Evidence of meeting #33 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pipeda.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:50 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Would you like quick answers, honourable member?
9:50 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Mr. Chairman, first, I don't think it's my role to comment on the appropriate way for the committee to work. I think that's really beyond my knowledge as to whether you should make an interim report.
Secondly, I'd remind the honourable member that this legislation was passed in 2000, that banks and other federally regulated organizations have been subject to this legislation since 2001. It came in by phases. The last phase was 2003, so that's four years ago. So it's not that recent.
9:50 a.m.
Assistant Commissioner (PIPEDA), Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
The final phase, yes.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
So it was just three years ago. All right.
How much time do I have left?
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Okay, very good.
The question I have is this. We've heard a lot during the presentations about the work product piece. One organization has brought actual wording from other privacy legislation from another province that it would like to see us use. I don't understand yet exactly why, if it's good enough for British Columbia, it is not good enough for our legislation.
9:50 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Mr. Chairman, may I ask Assistant Commissioner Heather Black to explain our position once again?
February 22nd, 2007 / 9:50 a.m.
Assistant Commissioner (PIPEDA), Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
British Columbia is the only province that has in fact carved work product out of personal information. I don't know why they made that decision, but they did.
Our position is fundamentally that, as guardians of the privacy of Canadians, anything that has a possibility of derogating from the protection of personal information isn't a good way to go. We have been able to deal with the whole issue of work product--the physician's prescribing habits, all of that stuff--working with the tools we have now in terms of the definition of personal information.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
We had the privacy commissioner from British Columbia here. Have you consulted with him on whether it has been a problem when administering that legislation out there?
9:50 a.m.
Assistant Commissioner (PIPEDA), Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I've spoken to him about it informally. It doesn't appear to have been a problem. I don't know how often he's had to rely on it. I can get more information for you if you would like.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Thank you.
I'm not sure I understood you correctly, Mr. Wallace, but this is not a voluntary review. This is required by the statute.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Okay.
We can deal with your other suggestion next week when we begin our discussions in camera.
We will now go to Mr. Pearson for five minutes.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Glen Pearson Liberal London North Centre, ON
Madam Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner, thank you for coming.
I've been on this committee for five weeks, but I know that you have been here previously and, from reading things from previous meetings, that you have said you recognize a quantitative difference between work product information and privacy—a person's private information.
Is that correct? Do you still hold to that?
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Glen Pearson Liberal London North Centre, ON
Others are zeroing in on the ethical thing about releasing information, but we've had so many groups coming to us and making suggestions about things. Most of them have been big organizations that have the capacity to do things, but a couple of the groups that have come forward have been smaller business associations and so on. They look at this law and understand that this particular act might be helpful, but it's too onerous on them. What they have told us, almost in a pleading way, is that if we run things on a case-by-case basis, they're not really all that capable of handling it; it's difficult for them. They would rather have something that is more permanent, something they could bank on, because they only have a few employees.
I understand that when you consider a case-by-case basis, you have certain capacities, and some of these larger industries do. I am wondering how you feel about the impact on these smaller organizations of the case-by-case thing and how you took it into account. Do you feel that it could be too onerous?
How can they comply? If it is too onerous, they probably won't comply in the way you would like.
9:55 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Thank you. That's a very interesting question.
In the cases we have decided—and I remind you that 75% of our cases are settled in the course of investigation through mediation—we take into account the context in which we're dealing, and I think that's one of the merits of the case-by-case basis. Is it a corner store? Is it a family business?
We had one recently that was a very small, community-regulated radio station, and the assistant commissioner and I had quite an exchange, because I didn't realize it was that one. We were looking at the wording and what had happened there. We specifically took into account that it was basically a volunteer association, although caught in federal legislation; our expectations were tempered by the fact that this was not a major corporation.
This comes up all the time. We try to administer the law in a way that's sensitive to the burdens of business people all across Canada, and I can't say that we have any particular problem with small businesses. They're perhaps not as sophisticated as the larger ones, but when we explain the law to them, they are very happy to comply, in our experience.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Glen Pearson Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you.
The second one, Mr. Chair.... I hope it's okay if I ask this, since you brought it up, but you brought up spam. I've been here five weeks and I've had a number of e-mails and presentations from various groups before they have come here. But I've had a lot of e-mails from average citizens in my constituency about spam. They know I'm on this committee, so they want to talk about it.
We'll be going shortly into deliberations on how we're going to look at this as a committee. Can you give us some guidance or guidelines as to the whole spam issue and how you think we should address it? Could you give us some ways forward on it?
9:55 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Mr. Chairman, could I ask Assistant Commissioner Heather Black to respond to this? She worked with the task force on spam and looked into this question quite closely.
9:55 a.m.
Assistant Commissioner (PIPEDA), Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
In terms of the law you're reviewing right now, we have a mandate to deal with spam. I thank our lucky stars that most of the population hasn't figured that one out, because we could be drowning in spam—not spam, but in complaints. We have had a couple of spam-related complaints.
The recommendations of the task force would have essentially augmented some of our powers to deal with spam. The true spammers are not organizations with whom we can enter into a dialogue in the way we can with the banks or small business or whatever, because they're not interested in complying with laws. So it would be very difficult for us.
We can deal with your average, unsolicited e-mail that you may get from a large corporation with which you may or may not have a relationship, but the true spam issue is something that essentially can't be dealt with under privacy legislation. It is something for the criminal law or for the Competition Bureau when dealing with misleading advertising and all of that stuff, with heavy criminal penalties. I think that's the only way we're ever going to come to grips with spam.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Pearson.
Mr. Van Kesteren is next, followed by Madame Lavallée.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for coming again.
What an experience this has been. I don't know how many Canadians realize what the implications are for PIPEDA. You and I talked about that at some length. The more we explore this, especially new members like Mr. Pearson and me, the more we realize the ramifications, and they are huge.
On most of the issues, the questions have been asked. I was wondering about jurisdiction and I was wondering about work product, but the report is excellent. I don't know if I agree with everything; as Mr. Wallace said, the original position was that we did not need to change it, but of course we had some good testimony, and that led us to believe that maybe we should look at some things. I'm still a little concerned about cost; I'm not convinced that this won't increase the cost. We have to look at that, of course.
There were two areas that concern me the most, the first being the work product, and you gave us your position on that. I'm not quite sure I agree with it.
The other is the collection and disclosure for law enforcement. We were visited by the RCMP and the chiefs of police, and they laid out a very good argument for their investigation. They talked about child pornography, how Internet providers or banks weren't compelled, whether or not they were doing an investigation. Will your recommendations, or do your recommendations, cover their concerns specifically?