Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 19th, 2009

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you.

Also in your report, you talk about Canada and its role in the global sector. I take from what's in here that we are a leader in the world in privacy issues. Can you tell us about the international organizations you're a part of and the leadership role you and Canada take in these organizations to help our international friends and allies in terms of privacy issues? In particular, I know you've referred to the Asia-Pacific area and the Francophonie areas, so tell us a little bit more about those initiatives, please.

[Jennifer Stoddart]

Starting with the Francophonie and the Asia-Pacific area, perhaps?

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Sure.

[Jennifer Stoddart]

I'll start with the Asia-Pacific, and then maybe my colleague can continue with the Francophonie, and then we can come back to the others.

Asia Pacific Privacy Authorities, or APPA, was started by New Zealand, Australia, and Hong Kong, who have similar world standard legislation, to try to get some momentum going in terms of data protection in that area of the world. They have meetings about three times a year, and they share programs and they educate and they discuss how they deal with certain similar issues. Working meetings at APPA are very focused.

A couple of years ago, my B.C. colleague, Commissioner Loukidelis, and I were asked to join. We said yes, Canada is a Pacific nation, and increasingly we're looking toward the Pacific. I'd say we attend the meetings irregularly because of the cost and the time involved, but we have regular phone conversations with APPA and we communicate by e-mail on similar issues quite a bit, so there's quite a good rapport. We had a common youth privacy campaign together, where we took a video that had been made in Hong Kong and put it on our website and promoted it in Canada.

So that's APPA.

[Chantal Bernier]

La Francophonie association of data protection authorities is a subsection of the great Francophonie organization. It brings together, therefore, the authorities for data protection of the members of the Francophonie. The purpose is truly to provide us with a comparative basis, learn from each other, and enrich each other's work and policies in sharing experience.

Some of the main activities of the last year are the following. We have produced a report on what we've called the Canadian model—Quebec, New Brunswick, as well as the federal model—and it has been distributed widely through universities, through Francophonie data protection agencies and so on, to show how a governance structure for the protection of privacy can work well and enhance and help states that are still developing those structures to do so.

We have also contributed, just two weeks ago, to a whole seminar of the Francophonie, where we specifically addressed the issue of protecting data in a globalized world. In doing so, again, we shared our good practices with others and learned about the Francophonie states' good practices. All of us are getting better together.

These are the main activities under the Francophonie for this last year.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Stoddart, in your opening remarks to us you talked about the closing of complaints files and the backlog you've been addressing. You indicated that you were able to close almost 13% more this year than in the previous year and you are on track to eliminate this backlog altogether by next March. Could you tell us a little bit more about that process? What has enabled you to make this remarkable progress?

[Jennifer Stoddart]

We've actually been planning it for several years. At first, I guess progress was slow. I know that we've often been before this committee on this issue. But finally, all the things we were working on seemed to come together. We've kind of had liftoff, as you would say.

What have we done? First of all, we had an intense recruitment campaign. Our HR issues have been critical in the past. We're now fully staffed. We have extensive training for new investigators and for other employees. We have completely redone the technological infrastructure for case handling. We have just put it in place to help track, identify, and deal with the different cases a lot better.

We have looked at investing in upfront advice and help for Canadians. We're increasingly saying that when Canadians come to our office, they want help, they want information; they don't necessarily want a complaint that is going to drag on for umpteen months. Increasingly we're trying to say that we'll send a letter, we'll let people talk to somebody, and we'll give them the tools so they can go away and try to solve this. We're trying to reduce the number of requests for help that turn into formal complaints, because as we know, the Privacy Act is not one that leads you to any huge solution at the Federal Court anyway, so it's better to get these problems solved up front.

I think it is a combination of those things.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Madam Simson, you can start the second round.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

To go a little bit further with the complaints section of your report, Ms. Stoddart, 546 of the 748 complaints received by your office relate specifically to access to information and/or timely compliance by various departments in providing information to inquirers. Do you have a year-over-year figure, such as the number in 2007 vis-à-vis 2008? I'm trying to determine whether it's getting better or worse.

I would appear to me, because this committee is also looking at access to information, that we're looking at two ancient pieces of legislation--they are a quarter of a century old--that seem to be overlapping and creating more work for you by virtue of the fact that the Access to Information Act hasn't been updated and properly enforced.

I was curious to see if we're going forward or falling backwards.

[Jennifer Stoddart]

I have a five-year overview of complaints, but I don't have the ones particularly on access. What I can say is that traditionally and constantly, people come to us for access to their files or because of issues of access to all the information they believe is in the files. They don't agree with the exemptions, or they think there's something more, or the departments have taken more than 30 days to respond. That's kind of the constant best seller in our work.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

In other words, if the government were able to update these antiquated acts, there is a good chance, with respect to timely compliance and access, that you could considerably cut down on the workload with respect to complaints in your office.

[Jennifer Stoddart]

I think one of the things that could help this particular issue of delay, and this is for the Privacy Act rather than the Access to Information Act, would be investment in what are called the ATIP units. They're often overwhelmed. It's not seen as being as important a function as other ones. They're often chronically understaffed. It's a very lonely job to be there and to give out information that may be controversial for your colleagues and so on.

For example, we have a huge number from the Correctional Service of Canada. The largest single number of our complaints come from the Correctional Service of Canada.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Would that be basically from people who are incarcerated?

[Jennifer Stoddart]

That's right, and that has always been the case since I've been Privacy Commissioner. We're trying to work with them systemically, and I know they have invested more in their ATIP resources, with the result that we have fewer complaints that are taking more than 30 days.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I understand the RCMP continues to be one of the biggest generators of complaints. I don't have a lot of patience with complaints generated by those convicted of criminal activities. But it's the other types of complaints that worry me. In the past, there were frequent allegations that the RCMP was gathering information in excess of what is allowed or required. They have eliminated some of their so-called exempt databases or diminished their use.

Have you had an opportunity to look into allegations made by actual RCMP officers who work, for instance, in the ATIP section? We have heard allegations of misfilings, allegations that some files were designated “secret” when they shouldn't have been. Retired officer Estabrooks made similar allegations in another committee when he was being questioned a couple of years ago.

Have we actually gone in and talked with some of these retired RCMP officers who have made these serious allegations of gathering unauthorized information and of files disappearing or being misfiled?

[Jennifer Stoddart]

I know you are concerned about that. I don't think we have looked into that issue on a systemic basis. But perhaps my colleague, who is closer to the files, can answer.

[Chantal Bernier]

Yes, the operative word is “systemic”. We have received some complaints by RCMP officers who were concerned about the way some information had been dealt with. We investigated and made a finding, but as the commissioner said, we have not done a systemic review.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Mr. Dechert, please.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Ms. Stoddart and Ms. Bernier. Thank you for your report and for your remarks here today.

Our government's top priority is the safety and security of all Canadians. You mentioned something about this in your report. Can you tell us how you are working with Citizenship and Immigration and the Department of Public Safety to ensure an appropriate balance between privacy, efficiency, and security in preparation for the 2010 Olympics? Maybe you could also comment on the G8 and G20 conferences that are coming up next year, with respect to visitors to Canada.

[Jennifer Stoddart]

I'll begin and then I'll refer it to my colleague. She has a background in national security and is in charge of this file.

We started almost a year ago because of the concern that we heard from citizens and from our colleague the B.C. commissioner. We have been working quite assiduously, and we now have on our website a joint section with the B.C. commissioner that goes into quite a bit of detail on the security issues at the Olympics—what people can expect, where they can make complaints, what is legal, what rules should apply to security and privacy situations.

Chantal can give more details.

[Chantal Bernier]

As the commissioner said, we have followed this assiduously. Starting in February of this year, we have sent to the Integrated Security Unit a list of questions to hold them accountable for protecting privacy during their public safety measures. We have received a briefing from them in Vancouver. They have answered every one of our questions satisfactorily, and they have also implemented our recommendation that they appoint a chief privacy officer to oversee, from within, the safeguards that they apply.

In addition, I must say that I have been satisfied with my relationship with the head of ISU, who has been very forthcoming. When I do hear of concerns—we see from the media there are concerns raised by citizens—I have been able to speak to him and address every one of our issues. In addition, the joint website that we have with the B.C. privacy commissioner allows Canadians quick access to what they should know about ensuring that their privacy is respected during the games.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

It sounds as though there's good cooperation, then, between your office and the authorities responsible for securing our safety during these very important games, which are a source of great national pride, but obviously we're concerned about keeping our country safe at the same time. Thanks very much for that.

In your remarks this morning, Ms. Stoddart, you mentioned the very good progress you've made in reducing the number of complaint backlogs. I have a couple of questions.

You mentioned that you had redefined what constitutes a backlog. Perhaps you could give us a little more explanation on that. That had the effect of increasing the number of cases that you would then describe as being backlogged. You then substantially reduced them, which is good to see. You mentioned earlier, in answer to one of the other questions, that you'd done a five-year overview of complaints and backlogs. I wonder if you could take us through that five-year history.

[Jennifer Stoddart]

In answer to the first part of your question, honourable member, with hindsight it seems to be the obvious thing to do—that's why there's hindsight, I guess. Traditionally we'd said that the backlogged complaints were the complaints not assigned, but as we struggled on through various administrative challenges and we had this increasing number of files that we couldn't get to, we thought, why not be really transparent and strict with ourselves and take the standard that's in our other law and say that complaints should be serviced within a year, maximum? So everything that has been in our files for over a year is, by definition, a backlog, whether somebody's working on it or not.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

What was the previous standard?