Mr. Chair, I'll be very short.
I want to talk about two things. One is the basic objectives of the act, and the Minister referred to them. I also want to talk about some of the principles and objectives in terms of the design of the bill, which I think are important to understanding why the bill is the way it is.
Bill S-4 makes four important changes.
First, it requires companies to tell Canadians if their personal information has been lost or stolen, and they've been put at risk as a result.
Second, in the area of consent, it clarifies that actions taken to obtain consent must be appropriate to the target audience. We heard earlier about the particularly vulnerable group of children. In the area of consent it modifies the very limited circumstances—and we would want to stress, very limited—when personal information may be shared without consent in order to balance against other important public policy objectives, for example, if a bank or financial adviser suspects that one of the clients is a victim of financial abuse.
Third, Bill S-4 gives the Privacy Commissioner a range of new tools and greater flexibility to enforce the act.
Fourth, it take steps to reduce the burden on businesses and to allow them to use this information in relation to their ongoing work and due diligence relating to various business transactions.
On the design side—and this is what I think is probably most important as an administrator to bring to your attention—it is really two concepts. I think this came up in the earlier discussion. One is the issue of balance and the other is the issue of principles. This is a bill based on principles.
As we make amendments and look to the future we want to maintain a concept of balance and build upon a principle-based approach that has made PIPEDA successful. These principles are set out in the annex to the original act and include important concepts such as accountability, consent, accuracy, safeguards, and openness.
In light of some of the earlier questions I would stress that openness is a principle that we constantly look to and applies, for example, in the question of the use of information between businesses. Of course it is all about ensuring that citizens have the right to know.
In terms of balance, I'll make a couple of quick points. Ensuring Canadians have the information they need so they can take action to protect their privacy is a priority. Equipping the Privacy Commissioner with the information and tools needed to protect Canadians and increase compliance is a priority. Providing clear rules and a minimal administrative burden on the private sector is a priority. These are not priorities that always mesh and the question of balance comes into play.
In conclusion I want to say that while every country takes a unique approach to addressing privacy—the United States, for example, has a more regulatory-driven approach and the European Union a much more proscriptive approach—we think we have a world-leading approach to the administration of privacy here in Canada and that's reflected in these amendments. We hope to continue to be a leader internationally in this regard.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.