Evidence of meeting #29 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 complaints.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I'm not sure.... Are you asking me to discuss the merits of both approaches?
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Merits are there. It's not the merits; it's the resources. Do you have a timeframe in mind?
4:45 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
You're asking how long this would take. That is not a question I can really answer, because it depends on the priority the department or the government of the day puts on it. It involves ideas. It has to go to legislative drafters and through the usual House process.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
When you say “government priority”, has this been looked into in the past few years? Is there any history to it?
4:50 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Yes, there is. It was looked into by a parliamentary committee in 1987. Then I believe it was debated in the early nineties as well, and more suggestions for change were made at that time. But they were not taken up by the respective governments, as I understand. There's been no change, so....
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
When they were looked into, were they the same kind of...? Why wouldn't they have made changes? Was there a particular issue? This is not a priority to the government now, and it wasn't one for previous governments, so what is it?
4:50 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I don't honestly know. That's not part of the recorded—
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
We're not criticizing one or the other.
When you say we should rewrite, I think we should go further. Do you suggest we go full-blown on this issue, or with the piecemeal deal you are proposing now? Do you have an option?
4:50 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I suggest you look seriously at the issues we have suggested. We have also provided the clerk with the names of some witnesses, and it might be interesting for you to hear from them. Then come to a suggestion on what could reasonably and realistically be done in the near future, in terms of changing the most important parts.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Your « Addendum » document contains eight suggested changes on pages 9 and 10. If we were to make those eight changes, that would be adequate; you could survive.
4:50 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
The matter of our survival is more related to the debates held by this Committee in the previous session.
If you could recommend those eight changes, as well as two others that I added…
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
I was coming to them. When you were speaking earlier, you mentioned two others.
4:50 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
In my written presentation…
4:50 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
The five-year review, as well as…
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
I want to try and circumscribe the list of changes you are requesting. Of course, all of this is hypothetical. If those ten changes were to be made to the current Act, would we be able to handle all the technological changes that have occurred since the Act was passed 25 years ago?
4:50 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
That may be asking a little too much.
Mr. Chairman, could I ask the Assistant Commissioner, who is very well acquainted with the Act, to answer that question?
4:50 p.m.
Assistant Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Thank you, Ms. Stoddart.
First of all, the eight changes and our two suggestions would certainly help us optimize our resources and our impact. We would have greater discretion to investigate systemic complaints, as opposed to individual complaints, which have very little societal impact.
Second, we would like the Federal Court have more opportunity to hear our submissions with respect to all the grounds laid out in the Act, and not only denial of access. That is very important, because the cause of action for a private sector complainant can be any of the grounds laid out in the Act, whereas a public sector complainant can only invoke denial of access to personal information.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
I would like you to explain what is meant by denial of access to personal information.
April 17th, 2008 / 4:50 p.m.
Assistant Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
The Act provides that any citizen has a right to request access to information contained in a personal file held by the Canada Border Services Agency, for example. So, under the Act, there is a guaranteed right of access. For example, if you believe you have been injured in that regard, you can seek recourse from the Federal Court.
