Evidence of meeting #36 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Dr. Geist is a smart guy, but sometimes we disagree.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
On that note, I'll go in reverse order, for fairness.
Ms. Lawson, I'll give you two minutes for some closing remarks.
12:50 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
Chair, thank you very much.
I guess it's just a minor point, because I think I didn't make it in my submission. I agree entirely with the comments of my colleagues about the need for a dual standard for breach notification, with more breach notification to the Privacy Commissioner and commissioner playing a greater role in determining which breaches need to be disclosed to individuals.
I would just go back to my earlier point. I think there are three fundamental areas of Canadian privacy that this legislation needs to protect. There need to be more hard limits on what companies can do with our personal information, particularly for children and vulnerable people. Second, consent needs to be real. That means express, opt-in consent, not negative option. Third, there need to be order-making powers and administrative monetary penalties for non-compliance.
Thank you.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Canada Research Chair, Internet and E-commerce Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I'll close by responding to what Mr. Lake noted regarding what happens when witnesses talk about getting it right. I will just provide two things, first to note that the government has painted this legislation as being pro-consumer—obviously part of the digital economy strategy—which makes it clear what the intent of the legislation is. I think it is difficult to say that you're getting that balance right, particularly when the legislation is framed as trying to protect consumers and being pro-consumer, when you have those same pro-consumer groups and even the Privacy Commissioner pointing to problems, such as the voluntary disclosure provision. To me that means that balance isn't getting struck appropriately.
Even more, my reference to getting it right really wasn't in terms of the substance, but rather to say that we should not be cautious about amending the legislation where there is a belief that it can be improved. The question was raised—and my apologies if I got more passionate than I might usually get on this issue, but this is an issue that we have spent many years focusing on—that if we are all in agreement that privacy is important, surely we can give this bill, including potential amendments, the same kind of priority we're providing Bill C-51 with, which is also clearly on a bit of a rocket docket, with perhaps not even the Privacy Commissioner getting to testify on it.
There is an opportunity to do so, if we're going to think about how privacy and security often go hand in hand. If we're prioritizing Bill C-51, we can similarly prioritize Bill S-4 and find a way to get this bill, with some amendments as necessary, done and passed through the Senate and back into the House so that when an election comes, Canadians can look at a piece of legislation and say that it really does reflect the kinds of concerns they have with respect to privacy.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you very much.
Mr. Gogolek for a two-minute closing, please.
12:50 p.m.
Executive Director, BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association
Thank you for having us here. This is a very important piece of legislation. It's also very important that we look at it in the context of things that have been happening, as it winds its way through the legislative process. Since the Senate hearings, we have had the Spencer decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. We have also had the report from the special legislative committee looking at PIPA in B.C. These are new developments. They are bringing information to you that you probably will want to look at.
We're also encouraged by the fact that the government has seen fit to bring this legislation to this committee before second reading. I think that shows that the government is in fact open to a wider array of amendments than before, than there would normally be in the course of the legislative process, which is important for the committee to keep in mind.
Furthermore, there will be a federal election later this year and, as you're looking at how companies deal with our personal information, Canadians will be asking questions about how their political parties are dealing with the personal information they store, collect, use, and disclose. It is important that you do that. Bringing the parties under PIPEDA, in whatever form the legislation is ultimately amended, would be a major improvement. I urge you to do that.
Thank you.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you very much.
Thank you to all of our witnesses. We appreciate your time and your expertise.
Colleagues, we are adjourned.