Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen members of the committee. I will try to be as brief as possible.
I am very honoured to be here today as the person nominated by the Prime Minister for the position of Privacy Commissioner.
My name has been put before you after a lengthy advertised process conducted by the government. However, I want to assure this committee that I fully understand that the position is that of an agent of Parliament and, for that reason, I am here to present my qualifications and aspirations, answer any questions you may have and hopefully demonstrate that I am worthy of your trust. If my appointment is approved, my allegiance will be to Parliament, and I will perform my responsibilities in a manner that is completely impartial and objective. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have in that regard.
Privacy is a fundamental human right, and my career has always been about respect for human rights in the application of various government programs affecting liberty and security.
I started my career in corrections, then moved to immigration and, more recently, to public safety and national security. My resume refers to a few achievements, and I assume you may ask me later about one—the privacy principals adopted under the Beyond the Border Accord with the United States. As legal counsel to Citizenship and Immigration Canada some years ago, I was also involved in enhancing the refugee protection regime under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
I see respect for human rights as the permanent theme in my career that should allow me to make a successful transition as ombudsman, defender and promoter of privacy rights. I would also bring to the position considerable knowledge of how government works, particularly public safety agencies, which I see as an important asset that should make me effective in my oversight role. My experience of 20 years as a government manager and senior executive would also help me exercise the leadership required as head of the Privacy Commissioner's Office.
Some say that privacy is dead, that it is an obsolete notion. I wholeheartedly reject this, and it would be a very sad day if it were true. But privacy is certainly at risk. Governments collect, analyze, use, and share much greater amounts of personal information than ever before. So do private companies. Canadians are legitimately concerned. At the same time, Canadians want government to protect their personal safety and they want easy access to the services companies provide through the Internet and other technologies. At the centre of the privacy debate is the notion of control. How much control over their information, and therefore their lives, are Canadians willing to give up in order to get the benefits they expect from government and the private sector?
Conversely, how much information should government or private companies collect without the control or consent of the individual? In order to improve privacy, one needs I think to play on the factors enhancing the control of the individual: more transparency by government and companies collecting information; more justification for collecting information without consent; more information by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner on the privacy risks faced by individuals and more security safeguards so that personal information is safe from those with malicious intent.
The goal of my actions, therefore my overall priority, would be to improve these control factors for Canadians. This does not mean that I would disregard reasonable needs of government and companies, but I would ask them tough questions to determine whether what they claim is a reasonable need is in fact just an easier or cheaper way of proceeding and whether alternatives that offer better privacy protection have been considered.
I want to acknowledge the superb work accomplished by Jennifer Stoddart and her office during her term as privacy commissioner. I intend to rely on that team to make the most effective use of the authorities conferred on the privacy commissioner, as Ms. Stoddart did so well.
On a more personal level, an immediate priority would be to lay the ground for good working relationships with civil society and stakeholders from the private sector. I realize that I am not well known outside government, and I intend to meet with interested parties by the early fall. I would of course also meet with fellow privacy commissioners from provincial jurisdictions.
In closing, I would like to touch on an issue that will be on your mind. Given my background as counsel to public safety agencies, how will I assess, from a privacy perspective, proposals to augment the investigative powers of law enforcement or national security officers?
I will of course examine whether the new power is reasonable under constitutional law, but more broadly, I will consider the question from the perspective of most citizens, who want both privacy and public safety, and not one at the expense of the other. From that perspective, I think the following questions arise. First, has the government justified the need for this new power and, more importantly, its scope? Second, has the government been transparent in the use it will make of that power, or at least as transparent as it can be without disclosing its methods to criminals? Finally, will the government be accountable for its use of that power?
I am afraid that, too often today, Canadians learn of investigative methods for which these demonstrations have not been made. If these questions are answered appropriately, I will support the new powers sought, as I think most Canadians would. If appropriate answers are not provided, I will request further clarifications.
Thank you for your attention.
I will now be happy to answer questions from members of the committee.
