Information & Ethics Committee on May 11th, 2009

[Jennifer Stoddart]

I do. At the moment, those provisions are in the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act that you passed in 1999. My colleague showed me the relevant paragraphs. I repeat: we have already tried these things in Canada. They are in the other act dealing with the private sector. We are saying that, if the government has legislation for the private sector, the least it can do is have the same standards for itself.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

That is what we call leading by example, right?

Recommendation 9 reads as follows: “Introduction of a provision requiring an ongoing five-year parliamentary review of the Privacy Act“. In your opinion, would that review provide recommendations for updating the act, since society is changing at an astonishing rate in matters of personal information. Is that why you thought in terms of the five-year period?

[Jennifer Stoddart]

Exactly.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Does that exist elsewhere? Are there models that you could tell the Government of Canada about, whoever developed them? Are you able to say that in this place, in that province, in the other country, there are examples and that we are a backward country in that respect? Do you have examples for us?

[Jennifer Stoddart]

We are not a backward country, but we are perhaps a little inconsistent. I repeat: in 1999, this very Parliament passed a bill that governs the private sector—this was the committee that studied it—and that requires that the legislation be reviewed every five years. Provincial legislation in Quebec also requires a review every five years. A number of other provinces—Alberta and British Columbia come to mind—have the same provision. It is quite common and we even have it in our own legislation governing the private sector.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

What would you recommend to the committee to move on quickest? I imagine you want us to move on the 12 recommendations. I agree with you.

[Jennifer Stoddart]

Yes, I would like you to move on the 12 recommendations.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Do we really need the 12 recommendations or should some things be done on a priority basis?

[Jennifer Stoddart]

I feel that that is perhaps the committee's role. Of all the many changes that could be made, I chose these 12 basic recommendations. They are all to be found elsewhere, either in legislation or in a directive. I think that the choice is up to you.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

You are asking us to push for the 12 recommendations.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Madam.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Merci.

Mr. Tilson, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to return to the issue of education. I agree there's a need for education. I'm looking at your recommendation four: “While PIPEDA provides the OPC with a public education mandate, the Privacy Act does not do so explicitly.” What does the Privacy Act do?

[Jennifer Stoddart]

It doesn't mention, as I remember, public education at all.

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

One of the problems I have from my perspective is that in my riding most members of the public know there's a Privacy Act and they know that people have the Privacy Act and they know there are laws, but they have no idea what the laws are. Really, they haven't a clue what the laws are. They think they can demand such-and-such information from the government. No, you can't, because there are privacy laws.

So I look at your recommendation and I see you're saying that you're going to talk about publishing a compendium of significant cases; you're going to have public advisories and education material; you're going to try to satisfy the needs of professionals; and you're going to publish research. Is there anything for the general public that you're contemplating?

[Jennifer Stoddart]

What we find is that you have to take the general public, and because it's so different in terms of age of interest, it's fragmented. But certainly, yes, there would be things for the general public. In schools, for example, we make some information available now on PIPEDA, in conjunction with the provincial commissioners, in a discretionary fashion because this is a provincial jurisdiction.

Many of the privacy laws across Canada resemble each other. That's another kind of education we could do. We could do more public education for seniors in terms of the use of their social insurance number, and on issues of privacy in getting some of their pensions. These are programs....

We have regional outreach initiatives and we are now cooperating with our colleagues in the Maritimes and in the prairie provinces. We're doing this under PIPEDA because we have a specific mandate for it. Again, issues like electronic driver's licences, which are Privacy Act issues, also concern the commissioner in B.C. and the commissioner in Quebec; there again, we could undertake joint efforts, but we confine them to PIPEDA.

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

I think that's admirable. The concern I have is that we're now into a recession, and money is a problem. It's fine to have great ideas, but some of the things you're talking about are being done through the provinces, through PIPEDA. It's already being done.

I'm not concerned with your saying let's have something under the Privacy Act, but you have indicated you're not too sure what this is going to cost. I think that before this committee makes any report to Parliament, we should know specifically what your plans are with respect to education, and specifically what that's going to cost. All of those items I read off that you have listed in your recommendations--publish a compendium of significant cases, etc., and I won't repeat them--are excellent, but what's that going to cost? And what is it going to cost to do what the provinces are doing and what PIPEDA is doing because you would therefore expand your education practices to the general public? The committee needs to know that before it can make any recommendation whatsoever to Parliament.

[Jennifer Stoddart]

I understand the honourable member's concern about public money, about possible overlapping. I assure you that we would not overlap and repeat what the provinces are doing or what we do in PIPEDA. But may I remind you that we're in a bit of an unusual situation here. Usually, when draft legislation or issues for legislation go forward, they go forward from a government department that has done that kind of costing and is set up to do that kind of costing with Treasury Board. Here, we are looking at something that is a suggestion of an agent of Parliament who does not have the costing function of Treasury Board, although we could provide you with that information.

What I'm saying is, if you think the principle is a valid principle, I would urge you to include it and then leave to Treasury Board, in the second time, the possibility and the discretion to say whether or not the public purse at this time can move forward to allocate those resources. Don't shut the door on the principle, but simply leave it to Treasury Board and to the Treasury Board Secretariat to decide whether or not that particular item should be funded.

That would be my suggestion, honourable member.

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

Any time I've heard you come before this committee, you're continually talking about the backlog of your investigations. There's only so much money that's going to be allowed, even in these difficult times. The question really would be, if we provide for an expansion of cost for an education mandate, how would that take away from the other work you're doing, unless it's an add-on? Either way we have to know the figures, and if we don't know the figures, we still have to know whether it's going to take away from something.

Either way, it's a problem for this committee to make recommendations, in my opinion.

[Jennifer Stoddart]

I would suggest, honourable member, that this is a function of the Treasury Board Secretariat. I'm not here before you to ask for more money. I don't have any requests for more money. I'm here because I'm concerned about the principles in the Privacy Act that need to be updated. If you share my concerns, I would ask you to update the act.

There is a special parliamentary panel on which some of these members sit. These members can then discuss with me whether I have any needs. Treasury Board weighs in, and Treasury Board finally gives any credit. I'm not there yet. I'm here on the principles and I would put it to you that reforming the Privacy Act does not commit you to necessarily funding all the different provisions.

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

There's a cost to everything. I can generally agree on the issue of education, just from the simple fact that, as I've repeated at the outset, most of my constituents don't know what the laws are. They know there are rights, but they don't know what they are. There's a cost to this. I can agree with it, but we must know the cost.

I can concur that the government can provide better information, but you must have a fair idea too, because you're going to be asking specifically for increased staff.

I've finished; I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I think it is helpful. I'm wondering whether or not there's a middle road here. Public education seems to be very broad and could be very expensive. Public service can be something different. If there is a swarm of bank information problems—scamming through the Internet, or identity-theft type issues—about which the public needs to be engaged and cautioned, etc., this is public service, to me, because it's important to do, and it may help.

I think the points have been raised by the members about the costs. I would also hope, though, that to the extent that we get 100% operational on the investigations and the complaints side, all of a sudden the efficiencies can lead to opportunities to rejig resources as well and still stay within your envelope.

We will go to Mr. Siksay again, and then I have Mr. Wrzesnewskyj and Mr. Kamp.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

I'm sorry, Chair, I'll pass. My questions are done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, you have five minutes.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to follow along the line of questioning that Mr. Dreeshen was following.

The RCMP is among the departments that have the largest number of complaints. When we drill down into the numbers concerning Mr. Dreeshen's request, it appears that five, two, and three have different categories wherein there are so-called “well-founded” complaints; another nine were resolved in process, but it appears that there may have been legitimate concerns in those nine. So we're up to about 14 out of the 52, which is about 27%, more than one out of every four.

When a department has the largest number, I would arrive at the opposite conclusion: that it's a worrying number, especially when you take into account the types of complaints we may be dealing with. The RCMP does criminal investigations. That sort of information, if not well founded—but it's been well founded that it has been made public or passed on to the wrong parties—can be incredibly damaging, even if it's in one case. It can be incredibly damaging to the future of an individual when shared with foreign governments. We saw what happened with Mr. Arar, yet the RCMP tells us we don't need any controls in place because they take a “principled” approach.

We have found out that they shared information over 3,000 times with foreign governments, other than with Interpol. We know that one of those governments is Sudan's. My goodness, its president has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. We know that information is being passed on to criminal regimes.

The RCMP has the capacity to garner information of a type that no other government department really has, besides perhaps CSIS. As I said earlier, there's genetic information, biometrics, using GPS, real-time video surveillance of which people are not aware—it's not like Street View, but stuff you're not aware of. But they take a “principled” approach. Canadians have paid a terrible cost by not having these regulations in place.

But that's dealing with foreign governments. What about what's happening in-country, in Canada? A book just came out—and this really worried me—by a staff sergeant, a former RCMP officer, in which he quotes one of our former commissioners as saying that approximately 30 parliamentarians were under investigation.

We know that in the fall of last year, one such individual's privacy—Mr. Casey's—was affected when an ATIP request was released with all names removed except his in one particular spot. That can be incredibly damaging to a politician, just the nuance that there may have been a criminal investigation—notwithstanding the fact that in this particular case there was no basis for it. But they tell us we don't need these recommendations to be enacted, because they take a “principled” approach.

Consider Glen Clark, the former premier of British Columbia. The media were called as the RCMP arrived in the middle of the night, and he was caught like a deer in lights. You saw him opening up the door to his house. His career was extinguished at that moment. He's been exonerated, but there is no going back.

What about the RCMP having regulations in place to prevent that sort of situation occurring—or during an election campaign? Would you recommend—

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

You've taken four and a half minutes already.