Certainly.
You've heard from many witnesses who have appeared before you today who support a specific exclusion for the definition of work product information: David Loukidelis, the Privacy Commissioner of B.C., who indicated that the definition in B.C. has not created any concerns; Edith Cody-Rice and Don Brazier, on behalf of FETCO; the Canadian Bar Association and its summary of proposed amendments, submitted to Industry Canada; and the Insurance Bureau of Canada and CLHIA.
A work product exclusion, which we have proposed as an amendment on the last page of our submissions, builds on that in the B.C. legislation. It addresses potential concerns, identified by the federal commissioner and Professor Bennett, with respect to the interpretation that might put employee surveillance activities outside the scope of the act. It's broad enough to capture many types of work product information identified by witnesses before the committee, and it's narrow enough just to exclude the type of work product information that witnesses have agreed is qualitatively different from personal information, which should be afforded privacy protection under the act.