what they're talking about here is shifting the perspective from a social to an economic perspective. Therefore the organizers are dealing with issues such as workers' compensation, insurance income replacement, and so on. There are people coming from all over the world.
Since there's only an hour scheduled, I thought it would be useful perhaps for the committee to have a maximum of five-minute presentations, and then open the discussion to you people so you can ask questions and find out what might be useful to you in and around this idea of the rapid return to work, the need for integrated action by provincial, federal and private insurers, the issue of promotion, and the nature of the savings that might be achieved.
I basically asked them who they felt would be of use. They've given names of some experts from -
The Chair: How many countries will be represented?
Mr. Young: It's a national conference, but they have international speakers.
There's someone from New Zealand. They've suggested Gavin Robbins. On the program, it's on page 7. He's talking about accident compensation, personal injury insurance. He's managing director of the New Zealand Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation.
.1130
They've suggested Professor Leo Aarts from Holland, who will be dealing with European experiences with disability policy. He is a researcher in the economic aspects of the design and implementation of social security disability insurance programs.
They've also suggested someone who's going to talk about the healthy workplace and prevention, one Canadian who the committee has heard from before, Steve Mantis, head of the Canadian Injured Workers Alliance.
I should say that the co-chairs of the conference and organizers are the chair and CEO of General Electric and the president of the Canadian Labour Congress.
The Chair: Who's that?
Mr. Young: Bob White and Robert Gillespie.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage is listed as an honorary co-chair. I don't know how active her involvement is likely to be.
The Chair: Alfonso Gagliano will certainly be interested.
I would hope that Andy Scott will be able to be with us at least that morning. Bill, do you think it might be helpful in terms of what he's working on?
Mr. Young: These are new ideas. There's a pilot project proposed for British Columbia that involves cooperation between the provincial workers' compensation board, the ICBC, the auto insurer, and Canada Pension Plan. This is all in aid of trying to provide organizationally better coordination and collaboration between those agencies so that there can be money saved by early intervention and cooperation there. This is basically what the theme of this conference is. It's how various jurisdictions can cooperate.
Since it's new, I suggest a round table. I don't know the extent to which you'd want to focus on one particular element. If there are particular elements members are interested in, if you let me know, I will tell them.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Bill.
Wayne, you have booked accommodations for the committee members -
The Clerk: Yes.
The Chair: - to attend the full sessions, if they wish, or to just come in the night before if they wish.
I would need an indication from committee members whether they wish to attend the full conference from the 7th to the 9th, or whether they're prepared to come just for our own hearings. I personally think we could learn a great deal if this is all new. This is all in Toronto.
Bill, it sounds to me like it could be important for the further report we're going to get from the task force on disability following, of course, the work this committee did on the disabled. Would you suggest it might be a good idea that we attend the full session?
Mr. Young: I think the members are going to make that decision according to their time.
The Chair: If you will read the list of the agenda and make some decisions, you will have to advise the clerk, because we can't keep those rooms without forfeiting some money.
Yes, Mr. Bernier.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: Although I haven't read all the material on the conference, I was wondering about a few things. As Bill was saying, it could be helpful for committee members to attend all the conferences, if only for their personal information. Participation in the conference could enrich our discussions within the committee. However, as I understand it, our role as regards to the disabled is to focus more on those who have no special coverage such as that provided by the workmen's compensation legislation.
.1135
We are told that some of the disabled people we meet in our daily lives receive better treatment than others, and that those who are covered by workmen's compensation legislation, car insurance, and so on are much better off than the disabled who do not have such coverage.
As members of this committee, we must have a broader vision. I'm not saying that this would not be an interesting experience. Personally, I have not yet decided whether I will be present for the three days. I plan to be there for the committee meeting on Wednesday, and I might want some information the day before about the themes of the various discussions, unless I want to hear the comments of my other colleagues, but in my view, this is not absolutely relevant to our committee's mandate. I would like to stress the word "absolutely". Of course, the conference is about the status of the disabled, but once you get into issues involving the workplace, there are a number...
We will be hearing about collective agreements and the legislation in effect in the various provinces regarding workmen's compensation. Even within the federal government, this matter comes under a different jurisdiction.
The Chair: That is quite an interesting perspective. There are a number of dimensions to the discussions, and everyone is entitled to make their own choices. Personally, I want to make sure we have a quorum for the meeting on Wednesday morning.
[English]
Are there any other comments?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: I will there, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bernier and Mr. Cole.
[English]
Mr. Cole will be in touch with all your offices, but you will be there....
[Translation]
Are you coming?
Mr. Ménard: No, because we cannot both be away at the same time.
Mr. Bernier: We are indispensable here.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much. Then you'll let Mr. Cole know. He'll be in touch with your office, either you or whoever will be replacing you.
On this side, you will please be in touch with.... Warren, you'll be there.
Mr. Allmand: I have to look at my agenda. It's the first I've heard of it and I don't know if I've already scheduled anything.
The Chair: Please be in touch with the clerk, all of you.
I hope we will have an enlightening morning. I don't believe the mandate of this committee is strictly to look at the most disabled in our society.
[Translation]
There are two other matters I would like to raise before you leave, if I might.
[English]
Yes, Warren.
Mr. Allmand: Next year is the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and there will be several events and workshops and so on in Canada to bring the declaration to the attention of Canadians. I don't want a discussion now, but maybe we should try to plan something for early 1997 to highlight the declaration. I don't know what it might be, but maybe we should think about it.
The United Nations Association in Canada intends to have a large series of events to put the Universal Declaration in the forefront. It seems to me that this committee should also do this. There is a tendency now in the country to forget about human rights; there's been an attack on human rights in certain sectors.
The Chair: I think you're right on target. Walter McLean has been here and we've had long discussions with him and the people who have been seconded to him. We undertook to examine the potential for raising Canadians' interest on December 10 of this year in preparation for next year.
Mr. Allmand: Good.
The Chair: Mr. McLean was to get back to us, and I think we're to be in discussions with him. We do see this as very vital to the value system of Canada. He was to be in touch with the Speaker and the Speaker's office with a very interesting exchange, and I think we've facilitated a forward movement in the area of our concern around this issue. I think we'll have a further follow-up on that within the near future.
.1140
In that regard as well, we have a Centennial Flame Research Award, which is given every year, or is supposed to be given every year. It was not given this past year because a change in committee structure and everything else, such as the election, delayed the selection of the award winner.
The past members of this committee were sent an evaluation sheet, along with the names and the backgrounds of seven candidates, and a ranking was supposed to have been undertaken.
Did Mr. McClelland give us his ranking?
The Clerk: Yes, I have two.
The Chair: His and mine?
The Clerk: Yes.
The Chair: We are still short of your rankings. Therefore I will send them out through the clerk once more. This is the last round, because we must make that selection. I have to work with the Speaker of the House of Commons on the awarding of this research grant, and along with the Speaker would like to heighten the awareness around this award appropriately, as well as that around the person to whom it will be awarded through your jury decision.
I chose this route of jury decision by our peers around this table. I could have worked with the steering committee and we could have made the decision on our own, but I prefer to have all of your input. This, however, is the last call. If you don't submit your evaluations on your choice for the award winner, I'm afraid you're going to have to leave it in the hands of your steering committee.
Yes, Sharon.
Mrs. Hayes: Madam Chairman, I just have a question on how that evaluation would take place, depending on different opinions on an individual.
The Chair: Well, there's a form that we sent out to you, and it had a graduation of one through seven. Your first choice was number one, and then we were just going to put everyone's choices together and do it based on what everybody thought. From the first two that came in.... You could speak to Ian about it, because he submitted his evaluation.
Mrs. Hayes: Yes, I'd like to see that. Thank you.
The Chair: So we'll send those out again in order that they can get filled out. I'll give a deadline of next week, please. Thank you.
Is there any other business? If not, we'll meet next Tuesday at 11 a.m.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: Did I understand correctly that the clerk of the committee will be making the reservations for the conference?
The Chair: Yes, he will be making all the necessary arrangements.
[English]
Where is it? Which hotel?
The Clerk: It's at the Sheraton, I believe.
[Translation]
The Chair: The conference will be held right in our hotel.
[English]
The hotel is in the Sheraton Centre, and that's where the conference is taking place. I look forward to seeing many of you. John, you can bring the baby along, and I'll hold the baby while you attend the meeting.
Mr. Godfrey: As I was pointing out, you can get two together, because the first session is actually about privacy and disability.
The Chair: Oh, really?
Mr. Godfrey: It's privacy of medical information.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I'd forgotten what a fast reader you were.
As it says on page 12, the first session is privacy of medical information,
[Translation]
the confidentiality of medical information.
[English]
Thank you very much. This meeting is adjourned.