Evidence of meeting #34 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was organizations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you to the witnesses.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Marketing Association, did either or both of your organizations make submissions to the Senate hearings in dealing with S-4?
12:45 p.m.
Senior Vice President, Government and Consumer Affairs, Canadian Marketing Association
The Canadian Marketing Association did.
12:45 p.m.
Director, Intellectual Property and Innovation Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
We did not.
February 17th, 2015 / 12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Legislation can begin in either the House of Commons or the Senate, so S-4, because of the “S” in front of the number instead of a “C”, indicates it began in the Senate.
Mr. Smith, is there a reason that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce did not make a submission in the Senate?
12:45 p.m.
Director, Intellectual Property and Innovation Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
Mostly it was trying to come to a consensus among our members. We had narrowed the number of issues we had with this from probably 30 down to the four that you saw on our submission. It took a significant amount of time to do that, and we were looking at things that would be most supportive as we could make it, which is why we didn't meet the deadline for submission to the Senate committee.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Mr. Smith, you said you wanted to consult with your members. What percentage of your members did you consult with to come up with these positions?
12:45 p.m.
Director, Intellectual Property and Innovation Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
I honestly couldn't tell you what the percentage is.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Okay. Thank you.
You said there would not be much of an impact on small business, that the large impact of breach reporting would be on large business. I think we heard the opposite from the other presenters. Do you still agree with that?
12:45 p.m.
Director, Intellectual Property and Innovation Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
I think the caveat in there is on the record keeping, that small businesses probably have less capacity to manage the record-keeping obligation than larger businesses do, and in crafting their policies those small businesses probably are going to be looking to organizations like us to help them with these changes.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
So you would agree that record keeping would be a bigger impact.
12:45 p.m.
Director, Intellectual Property and Innovation Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
Yes.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Director, Intellectual Property and Innovation Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
So that you understand the structure of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, we have direct memberships from corporate Canada—all of the companies you would recognize. Fortune 500 companies are direct members. Indirectly we represent small business through our chamber network. We have 450 chambers of commerce across the country. Those small businesses generally belong to those local chambers.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
The reason I ask is I'm a member of a very active chamber in Langley, and I did not hear this come up, so I was surprised that the position was opposing S-4.
Maybe you want to clarify that.
12:45 p.m.
Director, Intellectual Property and Innovation Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Good. I appreciate that clarification.
The commissioner said PIPEDA is written in a general language to allow flexibility so if there was contradiction, a breach, and inadequate reporting, if there's a complaint lodged, then it would go through the Privacy Commissioner. He or she would look at it, and at this point he has 45 days to take an action. S-4 is suggesting that change to a year.
Would you agree with that proposed change?
12:45 p.m.
Senior Vice President, Government and Consumer Affairs, Canadian Marketing Association
Yes, I think we would agree that added period of time is helpful to the commissioner.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Annick Papillon NDP Québec, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Smith, let me then go back to the question that you were not able to answer, namely whether there are any indications that the risk of a fine of up to $100,000 will help enforce the law.
12:45 p.m.
Director, Intellectual Property and Innovation Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
I can't say that it will help with the enforcement of PIPEDA. There is a high degree of compliance with PIPEDA as it stands right now. I don't see that changing with Bill S-4 in our understanding of the offence provisions that are included in Bill S-4. They are intended to deal with the most egregious infractions where there is a deliberate contravention of the act.
12:50 p.m.
Senior Vice President, Government and Consumer Affairs, Canadian Marketing Association
I would agree with that. Having the penalties in the act does provide some additional teeth to the law that will get the attention of those who maybe need to pay closer attention to their privacy obligations. But for the most part, as Mr. Smith indicates, the business community increasingly has been understanding the importance of privacy and its responsibilities in terms of adhering to the requirements of PIPEDA.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In terms of the issue that has been of concern to this committee about warrantless disclosures and the concern, for example, that the recent Supreme Court decision may require amendments to Bill S-4 as it currently stands, how has business been handling this concept of warrantless disclosure and the sharing of information without the knowledge of the individuals up until now? I presume it hasn't specifically been permitted. Has that been a problem? In other words, has it been business saying the issue of not requiring consent is a problem we need to address?
12:50 p.m.
Special Digital Privacy Counsel, Canadian Marketing Association
I'd preface my remarks by saying I'm not sure this is really an issue that the Canadian Marketing Association is pushing. That being said, I wear other hats, so I would say that the practice is a bit mixed across the country with regard to voluntary disclosure to law enforcement. There are a number of service providers, for example, that absolutely refuse to give anything to law enforcement without a warrant.
