OGGO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, November 4, 2003

¿

0910

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.))

Mr. Robert Marleau (Interim Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada)

¿

0915

The Chair (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.))

The Chair

Mr. David Flaherty (As Individual)

¿

0920

¿

0925

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance)

¿

0930

Mr. Robert Marleau

¿

0935

The Chair

Mr. David Flaherty

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Robert Marleau

The Chair

Mr. David Flaherty

Mr. Paul Szabo

¿

0940

Mr. Robert Marleau

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Mr. Robert Marleau

¿

0945

The Chair

Mr. David Flaherty

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

¿

0950

Mr. Robert Marleau

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Robert Marleau

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Robert Marleau

The Chair

Mr. Robert Marleau

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. David Flaherty

¿

0955

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.)

Mr. Robert Marleau

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Mr. Robert Marleau

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Mr. Robert Marleau

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Mr. David Flaherty

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Mr. David Flaherty

À

1000

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Mr. David Flaherty

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Robert Marleau

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Robert Marleau

À

1005

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Robert Marleau

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

À

1010

Mr. Robert Marleau

The Chair

Mr. David Flaherty

À

1015

The Chair

Mr. Robert Marleau

The Chair

Mr. David Flaherty

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

---

NUMBER 068

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, November 4, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿  (0910)  

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)): Good morning. Pursuant to Standing Order 111.1(1), we are examining the proposed appointment of Jennifer Stoddart to the position of Privacy Commissioner, referred to the committee on October 29, 2003. We have with us this morning the current acting officer of the Privacy Commission, Mr. Robert Marleau. Also, by video conference, as an individual, we have Mr. David Flaherty.

    Good morning, Mr. Marleau. You're well aware of the reasons why we're here. I know the committee is very much looking forward to your comments to assist us in this process, and I would ask that you provide your comments, and then I'm sure the committee would like to ask questions.

    Mr. Robert Marleau (Interim Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    It's a pleasure for me to be here again in the capacity of interim Privacy Commissioner, to share, at the request of the committee, the process I participated in with the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office to select a candidate, who has now been recommended to you for consideration by the government.

    Essentially, in late September I made representations to the government House leader, as I had made representations to the chair of the committee, particularly when I appeared before you on September 15 on the annual report, that given my personal agenda to retire again on December 31, the government should—as is its responsibility under the statute—proceed with some haste on a selection process.

    The government House leader asked me if I would participate in such a process, and I said I would, on condition that it would be what I call a competition. Therefore, subsequent to that, I provided the government House leader with a list of three names of individuals who I felt could compete for the position. All three were provincial privacy commissioners. The government House leader already had a list of people who had signified their interest, because I guess it was known fairly publicly that I did not want to stay—and I gather that other interested candidates were approached by the Privy Council Office.

    An all-candidates list was reviewed by the selection panel and was pared down to five candidates against a set of selection criteria, which I'll address in a moment. The panel consisted of the Honourable Don Boudria, the government leader in the House of Commons; me, as interim Privacy Commissioner; Nicol Macdonald, the director of appointments in the Prime Minister's Office; and Wayne McCutcheon, director general, senior personnel, in PCO.

    Interviews were held on Friday, October 10, and Friday, October 17. It took a little while to line up the candidates. Of the five, one withdrew prior to the interviews—a provincial commissioner—leaving four to be interviewed, two on October 10 and two on October 17. On October 17, the panel concluded its deliberations and selected Madame Stoddart as the winning candidate. On the following week, reference checks were conducted on her candidacy, as well as the usual reference checks made with the three agencies that PCO normally consults, CSIS, the CCRA, and the local police forces.

    The following Friday, the panel met again to consider the reference reports, and the panel confirmed that Ms. Stoddart was not only the winner of the competition, but also well suited on the basis of the reference checks. We made a preliminary offer, subject to the confirmation of Parliament, of course. I understand the Prime Minister returned the following Monday from his trip abroad, was apprised of the candidacy and then asked Mr. Boudria to proceed with his consultations. As you well know, the candidacy was tabled in Parliament the following Wednesday.

    I have for you the selection criteria used to pare down the list and to determine the qualifying candidates. I've made copies available to the clerk and would be happy to go through them with you in more detail. I had some input in this particular draft; obviously, a good understanding of the legislation and of the privacy issues emerging in Canada were important, as were a good understanding of the Canadian parliamentary system and the work of parliamentary committees. If you have any specific questions on those, I'd be happy to answer any of them.

¿  (0915)  

    With the agreement of the Privy Council, I'm also making available to you the questions that were used through the interview process, and the kinds of answers we were seeking from the candidates in order to rate them and arrive at a winner.

    The document is marked “secret”, but I've obtained clearance from PCO to share this with the committee this morning. I would appreciate it if members would treat it with some discretion, because some of these questions, as you will read them, could apply in other competitions for other GIC appointments. None of them are particularly secret, but they would be indicative of the kinds of things you may be looking for when you're looking for a deputy head. As I said, the Privy Council Office has agreed that this be tabled as well.

    I think, Mr. Chairman, that is roughly what I wanted to say by way of opening statement.

[Translation]

    I'll be happy to answer your questions, if I can.

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)): Thank you very much, Mr. Marleau.

    I note that Mr. Flaherty is now with us. Would members like to hear from Mr. Flaherty also, and question both of them together?

    Some hon. members: Yes.

    The Chair: Mr. Flaherty, do you have some opening remarks that you would like to make before we get started on questions?

    Mr. David Flaherty (As Individual): Yes, Mr. Chair. If I may go forward. I'll be as brief as I can.

    I want to thank you for the chance to get my day off to such an early start. I also want to express my admiration for the work the committee has done recently with respect to oversight of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner in particular. Having just heard Mr. Marleau's description of the process they've gone through to select a new commissioner, it sounds like an admirable process to me and one that is long overdue in terms of selecting information commissioners and privacy commissioners.

    I was asked to say a few words to you about the desirable criteria for a Privacy Commissioner of Canada. My background is 40 years of work on privacy and data protection, a bunch of books on how to be a privacy commissioner. I worked with Inger Hansen, John Grace, and Bruce Phillips, who were early privacy commissioners in this country going back to 1977. I then had the privilege of being the first Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia, where I served from 1993 to 1999. I am now an active privacy and information policy consultant across Canada and abroad.

    I realize there's a real risk of discussions of leadership resulting in prescriptions for appointing supermen or superwomen. From my perspective in terms of my academic writing and my own personal experience, the ideal data protection commissioner is self-confident, perceptive, experienced, well connected, reasonable but firm, has a strong presence, and is politically astute. I'd like to make another half dozen points rather specifically on these points.

    The first thing that I think a Privacy Commissioner of Canada or any of the provinces and territories should bring to the table is experience with the protection of human rights, which include privacy and data protection.

    Secondly, the putative commissioner should have good judgment and take a reasoned and reasonable approach that makes sense to the regulated, both in the public and private sectors, with a standard of consistency in giving advice and rendering opinions. We also need a leader--and I emphasize the word “leader”--who is an effective privacy watchdog, privacy champion to the privacy interests of Canadians.

    The concept of a privacy watchdog is one that I've promoted over the last 20 years. I've written that the watchdog must have both a bark and a bite. Successful implementation of a data protection regime requires active, energetic leadership and dedicated trained staff.

    I emphasize that one of the key roles of the Privacy Commissioner is to articulate the privacy interests that are at stake in any situation as a kind of an alarm system for the society. I've written that the primary role of a data protection agency is the actual articulation and advancement of the privacy interests that must be defended in a particular setting. The role of the Privacy Commissioner in situation after situation is to surface the privacy issues that need to be debated and discussed.

    In terms of qualities that go with leadership, I would emphasize the ability to win an argument and to get the intended audience to listen. Many of you will remember the debacle over the HRDC longitudinal labour force file around 2000, when Bruce Phillips was the Privacy Commissioner. One of the key results of the discussions that took place then was that senior executives of HRDC realized that while they had been hearing from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, they hadn't been listening to what he was saying. A good privacy commissioner has to get government departments, as well as the private sector, to listen to his or her arguments and to take them seriously.

    Based on my own experience, I believe that the Privacy Commissioner has to adopt a pragmatic, empirical, and policy-oriented approach to his or her work and not be formal or overly legalistic. At the same time, the job of the commissioner is to implement the laws as Parliament enacted them. I'm referring here both to the federal Privacy Act and the PIPEDA, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. The commissioner can bring some imagination to the interpretation and application of those laws, but ultimately he or she is stuck with the laws as they exist. All he or she can do is try to change them.

    I also believe that privacy commissioners should focus on privacy and data protection only. For example, if they're asked for their views on national identity cards, their focus should be on what are the privacy issues in national identity cards, not particularly whether the government can't manage a gun registry.

¿  (0920)  

    And I believe, finally, on that point, the Privacy Commissioner has to promote the goal of consciousness-raising in the Canadian public in terms of understanding privacy and data protection interests, by taking advantage of opportunities in the media. So it may be trite to say so, but such a person has to be a good communicator.

    I would also like to point out that the Privacy Commissioner needs to adopt a non-confrontational, non-arrogant approach to his or her work. It's ultimately at the federal level an advisory role only. The provincial commissioners have regulatory power. They can actually stop something. They can make an actual decision. The federal commissioner gives advice that can only become formal when it's settled in the courts.

    I think the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has to defer to the ultimate responsibility of public bodies and organizations in the public and private sectors to comply with the acts and with the ultimate responsibility of Parliament to make laws. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada can give advice until he's blue in the face, but it's up to HRDC or Statistics Canada to take the advice.

    I think the Privacy Commissioner has to prize good working relationships with the regulated while doing the statutory job. He or she has to avoid fights for the sake of fighting. They have to pick their spots to be effective. You can't be crying “Fire!” everyday in crowded theatres. I'm told that in Washington there is a common phrase, which is appealing to me, that you should be able to agree to disagree without being disagreeable.

    I would also like to suggest that the job of Privacy Commissioner is a political one, in the best sense of that term, which means, in this context, having good working relationships with those being regulated in order to convince them that they're being treated fairly, seeking appropriate allies as needed, and communicating effectively with the public through the media.

    There was a phrase around the turn of the century in the United States by a political commentator-cartoonist who was the author of the “Mr. Dooley” columns in American newspapers. “Mr. Dooley” wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court “watched the election returns”. You're not active in politics as a privacy commissioner, but you have to be aware of the political realities and of the milieu or the political culture in which you're working, which in this case is the Parliament of Canada.

    I think, as part of the non-confrontational approach of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, he or she has to be mindful of competing interests. In quoting myself, as is fun to do as an academic, if you'll forgive me:

There is no use pretending that privacy protection is the main purpose or activity of any part of government. Competing interests must be taken account of in finalizing decisions on specific data protection matters and in finally deciding what advice to offer a public body about a particular program or practice.

    I would say parenthetically that if you're a privacy commissioner--and I say this with a smile--an appealing personality is more than an asset. Someone who can smile regularly will probably do better than somebody who's kind of grim about life.

    I would also like to say that in terms of doing the work of Privacy Commissioner, a team approach is essential. In the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, especially in working with the provinces and territories with respect to the implementation of the private sector law, there's a serious risk of conflicts among PIPEDA, the Quebec private sector law, the new B.C. personal information protection law, and Alberta, which is in the process of enacting the equivalent to the Personal Information Protection Act of British Columbia.

    I would point out that subsection 23(1) of PIPEDA mandates the Privacy Commissioner of Canada to consult with the provinces under certain circumstances, and it's going to be essential with respect to implementation in the private sector that this kind of cooperative approach take place. Obviously someone who understands the provincial and territorial perspective on data protection can bring to the table some very important qualifications--and I'm not unaware, as I speak, that Ms. Stoddart has that kind of background.

    The second last point I would like to make is that a Privacy Commissioner of Canada or elsewhere has to obtain the resources necessary to do the work and then spend the money wisely. We have too much experience in Canada with inadequate budgets for data protection. In my opinion, that's the case in Quebec, Manitoba, and British Columbia, where there's the risk of providing citizens with only what I call the illusion of data protection.

    There's no use giving the Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia great powers to audit and do site visits to public bodies in the private sector and then in fact not have the resources to do that kind of work. I believe these commissioners have to set priorities that include auditing for compliance and site visits by the commissioner and the assistant commissioners.

    Obviously the new Privacy Commissioner of Canada--this is my last point, Mr. Chair--will have to cope with the known and unknown challenges of the present and the future. I'm thinking about such things as electronic health records, the Internet and search engines, the problem of identity theft, national identity cards, and I would close with the point of the need to strengthen the federal Privacy Act.

¿  (0925)  

    The federal Privacy Act, with all due respect, is a 20-year-old piece of legislation. It is quite inferior to provincial legislation and to the new national privacy standard that Parliament created in the year 2000 in PIPEDA. It's pretty odd for Parliament to now have weaker standards for the public sector than it does for the private sector, and for example, in terms of theft of data from CCRA computers, which has happened recently, there are no statutory obligations in the Privacy Act to have security standards in place. That's extremely peculiar, as I'm sure you would understand, Mr. Chair, with your background on the subject.

    I also think--and I'll close with this point--Parliament has to take account of whether the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has satisfactory legal powers if he can only give advice rather than actually issue a decision like the information and privacy commissioners in the provinces and territories or their equivalent in the ombudsman of Manitoba, for example.

    Those are my remarks, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Flaherty.

    I should, for all concerned, apologize for being late this morning. I made the mistake of going to the first committee room that was announced and sat there wondering why you all weren't there.

    So I do not have the benefit, Mr. Marleau, of the first part of your remarks. I would simply say to you and Mr. Flaherty, as we go through this process, if you haven't already covered this, in addition to the specific job that we have in this, that this is the first time the committee has embarked upon a process of review of the qualifications and suitability of an individual for a particular task. It won't be the last, so part of what we're trying to extract from this process, in addition to reviewing this person's credentials and suitability for the job, is to think through some of the process items that we need to build into our operating policies as we go through these kinds of processes. So I would appreciate any advice you could offer on that as we go through.

    Let us start with questions, beginning with Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much. I believe this committee is making precedent and it is important, taking note of the chair's comments.

    Mr. Flaherty, I really appreciate your comments. You've really outlined almost a manifesto for parliamentarians and the public to evaluate future performance of a privacy commissioner and the office in the broader perspective, and you also hinted at where legislative review might be needed in the future. I really appreciate that. That's part of a record that we will keep.

    I also thank Mr. Marleau for his transparency in describing the actual selection panel, what the sequential process was. My problem is that I believe that selection panel and process is wrong, even though we may get a very good candidate out of it. These are officers of Parliament, and it is my belief and the belief of our party that if we say to the nation that these are officers of Parliament, the selection panel should be parliamentarians, such as this committee, and we would go through some of the same processes as your panel outlined. Eventually they would be paid and compensated and held accountable by parliamentarians, done all through the House of Commons.

    Now, that's a structural issue and a larger debate that we may have later, but it's interesting to be able to be mindful of that. We say we're producing officers of Parliament, yet still the Prime Minister's Office and PCO and so on are involved. But I think you have done us a good service in that you have made everything transparent, and that's the first thing we need to accomplish.

    Other than that, you may want to comment philosophically about truly making the officers of Parliament in deed and in fact, because of course, you recall one of the disturbing things that we discovered about the last Privacy Commissioner was the conflict that he was still renegotiating his salary and compensation on an ongoing basis with, I guess it was PCO, and that really undermined the independence.

    So my point is that we have a process, it looks like we have a good candidate, we need transparency, and Mr. Flaherty has outlined a larger charter or manifesto of leadership and qualities, but we also have a horizon that I'm pushing the envelope for, that indeed some day we'll truly have completely independent officers of Parliament. So how we get our Auditor General, our Chief Electoral Officer, and so on should totally be a parliamentary affair in the sense that Parliament is going to start reasserting its authority and make that clear distinction.

    So in view of those comments, perhaps you might want to react a little bit.

¿  (0930)  

    Mr. Robert Marleau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Forseth.

    Yes, indeed, I think it is a matter of policy debate that this committee will choose to have as to what degree you want to elevate parliamentary control on a selection process. To go to the holistic approach that you describe, several pieces of legislation obviously would have to be amended, and the Parliamentary Employment Staff Relations Act would have to be looked at as well.

    In a holistic approach, you would have to review not just the status of each officer, but maybe the status of their organizations in relation to Treasury Board, which is a complex issue and one that Parliament can choose. I would have no difficulty in that kind of structure, because Parliament already has an employment staff relations act, both for members' staff and the permanent staff of the House. And oddly enough, the Clerk is appointed on recommendation of the Governor in Council. That is practice and also statute law.

    I would add, however, that as you may exploit this debate, there are ways for Parliament to increase its oversight on the process. For instance, the selection criteria I circulated, in which I participated in drafting, is something that could be submitted to the relevant committee in advance of a recruitment process, so that the committee would pronounce on at least the terms of selection and the criteria for the kinds of candidate Parliament wishes to have considered. That would be a step forward and would not require any legislative amendment.

    Also, Parliament, or the relevant committee, may wish to have input on the selection of the panel and have a parliamentary representative--it may be a member, it may be someone the committee has confidence in to act on behalf of the committee on the panel--so that until the legislation is amended to get to this holistic approach, I think there are initiatives that can be taken. I think there is an openness on the part of the Privy Council, certainly in discussions I've had with them, in looking at those options.

    While the holistic approach could be quite a way down the road because of the legislative process, I believe there are initiatives that could be taken in the meantime.

¿  (0935)  

    The Chair: Mr. Flaherty, do you wish to make any response to Mr. Forseth's comments?

    Mr. David Flaherty: Yes, one brief sentence, if I may.

    I agree with everything Mr. Marleau said, but it still was a secret process. I would much prefer that the Parliament of Canada advertised in the newspaper for a Privacy Commissioner of Canada and dealt with the results.

    That is what's done in British Columbia. When I was appointed in 1993, there were several hundred candidates, I'm told. That's what was done when David Loukidelis was my successor in British Columbia. That's how I understand Ann Cavoukian was picked as the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

    We need a more open and transparent process. It's lovely to hear what's been going on in Ottawa with the process of selection in the last month or so, but I'm reasonably plugged into the privacy community in Canada and I certainly didn't know anything about it, for what that's worth.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    If I may have the indulgence of members on this, I will go to Mr. Szabo because he is leaving us to go across to the House to deposit that report we finalized yesterday. So I'll go to Mr. Szabo and then come back to Mr. Perron.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you, colleagues. I will be brief.

    My interest at this point, since the process was established without consultation, is to the final mode of operation. We have to somehow bridge what has happened and what tools we have available to us.

    First, I would be interested in both Mr. Flaherty's and Mr. Marleau's comments on whether even this meeting should be in camera to permit the committee to be more frank about its questioning of you, Mr. Marleau, and I guess generally anyone who participated in the primary search and interview.

    Mr. Robert Marleau: Mr. Chairman, echoing what Mr. Flaherty has said and what Mr. Forseth has said, I think that much public discussion is the desirable situation. However, you may want to discuss personal issues that you would want to resolve in camera.

    Having myself participated in succession processes in the private sector in the selection of CEOs for companies, I think this is a kind of parallel process where the board of directors will appoint someone to do a search process, interview candidates and recommend a candidate, or sometimes a slate of candidates, and the board gathers, interviews, and decides what's the best fit or if indeed the sole candidate is a good fit.

    It depends on how complex you want to be. I think in the public sector the more the meetings are open, the more the process is transparent, the more credible is the outcome.

    The Chair: Mr. Flaherty, do you have any comments?

    Mr. David Flaherty: I would simply add, if I may, that as a former freedom of information commissioner, I want as much transparency and accountability as possible in the public selection process you are undertaking here. If there were some extremely sensitive matter that arose about a particular candidate, I would expect the chair and the vice-chairs, perhaps, to go in camera on that specific point. But I don't think that is likely to happen with either the present candidates you have, and if it did, you have ways of handling it.

    I think the general public and the privacy community want to have satisfaction that there was an intelligent selection process, such as Mr. Marleau has described to you, and then that parliamentarians have had their say and presumably have asked questions of the nominee and looked into her background, in this particular case.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Okay. Having said that, the process we are faced with now is that this afternoon we will be meeting with the nominee to, I'm sure, have a presentation and to ask questions. In fact, I suspect she may be watching these proceedings right now, which makes it pretty awkward for me to start asking questions about whether or not you did your job with regard to interviewing not only that candidate but the other candidates.

    To circumvent somehow, not to pre-empt my questions for Ms. Stoddart later, let me see if I can try to be obtuse by suggesting that since one of the selection criteria seems to be a very heavy emphasis on knowledge and experience and understanding of privacy and privacy issues, Mr. Flaherty, you said yourself that if we're talking about an identity card, we should talk about the privacy issues and be focused there.

    Having said that, if that is one of the criteria, how could a candidate whose apparent expertise is in another area become a candidate or nominee for this position if, in fact, there's no apparent direct contact or experience in the privacy area?

¿  (0940)  

    Mr. Robert Marleau: In terms of knowledge, all four criteria begin with “good understanding of...”, and given any competition, when you cast a net, even as broad as the one Mr. Flaherty described with, say, 700 candidates applying, when you narrow it down to a short list and a recommended candidate, you may find that your best candidate is not the most experienced in matters of privacy, but the body of knowledge or the abilities they bring and their capacity to deal with the issues, so long as they have a good understanding and some exposure, make them your best candidate. So I think that's why it's phrased “good understanding of...”.

    For instance, I had no great privacy experience, but I'd say only that I had a “good understanding of...”.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I'm sure Mr. Flaherty wants to add to this, but perhaps I can get my last question in, and he can work it in later. For part of the process, would it not have been appropriate for you, Mr. Marleau, and the other persons who are involved in the selection and interview process to provide us with the questions that you asked and, indeed, the actual answers that were given, so we could have the benefit of that in framing our questions, or at least covering areas we felt were important?

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Before you respond, Mr. Marleau, I'll let Mr. Perron start some questions as he has a similar issue here, and I'm sure, Mr. Szabo, you can pick up the answers quickly.

    Mr. Perron.

[Translation]

    Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good day, Mr. Marleau.

[English]

    The Chair: They're circulating that document, by the way, as we speak.

[Translation]

    Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Good day, Mr. Flaherty. You deserve to be recognized, particularly for attending meetings in the middle of the night.

    Like Paul Szabo, I'm preparing for my meeting this afternoon with the commissioner.

    It's a fact that in Canada, access to information and privacy are handled by two completely separate bodies, whereas in Quebec, access to information comes under the jurisdiction of the head of the CAI, or Access to Information Commission.

    Would you be opposed to seeing the same thing happen at the federal level? What are the advantages of having two separate organizations? I'd appreciate hearing the views of the two witnesses on the subject.

    Mr. Robert Marleau: Mr. Perron, I can't speak for Mr. Flaherty, since I've never discussed this matter with him, but I've made my position clear since the middle of August. I would just like to mention to Mr. Szabo that the document he requested is now being circulated. I mentioned this in my opening remarks, but perhaps he didn't hear me.

    Shortly after taking up my new duties, I proceeded to review the office's structure. I obtained documents and sought advice. I concluded that given the scope of the new Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, also known as PIPEDA, which is slated to come into force on January 1, 2004 and which will extend the all of the private sector in Canada, the Privacy Commissioner should be the only agent mandated by Parliament to intervene in privacy issues. All other agents of Parliament play a strictly public role within the federal administration.

[English]

    And if I could just add in English, briefly, the Ottawa Citizen this morning had an editorial on that very point.

[Translation]

    While the Ottawa Citizen backs Ms. Stoddart's nomination, it recommends at the same time the creation of an office headed by one single commissioner.

[English]

    Well, the Ottawa Citizen, in my view, just doesn't get it. And the editorial this morning didn't even mention PIPEDA. It didn't mention it in its original editorial three weeks ago, and when I responded, they printed my response, which I felt was somewhat misleading the public in that they didn't even acknowledge the existence of PIPEDA. And PIPEDA is going to be the most dramatic new event in privacy in Canada. It's going to extend over provincial jurisdictions, and I join with Mr. Flaherty's comment that the new commissioner is going to have to be very sensitive to federal-provincial responsibilities.

¿  (0945)  

[Translation]

    For now, Quebec, the only province to satisfy the requirements of the new act, will go with its own legislation. British Columbia has just passed its own act. The two commissioners will have to work together to avoid past squabbles, particularly over privacy issues. It's important to avoid a private sector backlash.

    By this, I don't mean to say that my colleague Commissioner Read is not competent. I'm simply saying that more and more, people need to have their privacy protected. That's why I maintain the office of the Privacy Commissioner needs to continue operating independently.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marleau. However, I think Mr. Flaherty may indeed have some opinions on this question, and I might say that this is a debate that is emerging. This committee has already indicated an interest in having a subcommittee do some work on the Access to Information Act, and I note both acts will be reviewed and, I would assume, redone in the very near future, which may be a more appropriate time to answer that question.

    Mr. Flaherty.

[Translation]

    Mr. David Flaherty: If you don't mind, Mr. Perron, I'll answer your question in English.

[English]

    I wanted to just say I think it's basically mischievous at this particular point in time, given the crisis we have in privacy protection at the national level with the transitions we're undergoing, to be talking about integrating the offices of the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner. Obviously, it has worked at the provincial level in provinces as big as Ontario, with 10 million or 12 million population. But my argument for the last 10 or 15 years has been that Canada is such a large, diverse country, with 5,000 miles and an incredible number of time zones, that we need at the federal level a champion for open government, the Information Commissioner of Canada, and a privacy protection commissioner to advance the privacy interests of Canadians.

    We're talking about shops with fewer than 100 staff. I don't even know how many public servants there are at the federal level in Canada. I don't remember how many people work for the private sector. But you can just imagine this tiny group of people trying to do their job promoting freedom of information, access to information, and at the same time, privacy protection. I think what's really necessary is not only that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada get along with his or her provincial and territorial counterparts, but also that the Information Commissioner of Canada and the Privacy Commissioner of Canada have good working relations, which was traditionally the case from 1983 to the year 2000. Then, I understand, things collapsed, which is quite regrettable.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Perron, avez-vous fini? Bon.

    Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Marleau, Mr. Flaherty.

    We were told that as a standing committee we would have meaningful input into the selection process of the new Privacy Commissioner, and a lot of us see the process that just took place as a betrayal of that commitment in many senses. I don't really see what has changed in the selection process you just went through, Mr. Marleau, and the process that chose Radwanski. Radwanski was screened by the CCRA, by CSIS, and by the police, just as you say the current candidate was screened. Radwanski had to go before the justice committee for a process similar to the one we're going to bring the new Privacy Commissioner in for.

    I don't see, frankly, what the difference is. While I like the CV of Ms. Stoddart--I don't feel bad about that at all--there's nothing in the current process that would preclude us from getting Radwanski too, if that were the choice of the PCO and the PMO. It was Mr. Boudria, in fact, the House leader for the Liberals, who introduced his choice or their nominee after the votes. At 6:30 at night when all the MPs were leaving the House of Commons, he called for a point of order, which was recognized, and he announced their nominee.

    So where's the meaningful input our government operations committee has in this process? Mr. Flaherty, a well-known activist or member of the privacy advocacy community nationally, wasn't even aware the process was taking place. We didn't know the process had even begun, never mind that the selection process and the shortlisting and selection of a candidate had all taken place--without any participation or input from this committee whatsoever.

    Do you see, as a member of the selection committee, that there is any difference between our selection and nomination of this candidate and our selection and nomination of Radwanski?

¿  (0950)  

    Mr. Robert Marleau: If I may humbly respond, Mr. Martin, the main difference I see in this process is that I was on it.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Well, I feel good about that too, frankly, but no input from you came to our committee.

    Mr. Robert Marleau: Well, thank you.

    No, indeed, other than that I did declare my position, both publicly to this committee and privately to the chair, that I did want to leave by December 31. And I can't speak for Mr. Boudria and the process he went through in terms of consultation with the committee. I can take some responsibility, if you like, for pushing him along, for two reasons.

    The first is that I think it would have been--it will be--very detrimental to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and to the entire privacy community to have another interim commissioner. If Parliament can't resolve this issue in a fashion that it is satisfied with, I think it would be very detrimental to go down that route.

    Now, I realize these are exceptional circumstances. In an ideal world, I think I would join Mr. Flaherty in an advocacy role on how to do this in a different way, particularly if Parliament had already taken a holistic position on all parliamentary officers. I think you need to have that debate, and if I can contribute, I'll be happy to at that time. But there is an urgent need in this office that is particular to the circumstances at this point in time, which I represented to the government House leader that he needed to deal with.

    So to some degree I can take a little bit of the responsibility for having pressed the minister to act. I can't answer for him directly. I'm satisfied, in terms of my parliamentary officer role, that I represented Parliament's interests in the selection, in the recommendation. I stand by my recommendation, and I think I've done the best I could as the interim Privacy Commissioner, participating on a panel where my interpretation of the answers of the candidate evaluated her on the basis of how she would relate to Parliament, how she would relate in that relationship.

    Mr. Pat Martin: I understand your point, sir. I'm not being critical of your answers. It's just that there's no satisfaction there that anything has changed about the process. We just made the most catastrophic choice in recent memory with Radwanski, and nothing has changed in the process to prevent Canadians from being stuck with Radwanski deux, really. Nothing has changed.

    Radwanski was questioned about his relationship with CCRA. So either somebody bypassed that information, knew full well he had just been forgiven a half million dollar loan and gave him the job anyway, or the questioning process or the screening process by those agencies gives us no comfort whatsoever, because they made a terrible mistake.

    Mr. Robert Marleau: This response may not totally satisfy you, Mr. Martin, but the three-way check that is made on all GIC candidates includes CCRA, CSIS, and the local police force. In the context of CCRA, if a candidate is under criminal proceedings with CCRA, the PCO will be so advised. If they are under some administrative proceeding--they haven't paid their taxes or they're contesting their taxes and they may be headed for tax court--CCRA will not advise on administrative proceedings. That's because they are private under the law, and indeed, you may be proven to be right in not paying your taxes when you've exercised the full process that every taxpayer may avail himself of.

    The Chair: That is the Privacy Act again.

    Mr. Robert Marleau: It's not the Privacy Act, but it's part of it. They will advise if there are criminal proceedings underway, if you have participated in any kind of--

    Mr. Pat Martin: I don't feel we have had any participation whatsoever, so as a backbench MP, I feel about as powerless as I did prior to this whole process starting, really.

    The Chair: Mr. Flaherty, do you want to offer any comments to Mr. Martin on this?

    Mr. David Flaherty: I would say amen to what Mr. Martin has had to say, but I'd also add that there's nothing to stop him or other members of the committee from asking the nominee exactly these kinds of questions: is there anything in your past that is going to make it impossible for you to well represent the interests of Canadians? That may be an example of something, as Mr. Marleau recognizes, you'd want to do in camera, but I think that is an appropriate kind of question.

    I was not asked in 1993 in British Columbia, when I was appointed, whether there was anything in my past that I should reveal to the committee. They did do the usual checks, and they did them with my consent, with my agreement that I would see the results, but I would have thought it to be totally appropriate to ask me that question perhaps in a meeting with the chair and the clerk of the committee. My successor, David Loukidelis, tells me he was publicly asked that kind of question by the selection committee. I think that is quite appropriate so we don't have a repetition of the recent past.

¿  (0955)  

    The Chair: Mr. Martin, are you satisfied with that?

    Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Pacetti.

    Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Thank you.

    Mr. Marleau, in continuation of Mr. Martin's questioning, how was the previous candidate chosen? We talked about the background checks, but are you aware of what the interview process was about? Were there three, four, five, six candidates who were also interviewed?

    Mr. Robert Marleau: I have no specific information about the selection that was done within the Privy Council Office from a short list or a final recommendation of Mr. Radwanski, other than the speculation I have read in the media. I'm sorry.

    Mr. Massimo Pacetti: Why did we choose five candidates this time around?

    Mr. Robert Marleau: As I said, it was public knowledge that I was leaving. Many Canadians made their interest known to the Privy Council Office through whatever channels they sometimes do. I submitted three names of who I thought were credible candidates from the provinces, three provincial commissioners. I prefer not to name them for privacy reasons, obviously. It was narrowed down to five, and one of them withdrew, so it was down to four.

    Certainly a larger canvassing of interest...including Mr. Flaherty, although there I won't divulge any private conversation I had early on in my tenure with Mr. Flaherty, who gave me some very good advice. There are probably other people who would have signified their interest in the larger competition, but I was satisfied, in the context of what this office was going through, that we had a credible list of candidates and that we would have a competition and it wouldn't be a “crown princing” process.

    Mr. Massimo Pacetti: That leads me to my next question. On a personal basis, as interim Privacy Commissioner for the last few months, based on your experience in the last few months, do you feel this is the right person?

    Mr. Robert Marleau: I feel the right person has emerged from the process that was gone through. One of the risks you have in a larger process, a larger competitive exercise--which is something, as I mentioned, in the private sector that you have to examine if you're looking at it from a board of directors' point of view--is that some people may not apply because of the difficulty in which they find themselves with their current employer in a very transparent exercise. I can't speak for Madame Stoddart, but she was of the utmost discretion about participating in this process out of respect for her current employer, which was the assembly in Quebec City.

    I would urge the committee to think about some of those issues as you look toward canvassing more and having some transparency. There are ways to do that. I'm not saying it's not possible.

    Would this candidate have emerged in a larger process? I don't know. I can't say. You may want to ask her that question.

    Mr. Massimo Pacetti: That's a good point.

    I have a question for Mr. Flaherty. Do you personally know Mrs. Stoddart?

    Mr. David Flaherty: Yes, I know Mrs. Stoddart.

    Mr. Massimo Pacetti: How do you feel, personally, about her qualifications for this position?

    Mr. David Flaherty: Nobody particularly asked me my opinion, but she was my candidate. I've known her for 23 years.

    I'm a legal historian by training. One of her first publications as a scholar was in a volume that I edited, called Essays in the History of Canadian Law. It was an essay on the Dorion commission on the status of women in Quebec, 1929-30. So I go back that long with her.

    I have admired her career. I think I was leaving office when she was appointed as la présidente de la Commission d'accès à l'information du Québec. I've welcomed her appointment in Quebec. I've known all the previous Quebec commissioners. I thought her human rights background was particularly important, plus she's a professional administrator, like Mr. Marleau is. At the end of the day, it may not seem important to you, but you bloody well have to know how to run the shop.

    I'll give you one illustration. When I was appointed, within a year in British Columbia I brought in the comptroller general and the auditor general to make sure I was spending money intelligently and properly, according to the rules. I was an academic, but I knew enough to do that. So we need professional, competent administration in these offices, led by the top.

À  (1000)  

    Mr. Massimo Pacetti: So you're comfortable with her candidacy.

    Mr. David Flaherty: Extremely comfortable. And I would have been comfortable with any of the provincial candidates.

    Mr. Massimo Pacetti: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Pacetti.

    Mr. Epp.

    Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    My first question has already been alluded to, but, by the way, before I even ask that question, Mr. Marleau, I have to tell you that personally I was absolutely thrilled when you accepted the job in the interim. I think you have so much respect around the House that it was a very wise choice, and I'm very grateful for the good work you've done in this short time.

    But coming now to my question with respect to the checking of the candidates, you responded to questions from Mr. Martin on this. Without obfuscating--I think I have to be very blunt--one of the big problems with the previous commissioner was that everybody seemed unaware that he was in the middle of bankruptcy proceedings. This is coming out of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. Now, does the committee, does Parliament, have the right to know, if they're contemplating appointing a person to a position as an officer of Parliament, whether those proceedings are underway, or does CCRA have the correct response if they keep that in secret?

    Mr. Robert Marleau: First of all, thank you very much for your compliments. I appreciate them very much.

    My response to that, Mr. Epp, is that CCRA will not divulge administrative proceedings ongoing or terminated with any Canadian taxpayer. So I suspect the fact that he may have been under bankruptcy proceedings was an issue in his negotiations with CCRA and will be captured by administrative proceedings. You may want to discuss this further with the minister or the deputy minister of the agency.

    But beyond the three-way check, I must add--which I did not add--that reference checks with four former employers and, at my insistence, with at least one former employee, to get feedback on that kind of relationship, were also done. I'm not aware that it was done in the case of Mr. Radwanski, but we had very positive responses from the four previous employers and a very positive response from the former employee.

    Now, those kinds of reference checks you always have to take.... As a manager, you're looking at people who have given you references. But the questioning was extensive. There could be in those checks issues about money management and the stewardship of public funds. In fact, that was one of the questions in the reference check: how do you feel about this individual in terms of the stewardship of public funds? The answers were all very positive.

    There are ways of asking in the reference check about issues that may relate to the kinds of issues that Mr. Radwanski was dealing with.

    Mr. Ken Epp: I have a great curiosity.... I don't think we want to dwell on this, but there hangs this question: is the present candidate under some sort of cloud that we are not aware of, as was the case of Mr. Radwanski? Then, incredibly, even though you say that CCRA was correct in not divulging that, since it was an administrative procedure, subsequently it became public knowledge. How come?

    Mr. Robert Marleau: I can't tell you how it became public knowledge. I learned it in the newspaper, as most Canadians did, I suspect. Where the leak might have come from, I have no idea, sir.

    I support Mr. Flaherty. If you want to floor that kind of questioning with the proposed nominee, then I strongly suggest you do so. You can't legislate honesty.

    I was lightly asked if my taxes were up to date, because it's a privacy question. I have no problem in saying that at the time I assumed this position my taxes were up to date, but not everyone would necessarily be in a position to share that when it comes down to taxes. There may be very good reasons that have nothing to do with the honesty, the integrity, and the capacity of the individual.

À  (1005)  

    Mr. Ken Epp: My last question is also for you, Mr. Marleau. I guess I want to have some sort of assurance from you, since you've been involved in the process of vetting the four or five applicants. I have a little red flag that goes up in my mind when I see PMO, PCO. I'm thinking political patronage appointments. I'm thinking Prime Minister, legacy, finishing off all of his duties to his friends before he leaves the office. These are the red flags that go up for me and that, I think, offend a lot of Canadians.

    I would like to have your comment, and if possible, if that can go as far as an assurance, it would be much appreciated. But I don't want to presuppose your answer. To what degree was there a component of political patronage in the recommendation of the present candidate?

    Mr. Robert Marleau: I think that's a fair question, and we can have a debate at another time on whether political patronage has a role to play in public office-holder selection. For 13 years, Mr. Epp, all I came to work with as Clerk of the House was my integrity, and when I took my robes off and went home, I went home with my integrity. I would not have participated in this if there was a sniff of political patronage.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much. I also think, Mr. Epp, in response to your concern, that Mr. Flaherty also offered you an option there to deal with the present circumstances.

    I have a couple of questions I'd like to put, though, to try to frame this. I think there's a saying that trying to change policy is like trying to change the tires on a moving car.

    The committee had an experience. We identified a problem. We made a recommendation. Our first recommendation in our report called on the House to task a committee with the job of looking at this whole process for all parliamentary officers.

    For your information, Mr. Flaherty, there's been a discussion here about building a body of legislation that would underpin these questions: how they get appointed, what their accountabilities are, to whom they're accountable, to clarify that role between Parliament and its officers. And then each officer, of course, would have the legislation that they have to administer. It's in that context that I think some of these concerns about process and such need to be addressed.

    At the same time, we are caught with the very real dilemma that the job is vacant. Mr. Marleau has given notice that he cannot serve beyond December 31--I believe that is Mr. Marleau's deadline. So in a sense, it has not been just Mr. Marleau, but I also have been urging the government to act. We've had this conversation in this committee, that it would be a tragedy if we left the position unfilled past the end of the year.

    And we have, as always in these circumstances, the great unknowns. Are we coming back or not after next week?

    So we made the decision to move forward with this process, having some assurances, through Mr. Marleau, that he had been directly involved in this process...to answer some of the concerns, Mr. Epp, that you and others would have.

    Mr. Marleau and Mr. Flaherty, perhaps it's repetitious, but I would like to hear your comments. And here I don't mean to discount any of the process concerns, but it's a fact that we have limited time and we did not have the ability to go through the kinds of processes.... We have a number of suggestions here that I think would be very useful, perhaps even to appear in the report that we give on this process, about ways in which we might improve the process, such as committee involvement in drafting selection criteria, etc.

    Could you comment a little, both on some of these process items and on the consequences of leaving the position...not just unfilled; it also strikes me that as our understanding of privacy issues increases and as more provinces have had privacy legislation, we have, unlike when we started, a body of people now to draw upon. We aren't just looking for people with good personal skills, good administrative skills, but we actually have people in the provinces who have substantial experience in this area. So it gives us a richer body of candidates to draw from, but at the same time, it comes along with the fact that they have jobs, they have careers, they are accountable to other legislatures, and that creates problems too in leaving these processes. For example, Ms. Stoddart was asked to accept an acting position for a period of time until the House can get around to this...next fall? Who knows, right? So there are other issues there.

    I'd like a response from both of you on that.

À  (1010)  

    Mr. Robert Marleau: On the latter point, I think I made it clear that the needs of the office and, I believe, the needs of the Privacy Commissioner would not be well served by another acting or interim commissioner, particularly for any length of time. My deadline of December 31 was partly personal. It was also the one under the statute, where the government can only appoint for six months, and that deadline is coming up. And there is some debate on whether I could be reappointed for another interim. It's never been done. Another individual could be, but perhaps not I, without violating Parliament's interests, in any case...certainly not without consultation of Parliament.

    On the other point you raise, which is about the larger body of expertise that has developed in the country, I had all the privacy commissioners in for a meeting a week ago from Friday, and only three were absent. They were on the phone for this meeting that dealt with the rollout of PIPEDA on January 1, 2004.

    I was very impressed by the quality and the depth. I suggested to the commissioners that I table the statutes of the Association of Clerks-at-the-Table in Canada, which I make a parallel with in terms of professional development, recruitment. They were very taken by that concept and they will pursue it at a subsequent meeting in the spring, whereby once a year the clerks of the table gather from all the jurisdictions in Canada. They bring a junior officer. It's a professional development seminar. There's some training. There are some presentations made. A management guru is brought in because there are management issues in clerking as well. That creates a community of thought, philosophy, and expertise. We have recruited from the provinces and the House of Commons and in the Senate of Canada and, in turn, the assemblies have recruited from us, from time to time, because we're a larger pool of procedural clerks in the House of Commons.

    I see the same kind of potential development with the privacy community of professional practitioners in Canada.

    The Chair: Mr. Flaherty.

    Mr. David Flaherty: If I could, Mr. Chair, I will begin by offering one more comment to Mr. Epp with respect to the kinds of questions you can ask a potential candidate.

    I think it might be a very good privacy litmus test for Canada to ask him or her sensitive questions. If you were to ask me, for example, if I had ever had psychiatric care in my life, I would have to decide whether to answer that. If you ask a woman if she's ever had an abortion, or what her total assets are, or has she ever been bankrupt, or whatever, you'd quickly find out what the limits were on what this person thought an appropriate question. If you asked them what their sexual preferences were, they should tell you to get lost. But on things that they thought were relevant to their job, they should be prepared to give you an answer--he or she, in this particular case.

    With respect to the question of the urgency of selecting a new commissioner, I would suggest to you that it has not only been a bad three, four, five, or six months; it has been a bad several years for privacy at the federal level in Canada. Mr. Radwanski did some good things; he also did some not so good things, and I'm not just talking about his spending habits.

    There was a certain erratic quality to his work that made it very difficult. There was a monomania about video surveillance cameras in one bloody place in Kelowna that went on and on and on, that surpassed the limits of what I think the role of Privacy Commissioner is to be. You're supposed to service the privacy interests at stake in an issue, like electronic health records or national identity cards. At the end of the day, it's up to Parliament or a provincial or territorial legislature to decide what is acceptable in a democratic society.

    So I think, especially with respect to the private sector, as Mr. Marleau has pointed out, we have to win the confidence of that sector in consistent, intelligent application of PIPEDA in the private sector, starting already and continuing into the future. We have to produce confidence that they're being fairly treated, and we have to encourage them to take this law seriously.

    This is not just paperwork; this is a serious commitment to protect the privacy interests of Canadians in the private sector and the not-for-profits in provinces like British Columbia or Alberta and how that can be achieved in a practical, cost-effective way and not just be sort of forgotten about. A new commissioner will have to have a very fundamental role in establishing a culture of privacy with the private sector in particular.

À  (1015)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Are there any further comments or questions?

    Then let me draw this to a close by thanking you, Professor Flaherty, for your time and very intelligent contribution to this.

    Mr. Marleau.

    Mr. Robert Marleau: If I may interrupt you....

    This may be my last appearance before your committee, and I just want to thank you and the members of the committee for the confidence you've shown in me. I encourage you to continue to show the same confidence in the staff of the OPC.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: I will make a similar comment, but before I do, I should have picked up on an earlier comment of Professor Flaherty's.

    I understand that when you arrived at this meeting, it was at 6 a.m. where you are.

    Mr. David Flaherty: Yes.

    The Chair: As someone who is used to being up at 4 a.m., that's not a big deal to me; however, I appreciate that it's always a big deal to ask someone come to work at 6 a.m. So thank you very much.

    Mr. Marleau, when the committee went through its process--and it was not an easy process for us--as this drama began to unfold and as the extent of the problems at the privacy office were becoming more and more stark, we also had a concern about the office and the staff. We were afraid at the time we put this first report down that we might be faced with a three-month process to remove the existing occupant. Fortunately, he saved us that trouble, and I appreciated it when Mr. Radwanski resigned, because it allowed us to go back.

    I think it's a mark of the credibility you hold in Parliament that it was a great comfort to this entire committee when you agreed to take on this responsibility. Certainly, you've done an enormous amount to normalize relations there and help the staff get focused on the core task of ensuring that the privacy rights of Canadians are respected. So we thank you for it very much.

    We look forward to working with you. You could be our roving fixer. We'll find another one for you.

    Anyway, members, we are adjourned to the House. There will be a vote shortly.

    Mr. Flaherty, again, thank you very much. I hope to actually have a further conversation with you on the issue of identity cards. I'll buy you lunch next time I'm in Vancouver or you're here.

    Mr. Marleau, thank you again.

    The meeting is adjourned.