Evidence of meeting #3 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 issues.
4:40 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner (PIPEDA), Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
It appears to be on the back burner for the provinces. The only way those gaps can be closed is if the provinces act, because the federal Parliament cannot.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Just so I understand it, we're talking about only PIPEDA here, or PIPEDA-type acts, not privacy. Do all of the provinces have their own privacy acts?
4:40 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner (PIPEDA), Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Yes.
4:40 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner (PIPEDA), Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Pretty well.
June 5th, 2006 / 4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
My question, through the chair, is about the Access to Information Act. You said you had some suggestions and that there are some gaps and loopholes. Are they department-driven or are they politically motivated?
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
The gaps. Madam said the information act we brought in does not meet the highest standards of accountability. If we say it does not meet the highest standards of accountability, where is it lacking? Are those lacks department-motivated, or are they politically motivated on the government's side?
4:45 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I'd say, honourable member, that they are perhaps technically motivated. The Privacy Act was brought down as a companion piece of legislation to the Access to Information Act. The other honourable member was talking about the provinces. Most provinces regulate these together.
The federal government has chosen to regulate privacy and access in two acts, with two commissioners. When the drafters of legislation change something in the Access to Information Act, they're used to making mirror changes in the Privacy Act. Something like this seems to have happened with the new legislation. That was the answer we got: it's a matter of symmetry between the two acts. Therefore, it's a drafting issue. But I would submit that we have the drafting skills to be able to say that even though these organizations would be subject to access to information under the federal Access to Information Act, we could find a way nonetheless to make them still subject to PIPEDA for the protection of personal information.
I don't know whether that's clear. Usually if you're subject to the Access to Information Act, you're subject to the Privacy Act—not always, but with a very few exceptions. So it's that kind of issue, but I don't think it's surmountable, and I do think it's unacceptable, for example, that in these major corporations—CBC—we would lower the level of privacy protection for Canadians and for the employees who work in those organizations.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
I have point of clarification, Mr. Chairman.
You said that you didn't think the problem was surmountable. Do you mean it was not insurmountable?
4:45 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
It was not insurmountable. I'm sorry if I misspoke.
I am sure there is a solution. It may be a little more difficult to draft, but I think it can be done.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
My question ties in with one that I asked earlier. As you know, more and more people are using cell phones. For many, cell phones are their principal telephone, even at home.
When it comes to privacy over the airwaves, do you feel people are adequately informed of the potential risks associated with the use of cell phones? Does this fall within your area of responsibility? If not, shouldn't there be a law on the books requiring companies to inform their future clients of the privacy risks associated with the use of cell phones?
4:45 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
You're right. I believe the public needs to be informed of the risks in terms of protection of personal information, not only when it comes to cell phone use. In the past, people were afraid that someone could be eavesdropping on their conversations. With the advent of technology, the problem has grown far more serious. For instance, it's possible to obtain the telephone records associated with all types of telephones, residential as well as cellular.
You've raised an important question, one that involves various technologies. Consider, for example, GPS systems that are now installed in automobiles. Do people realize that their every movement can be tracked with these systems? I mentioned radio transmitters. We're wondering if all of these products should come with a mandatory label advising users to be cautious if they have a GPS system. People can even take pictures with their telephones. Perhaps users of such phones should be cautioned to proceed carefully because their privacy could be violated.
It's an ongoing challenge and that's why increasingly we're investing in our website. In our view, it's the best interactive way of reaching Canadians. Our website contains a great deal of information about new technologies and we encourage people to check it out.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Are there provisions in place that currently require companies to disclose the potential risks associated with the use of this technology?
4:50 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
No. As mentioned, PIPEDA spells out the requirement to educate the public about the overall information management policy. And that's what we do in terms of personal information, access to a person's file, etc. However, I don't think this legislation can be interpreted as requiring a warning of some kind, particularly on new technology products, about the possibly privacy implications associated with the use of the product.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Don't you think it would be interesting to explore this matter further?
4:50 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I do. We are giving the matter some thought. For example, software should come with a warning label cautioning that product use could have privacy implications.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a question for the commissioner.
By the way, thank you for joining us here today and putting up with a rather awkward interruption. I appreciate that.
4:50 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
You're very welcome.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
When looking at the briefing in preparation for today, I noticed that when you have brought deputations to the committee in the past, there's been a realization that the volume of work you've had to undertake, particularly as it relates to PIPEDA, has been beyond the fiscal ability that you have to operate. I recall that progress was being made in terms of an administrative merger of the two offices of information and privacy. Is that correct?
