Evidence of meeting #60 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 pipeda.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Nathaniel Erskine-Smith
Thanks very much.
With that, we'll move to Mr. Dubourg.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Emmanuel Dubourg Liberal Bourassa, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, everyone. It is my turn to welcome you here.
I would like to begin with the representatives of the Canadian Bankers Association.
On page 3 of your presentation, you suggest that we improve the definition of “publicly available information”. You said that, as that definition reflects the context of the 2000s and technology has since evolved, the definition should perhaps be rethought and modernized.
Can you elaborate on how we should modernize that definition?
4:30 p.m.
Director, Consumer Affairs, Canadian Bankers Association
As Mr. Elder just suggested, some of it is very paper-based. To amend it to allow for publication, not only with regard to blogs but if somebody is voluntarily putting information someplace else, would be helpful.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Emmanuel Dubourg Liberal Bourassa, QC
Earlier, you answered several questions from my colleague Pat Kelly about the definition of the term “financial crime” compared with the definition of the term “fraud”. You said that the use of the term “financial crime” would allow for more information sharing among banks. So I assume that you regularly share that information with any branch or any bank. Is that indeed the case?
4:30 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, Canadian Bankers Association
The circumstances under which information is exchanged without knowledge or consent are highly prescribed in PIPEDA. The banks take that obligation very seriously.
To your direct question, if they meet the requirements of the act, then they would share the information amongst each other, all with a view to combatting crime, which is an extremely important endeavour. It's meant to protect Canadians and the financial system as a whole, so they take that responsibility seriously.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Emmanuel Dubourg Liberal Bourassa, QC
I would also like to put a question to Mr. Ghiz.
You talked about the collaborative approach. Does that mean you would like penalties to disappear? Do you think that the collaborative approach should continue? Mr. Hill talked a lot about voluntary compliance with the legislation and so on. I would like to know what you think about penalties and then find out whether Mr. Hill agrees.
4:35 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association
We think the current penalties that exist now are the best way to go. We don't think there's any point in adding fines or extra powers. We say this because we've talked about the trustworthiness in all of our businesses, for everyone out there, and if you are going to be sanctioned or listed as someone who has made a mistake, the penalties that exist just in the public shaming alone are greater than anything any fine could do.
By putting the fine system in place, you're going to create a conflict, or it's going to become a bit adversarial. We're talking about the evolution of a lot that happens, whether or not it's autonomous cars, and working with the commissioner. We want to try to keep that collaborative relationship because we think that's what the sense of the act originally was.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Emmanuel Dubourg Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Hill talked about negative publicity also. Is that your point of view?
4:35 p.m.
Vice-President, Government and Consumer Affairs, Canadian Marketing Association
Certainly negative publicity, the impact with customers, and all of these things are incentives to compliance. I'd also point out that the commissioner does have other powers, as I mentioned in the submission. The commissioner, to make an important point, can go to the Federal Court. However, to change the order-making powers or the fining powers that the commissioner has, you have to create a different structure, and that will destroy, really, the collaborative, engaged approach that has existed for the past decade and a half and that has proven to be very valuable.
David, I don't know if you have anything perhaps to add on what would—
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Nathaniel Erskine-Smith
It would be great to have more comment, but unfortunately we're at the end of the five-minute round for Mr. Dubourg.
Mr. Kelly, you have five minutes.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
The good news is that you can probably carry on right where you left off, because I would like each of the three organizations to weigh in on the following question. If I've understood your remarks correctly, all three organizations are rather down on the idea of order-making powers in PIPEDA.
There are privacy advocates who would disagree and would say that the ombudsman model and the collaborative approach that have been described are rather too cozy, and they would rather see the commissioner have more teeth. I'd like each of you to make your best and strongest case for the continuation of an ombudsman model rather than for order-making.
4:35 p.m.
Vice-President, Government and Consumer Affairs, Canadian Marketing Association
You observed that people come forward and make the case, but they seldom point to glaring examples of where it isn't working. In my submission I tried to talk about all of the successes of the current structure, the collaborative structure that has existed in the ombudsman model to develop guidelines with the commissioner's office, the breach guidelines that were in place for seven or eight years, developed in collaboration with civil society, stakeholders, businesses, and others.
The AdChoices program to address the collection of data online when people are browsing is a self-regulatory program that our sector, the marketing and communications sector, developed in collaboration, to some extent, with the Privacy Commissioner's office. There have been a lot of great successes with protecting individuals' privacy and providing them with choice.
David, you may have a more legal response to this question about changing the model.
4:35 p.m.
Special Digital Privacy Counsel, Canadian Marketing Association
I think when you're talking about order-making powers as distinct from penalties, which I think is a bit of a different argument, it really does come to that point. It's about collaboration. I'm here today representing the CMA, but I'm in private practice and I have other clients. I very seldom or never would suggest that someone go forward proactively to a government agency or regulator that has the power to fine somebody directly. If you did so, you'd be very circumspect in what you would say to them.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Understood.
I'm going to just make sure I let the others weigh in on this.
4:40 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association
We're quite similar, and as I mentioned before, I think for our industry, if you give more powers or if you give the fining authority, that's going to take away that working relationship.
As I said, reputational harm on an industry that relies on trustworthiness is really the most important thing to our industry. I think you're going to take away that relationship to collaborate by introducing more powers.
4:40 p.m.
Director, Consumer Affairs, Canadian Bankers Association
We currently have a very good relationship with the Privacy Commissioner. We meet with them regularly to discuss issues. I think their role is to encourage compliance with PIPEDA and to facilitate that and to help give us the tools to allow us to comply with PIPEDA.
The evidence is there. There are very few complaints about compliance, and as Wally said, the outcome of these complaints is largely resolved with no problem. If that's the case, why is there a need for further enforcement powers?
4:40 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association
Could I add to that? For example, we have 30 million wireless customers, and there were 45 or 47 complaints last year. Out of those, the vast majority were done through early resolution.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Would it seem to you, then, that those who wish for order-making power are seeking to fix something that's not broken?
4:40 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association
I've sat in your chair for a long time. There are always people who believe that there should be more regulations put on more regulations, and sometimes, yes, if it's not broken, why fix it?
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Nathaniel Erskine-Smith
With that, thanks very much, Mr. Kelly.
We have Mr. Ehsassi in our final five-minute round.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On this question, there has been very fascinating testimony from all of our witnesses. Thank you. It's been very helpful.
My question is for Mr. Ghiz.
As you know, the Privacy Commissioner believes that, given the transformative nature of the industries we're dealing with, consent is one of those significant issues that warrant attention and focus as we attempt to update the legislation. So far, I think you're saying that you don't see any need for revisiting the issue of consent.
4:40 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association
We think the current model is working. On consent, we said that we could look to evolve it into a broader sense. I think other witnesses here have talked about it today, how consent can be used more broadly to help it evolve with the new products that come to the forefront because of new technology and new products.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
What specifically does that mean? Does that mean you believe in the concept of “meaningful consent” or not?
4:40 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association
We believe in the concept that there could be a better model around the consent so that it could help alleviate some of the regulatory burden.
For example, if we were to come out with a new product, we would need to change around all of our consent forms based on that, whereas we could create a consent model that could undertake to factor in new products that may come into the marketplace. Obviously, we've seen this in Europe. They're a little broader than we are. We don't have to look to reinvent the wheel. We can look to see where there are instances that we would agree with.
That would be one area where we would look for a change in consent.