Evidence of meeting #133 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was services.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Good afternoon, Mr. Therrien. It's always a pleasure to have you here. I think you're the witness who visits this committee the most so that's great.
You made a submission to ISED dated November 23. I read it through. It was very interesting. One thing you did write was, “It is not an exaggeration to say that the digitization of so much of our lives is reshaping humanity.” I would go even further that once that march towards technology has started, it's very difficult for anybody to stop it. Eventually it will succeed.
I know the model we have been using is Estonia, but if you look at Estonia right now, you see there are 1.3 million people, four million hectares of land, and half of it is forest, so broadband connectivity is not really a big issue there. When we look at Canada right now and the latest UN survey on leading countries in e-government development, we see that we rank 23rd, so eventually the world is moving in this direction.
You indicated in the notes I have read that privacy is a big concern for you. There has to be a point as to where we start from and what the objective is. The majority of countries, especially advanced countries, are moving towards more digitization of government. Let's leave Estonia aside for a second. Where do we start from?
I'm going to frame this in two ways. The one frame I had is because in Estonia you have two levels of government. In some cases, we have four levels of government. How do we protect privacy? As Mr. Angus said, people want to have security of their data, but different governments do different roles. It's not one government that's a repository. The provincial government deals with health. The federal government has the CRA. How do we protect the privacy of Canadians going through different levels of government? How do we make the system interoperable among different departments within one level of government?
4:05 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I think an appropriate starting point might be to define what the specific circumstances are where government believes that it is inhibited from delivering efficient services because of what are often referred to as silos between departments that prevent information sharing. What are the practical problems? What do citizens actually want other than more efficient government generally? What kinds of services cannot be delivered efficiently in a timely way because of legal and bureaucratic impediments? I think that would be a start.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Also, the working theory in Estonia is that the public or the citizens own the data. It's up to them how they dispense that data and who they allow it to be shared with.
If we go one step forward, if we start off with the public sector, obviously the private sector is going to have some involvement, whether it be bank information or other information. If the private sector has different technology and the public sector has different technology.... One of the examples that has been given is blockchain technology.
One entity is governed by PIPEDA and another entity is governed by the Privacy Act. How would you mesh both of them together? Where would the touchpoint be where you could allow the public sector and the private sector to maintain privacy but also to maintain their own jurisdiction?
4:05 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I'm not a technologist, although now I'm gaining a bit more knowledge about technology after being in this position for a few years, but I think we're back to an incremental approach. The systems will be interoperable not overnight but gradually. Technology is a means. I would start with what government wants to do and what the impediments are to efficient services. Then I would determine what the required technology is to get you to the proper place.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Obviously, the digitization of government is going to move forward. Whether we do it quickly or slowly, it's going to go forward. What role should there be and where should the insertion point be for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner in terms of the leading the way, making sure that the system has not been developed? Then afterward your office would come in and say there are points here that we have difficulty with.
Where do you see your insertion point? You're talking about technology. You're talking about privacy. You're talking about in some cases portability. You're talking about different levels of government. You're talking about interoperability within government. Where do you feel your office should insert itself to make sure that this becomes an effective approach?
4:10 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I will use the word “proactivity”, which I have used in this committee previously with respect to Privacy Act reform.
We have approached current officials to ask them to give advice as departments develop their individual strategies. I think that's part of it. If laws are amended, we should be consulted in the development of laws. Once laws are adopted, we should have the stronger powers that we have sought to ensure that legal privacy principles are actually being implemented. It's going to be a long journey.
My answer is that with our limited resources we're willing and able to play as proactive a role as possible. We will not define the objectives. Government will define the objectives, but we are able within our means to give advice as early as possible, and once systems are adopted, to play an oversight role with legal powers to play that role.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
I have a final question.
You're talking about different actors and players. Do you think it would be better to start at a baseline where you had government, private sector, public sector, technologists sitting together to form a pathway going forward so that everybody is on the same page? In that way it would be done in step, in line, and proactively but intermittently in a way that makes sure that if iteratively there are changes that have to be made, they won't be made at the end of the development of a system, but at the beginning where it goes step by step.
4:10 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I think there's a place for that kind of overarching discussion at a level of principles, be they legal, bureaucratic, operational or technological. But in terms of implementing these, on balance, I think it's going to be done incrementally.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being here, Mr. Therrien.
Do you think there is an economic study on digitizing data in Canada in the future, so that Canadians can have some idea about the issue? Is it in the millions, the billions?
4:10 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I did not hear the start of your question. Are you asking me about the cost of digitization?
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Is there a study that establishes the cost of a digital world that will make sense in the future? We know that the firearms registry cost almost $2 billion, just to enter the data on long guns. Imagine how much it could cost to enter digital data for all of Canada.
4:10 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
To my knowledge, there is no such study. It would be quite the undertaking to do one.
One of the reasons why I am in favour of the government digitizing its services is that health care, for example, could be improved. We may have to invest in technology, for example, but there would be a return on the investments, since health care would be more efficient.
To my knowledge, no such study exists. First, it is difficult to imagine the future without digitization. Second, even though there would be a significant cost, there would surely be a return on the investments.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Our departments' services are already digitized, but it is done piecemeal. Services are already being provided to Canadians, but everyone does their own thing.
4:15 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Yes.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Some things could probably be kept. What should be our approach? We could probably provide Canadians with many more services without throwing the baby out with the bathwater or starting everything from square one.
4:15 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I agree with you. That is why I talk about an approach in stages, where systems that work would be maintained. The government should identify where things are not working so well and make improvements. That does not mean opening everything to question and starting again from zero, technologically at least.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
In an ideal digitized world, which of Canadians' confidential or more sensitive information would be less protected in that new world?
4:15 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
The government has all kinds of extremely sensitive information. I have just talked about the area of health. Medical information is among the most important. Identification can depend on biometrics. This information is very sensitive. The government has no choice but to collect and use sensitive information that is the very essence of privacy. All the information that the government has will obviously contain sensitive data, such as financial information. As a result, the protections must be at a very high level.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Thank you, Mr. Therrien.
Mr. Chair, I just want to make a brief comment. When discussions are going on at the back of the room, it is tiring for those asking questions. Perhaps we could ask those who need to hold the discussions to leave the room. If the discussions are necessary, then let's stop the meeting completely. Personally, it bothers me.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
Yes, I think it has subsided now. I ask everybody in the room that if you're going to have a conversation that's loud enough to hear from the table here, to move into the hallway.
Thank you.
Go ahead, Mr. Gourde.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
