Evidence of meeting #32 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 departments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
You would be required, though, to state what the specified grounds are.
11:40 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Absolutely.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
What would you envision, if you have this discretion, as an appeal process when a person makes a complaint and they don't agree that their complaint is vexatious or frivolous, that it has been adequately addressed through another case, or that it is connected with or raises the same issue as another pending case?
11:40 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
We would say that judicial review would be an appropriate remedy. I would say that this type of discretion exists with many tribunals. It may raise issues of access to justice, or access to a response on the merits of the complaint. I recognize this. However, many tribunals, administrative or judicial, are given the authority to balance access to justice with certain limitations where giving access to one individual might actually impede access by others. That's essentially the concept. It exists elsewhere. We recognize that there's an issue in respect of access to justice. We would not use this frequently. I think our record under PIPEDA shows that we use this infrequently, and that's essentially what we're recommending.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
I'm not sure if I'm going to have time for a full question and answer here. Maybe we'll have to come back to this later.
For budgeting purposes for individual departments, has there been much consideration given to the effect of expanding judicial recourse and remedies? If judicial remedy is expanded, will this result in a net increase in compliance costs for various departments as well as your own?
11:45 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I don't see that our recommendations would increase judicial remedies, but if your question is what is the net effect of all our recommendations on government resources, with the chair's indulgence, I could spend a minute or two on that, or we could come back.
11:45 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
That's an excellent question.
We think order making may actually lead to efficiencies because in the process that I've described currently with recommendation making, there is quite a bit of back and forth between us and departments during the investigative process and there's no real incentive for departments to respond to us quickly and completely. We think that amount of going back and forth would be reduced significantly with order making.
Concerning the requirement for privacy impact assessments, the obligation to have safeguards and breach notification, we recognize that this may increase costs for the government. Some departments actually have these practices, so for them, there would be no cost. However, for many, there would be an increase in costs. I don't think these increased costs would be large, but they would not be marginal. I would urge you to consider these costs as an investment to ensure that the public has trust in how the government deals with their personal information in a digital world.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
It wouldn't be so much a concern or suggesting that the cost ought not to be borne, but just simply for planning purposes, that the crown ought to know.
Anyway, thank you.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
We might come back later, Mr. Kelly, but we're well over the five minutes.
We'll now move to Mr. Long, for five minutes.
November 1st, 2016 / 11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Commissioner, again for coming in.
I read some articles over the last few days about you and the department. One article I read was about metadata legislation, and you certainly have stated time and time again that you're looking for enhanced legislation, improved legislation, and certainly referenced the Communications Security Establishment and their sharing with the Five Eyes, and that some of the breaches never should have happened in the first place. I just want to get your comments on what you feel about metadata legislation and what you're looking for, moving forward.
11:45 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
You refer to the example of the incident involving Canada's Communications Security Establishment. I would start by saying that the government claims—and I have no reason to dispute that claim—that metadata, particularly in a foreign intelligence context, is necessary to identify threats. I don't dispute that. The issue with the incident in question was that metadata was then shared with partners, with Five Eyes, in a way that was found by the CSE commissioner, the oversight body, as being unlawful, inconsistent with the statute.
What that tells me is that we have an activity that is legitimate, that pursues a legitimate goal, but is currently regulated in an insufficient way. What I'm looking for—to answer your question—is not a very prescriptive list of conditions necessarily, but currently we have extremely broad provisions that authorize certain institutions to collect and share metadata. I'm looking for some framework, some statutory provisions that would set out certain principles, according to Parliament, according to our elected officials, as to when government institutions would be able to collect metadata, when they would be able to share metadata, under what principles or under what conditions generally speaking, and under what conditions they should retain that information. I'm not looking for something very prescriptive; I'm looking for some basic rules.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Thank you.
The next question I had for you is this. You were also stating that you want telcos to have more detailed police requests and you don't feel that's being done enough. Also, you commented that you were disappointed in the Canadian chiefs of police who were looking for warrantless access.
Have you seen improvement in that, or what exactly do you want there?
11:50 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
For companies, we have seen that a number of them do publish transparency reports when they are the subject of lawful access or warrantless access requests by the police, so there is improvement. I think all companies involved in that area should publish transparency reports.
My main point would be that it's not enough that companies do that. Government departments, which are at the receiving end of this information, should also be more transparent and issue transparency reports. After all, it is the departments that are asking for that information for law enforcement purposes. It's one thing for companies to do it, but the ones who should really be transparent are those who ask for and use the information. I'm not asking them to reveal law enforcement secrets, things that would impede lawful investigations, but there is a way for departments to be more transparent.
I'm sorry, I lost your last question.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
About the chiefs of police, and I think it was the commissioner—
11:50 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Yes.
The chiefs of police, including the RCMP commissioner, make the point that the Supreme Court's decision in Spencer, which reinforced the need for warrants for access to the sensitive personal information of Canadians, is essentially creating important impediments that make their lives, if not impossible, extremely difficult, and that Parliament should provide for more cases of warrantless access if the police are to do their jobs. I need to be convinced of that. I think we all need to be convinced of that.
I don't question in any way the difficulties, in the past, of the police and national security agencies, but I think it would be important that they demonstrate what conditions in Spencer make their lives impossible. One of the conditions in Spencer is that if there is an urgent need to have access to information, it can be obtained without a warrant. If that's the case, why do they need to further liberalize the conditions?
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you, Mr. Long.
We will now move back to Mr. Kelly, for five minutes.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Thank you.
Since I asked a complicated question with only a minute left in the previous round, maybe we'll let you have a bit more time to elaborate.
First, I do want to make clear that the purpose of my question is certainly not to suggest that there be a price on privacy. There are legal obligations that are very clear, and it's very clear that Canadians have very high expectations around privacy. However, when there is a change in regulation and enforcement, it's important for planning purposes that both departments, not only your own but all of the government departments and agencies that are affected, be able to plan accordingly.
You said that you think in many cases the stick that would now be wielded by your office would make departments more efficient. Did I understand that correctly?
11:50 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
On the order making, there are many recommendations that we make. With respect to the change to an order-making model, for that particular recommendation, I think it is quite possible that the system would become more efficient, including for departments.
There are other recommendations that would likely create costs. I recognize that.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
With regard to these additional costs, are they, at this stage, likely to be understood by the affected departments that may be subject to additional costs?
11:55 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
It's a complicated issue.
One of our recommendations is to create a legal obligation for departments to safeguard information technologically, and there would be a breach notification provision. One would think—and there are policies in the Treasury Board and other departments that suggest a similar outcome—that departments need to do what is necessary to protect information that is given to them by individuals. At the same time, we see that there are breaches reported regularly and that departments do not always take the measures necessary to improve their systems.
On that issue, a lot of work is done in government to protect information that I think is insufficient, in terms of surpassing the bar for what would be required. What would be the cost of that? It's not as if you're inventing a new activity. It exists. We just ask that it be improved. We haven't quantified that cost, but it should be, I would say, not insignificant but not extremely important either. One would hope and one thinks that certain measures have already been taken by government to protect information.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Fairly quickly, then, I'd like to get your comments on how protections are built in around mandatory breach reporting to ensure that the act of reporting a breach does not compound damages to an affected party.
11:55 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
This is something that we see in the discretionary regime currently. I think I'll ask my colleague Sue to expand on this, but this is something we see both under the privacy regime and the discretionary regime that we have currently and under PIPEDA.
Sue, do you want to expand on this?
11:55 a.m.
Director General, Privacy Act Investigations, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Currently there is already a mandatory policy requirement for institutions to report privacy breaches to our office as well as to the Treasury Board Secretariat when there is a material privacy breach that is identified in an institution. Putting it into law would probably just expand a little bit on what's already in existence. Whether or not institutions are following their policy requirements fully, that's.... We don't know what we don't know.
11:55 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
That being said, you're right in that creating this obligation, whether by policy or by law, may create the risk for further increases in damages. We were consulted by the innovation department on the same policy in the private sector, and we actually made certain comments there on how to mitigate that risk. I recognize there is a risk, but it's possible to mitigate that risk.