Information & Ethics Committee on Jan. 30th, 2007

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Van Kesteren]

Do you feel that if the banks were also given the opportunity, regarding some of the present PIPEDA rules hindering you and the customer, you would be in a better position to present—and of course this would have to work in conjunction—something that would be more tailored to the banking industry?

[Terry Campbell]

My colleagues might wish to jump in, but I would say two things in response.

Your introductory comments are absolutely right. It is in our self-interest to do the best job we can. Without the trust that we're keeping personal information as secure as possible, banking just doesn't work. The flip side of this involves reputational issues. It is in our interest to do everything we can to work with the commissioner, because nobody wants reputation problems. In a functioning marketplace, there are lots of people playing and reputation is important. We want to keep that working for our self-interest. That's the first point.

I would still say that PIPEDA is working pretty well, with one exception that I would flag. I think my colleague and our colleagues at the Credit Union Central would agree that where it isn't working as well as it could, where it's interfering with ultimately effective consumer protection, is on the investigation side.

You do the investigations to stop the bad guys, so that the consumers don't suffer. It works fine, but it could work better in terms of fixing up those investigations...the use disclosure issues. We suggested the B.C. model as a way to do it. That would be the one area I would focus on, sir.

[Warren Law]

To underscore the point about investigations, developing this concept of an investigative body was a good first step in PIPEDA in 2001. But in my mind, it was a bit artificial, and the whole process of investigating and preventing fraud could be streamlined much more if you took the B.C. approach. It would provide for better opportunities to fight the good fight against the bad guy.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Do you have a comment?

[Charlene Loui-Ying]

As the bankers have noted, the credit union system has always been concerned about privacy, because as you've pointed out, it is in our self-interest.

The legislation was not so much a shock in substance to the system, because there was always the banker's duty of confidentiality that also applied to the credit union system. So it's not about tailoring the form of the legislation. Given that we're two years into the implementation, and some of the difficulties that may have occurred through learning the new legislation have been smoothed out, I'm not sure that a radical overhaul would be the way to go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Chair, could I ask a statistical question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Please.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Very briefly. What percentage of your 11 million transactions per day are web-based in this day and age? In other words, do you have a number or any idea of one?

[Terry Campbell]

That's a very good question. There's no question that when we follow up—as earlier we said we would—we could send you some information. I don't have an actual number, but I can show you a chart, where paper transactions are going up like this and flatlining.

Electronic transactions are literally taking off like a rocket, and that line was crossed in the late 1990s. We've never looked back, and that's all electronic transactions, including those by phone.

We'll send it to you.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I appreciate that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for your presentations and answers. It was very interesting commentary. We'll do our best to do what we can to make the act better. Thanks a lot.

Colleagues, we have three new members, so in the interest of time, allow me to summarize briefly the issue that Madame Lavallée raised in the morning.

In our first report of this committee, we reported to Parliament, calling upon the Minister of Justice to present a new or draft--however you want to characterize it--access to information law for consideration by this committee. We asked the minister to do this by December 15, and that did not happen, nor did we receive any correspondence from the Minister of Justice in regard to why that didn't happen.

In the interim, over the break, a new Minister of Justice was appointed. In her motion, Madame Lavallée asked the committee to give guidance to the chair--I'll put it this way--so the chair could write to the Minister of Justice--that's all--on behalf of the committee, inquiring about what was going on from the minister's point of view in response to our first report.

We talked out the clock on that simple issue, twice, and we're back at it again. I believe what Madame Lavallée is asking for, and no more, is that the committee instruct the chair to write to the new Minister of Justice to inquire about what the Minster of Justice's position is in respect of our first report, or words to that effect. That's, in a nutshell, where we are, and I give the floor to Madame Lavallée.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

That is in fact what I was asking for last fall, when the situation was not complicated. It would have been very simple to pass such a motion. You would have written a letter, and so forth.

That being said, a new factor is now in play. The new factor is that we now have a new Minister of Justice. First and foremost, we should perhaps seriously think about inviting him to appear before us and simply tell us what his intentions are as far as a new Access to Information Act is concerned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

So does that mean you're no longer pursuing your initial motion to have the chair write to the minister, and you're now suggesting that we consider inviting the minister here? Am I understanding you correctly?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I will set aside the proposed letter because there is a new minister. We therefore cannot hold him responsible for requests that we made of the former minister, and perhaps he has somewhat different ideas on the Access to Information Act. Of course, I still want the Minister of Justice, the person responsible for the Department of Justice, to come here and table a new access to information bill, but I would agree that we begin by meeting with the minister and seeing what his plans are. I'm not against the idea of a new Access to Information Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Okay. Thank you.

Just so the committee members know, the committee has agreed to a work plan. That work plan has taken care of each and every day between now and the end of February, when we have our break. If we have the Minister of Justice, there's no problem. We can call an extra ordinary meeting at a time that is convenient for all the members, but I'm not suggesting that the committee change its work plan under the statutory mandate that we have to review PIPEDA.

So I guess there will be two questions. The first question would be whether the committee is of the view that we invite the new Minister of Justice to appear before the committee to talk about his plans with respect to access to information. If the committee is of such a view, can I then have the committee's permission to call an extra ordinary meeting at a time and place to be agreed upon by the members?

Mr. Tilson.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I don't disagree with a lot of what Madame Lavallée is talking about. We have a new minister who's been in that position for less than a month. We have a new Information Commissioner--I don't know when that formally took place. Just before the break? He's been in his position for a little over a month, perhaps. Both those individuals may or may not agree with the proposed information legislation that was prepared by former Commissioner Reid. We don't know that. We've got a whole bunch of new players and I can't believe they're not going to want to talk to themselves and to the commissioner before they even come here. Before they talk to themselves, they're going to want to talk to other stakeholders before they come here--in other words, get briefed on the topic. They're going to want to talk to other people, such as the Privacy Commissioner, people like that.

As well, there's the issue of the discussion paper the former minister tabled last April, I think it was. We've had a copy of it; I read sections of it, which deal with the issue of the cost and that sort of thing. We've received it, but we've never debated it or ever talked about it or ever asked for opinions about it. I have no problem--I don't know what others think--with the minister being invited to come, but because of all the things I'm saying, and because of our work plan--which was agreed to by all parties, I might add--I'm suggesting that perhaps the chair or the clerk ask the minister if he'd be available to come perhaps after the March break.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you, Mr. Tilson.

On the issue of the consideration of the draft you mentioned, the committee's decision was not to do that but to ask the minister to provide us with a bill that we could look at section by section. That was the decision of the committee and that's why we haven't looked at it.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I appreciate that, and I didn't mean anything derogatory toward the committee. It's just that it's an issue dealing with information legislation. I can't believe the minister isn't going to come here and ask us what we think about that paper.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Would we have consensus then, as the first issue, that the committee would invite the minister here to discuss his views on access to information? That's number one.

Number two is when. We've heard one suggestion from Mr. Tilson and the reasons for it--i.e., to let the minister get up to speed, that we deal with this after the March break. If we do that, the March break takes place for two weeks in March, so I presume we're talking about, depending on the minister's schedule, the first or second meeting after the March break. That's one suggestion. I'm looking for others, if any.

Madame Lavallée.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

If you are talking about the first or second meeting after the March break, I agree with you. As we are now meeting on Tuesdays and Thursdays, that would be either the 20th or the 22nd of March. If we said March 22nd at the latest, I think that would be reasonable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Okay. I see consensus here. I'll write a letter on behalf of the committee inviting the minister to appear here on the Tuesday, or the Thursday at the latest, of the week after the March break. Are we in agreement? Excellent. Okay, so on or before March 22, which is the first week back.

Any other business?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

All right.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

That must be the new minister's major concern.