Evidence of meeting #30 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was employees.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
—alternative that exists? What are the security safeguards? What is it going to be used for? Do you have this contractually bound? Who is going to see the information? How do we know what they're going to do with the information, and so on?
4:40 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
No. We've quoted the relevant part of the Privacy Act that just talks about an “arrangement” or an “agreement”.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
You went to the Air India inquiry regarding a financial monitoring regime in Canada. In your recommendation there, did you cite this very amendment or did you recommend to them that the Privacy Act be changed, or was your testimony in other contexts?
4:40 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I believe we did. We pointed out some of the challenges of cross-border information, and so on, although a lot of the inquiry was talking about the use of personal information appropriately as a factor in strengthening security. So this brought us back to the other two inquiries going on, that have just been finished.
4:40 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Yes.
So this is part of the same issue of accountability, that information sharing abroad is necessary in today's world, but for what purposes, why, who's seeing it, and what are they going to do with it?
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
How would the national security act, as you see it, trump changes we might make to the Privacy Act? Do you see a danger of being overridden by the national security rubric argument?
4:40 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I don't think it would necessarily override it. I think it would force those who are sharing information abroad.... I think the two can coexist. But the idea is that in sharing this information--some of which can be very benign, not necessarily what we'd think would be used for national security purposes--we would think more carefully about how the information is shared.
As we found out in our Canada Border Services Agency audit a couple of years ago, sometimes the information was just shared verbally over the border. I guess that had its place--there was a close relationship that Canadians were proud of--but it meant--
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
It was a pretty cavalier way of dealing with one's right to privacy, though, wasn't it.
4:40 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Exactly. If the information was mistaken or shouldn't have been shared, there was no track of it, which meant the agency couldn't correct its own practices.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Yes.
I've dog-eared item six in here as well. I agree that you should be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, and you should be able to triage complaints as they come in. Is your recommendation here enough to give you the power to be able to say, “Well, we answered a similar complaint last week, and we don't need to go through all the steps again”?
I guess we want to do what we can to free you up to be able to be as effective as you can without being repetitious or dealing with.... For instance, what if a complaint is malicious or vexatious? Do you even have the right to make that judgment call and disregard a complaint on that basis?
4:40 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
No, we don't; under the Privacy Act, we don't.
4:40 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
It's a huge problem. It presumes that everybody is acting in good faith on issues over which public money should be spent to try to untangle them. And increasingly the issues are systemic, such as some of the things we just talked about.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Frankly, many proper complaints would be waiting in line while you dealt with ten nuisance complaints or repetitious complaints first.
4:40 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
That's right.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I think you could find broad agreement that we will be able to fix that, if this recommendation would do it.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Stoddart, I have far too many questions and not enough time, so I'll keep my questions concise. I would ask you to try to keep your answers concise as well.
In your 2006 report, you talked about the ombudsman role shifting to more of an order-making model. Can you give me any examples of commissioners, or people in similar offices in other countries, where they have more of a mandate for an order-making model?
4:45 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Yes. Just briefly, in Canada the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and B.C. have order-making power.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Internationally, the U.K. commissioner can go to a tribunal. In France the system is so different that I think it's hard to draw parallels. In Spain the commissioner has extensive order-making power. I could perhaps go on; if you were really interested, we could look up the order-making power.
I would add, though, that I think it's important to distinguish order-making power from damage assessment power. None of the Canadian provinces can award damages. They can make orders but not award damages.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Among these international examples, can they order damages?
