Industry Committee on March 26th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Through the clerk would be great.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Lake, you are our final questioner.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm in the same position I was last week, when many of the questions I would have had were already answered.

I was struck by listening to the testimony today. You go through so many of the different areas that we've talked about, and we've heard witnesses say one thing to one extent and then different witnesses at a different time have said something completely on the other side of an issue and suggested that we move in a different direction.

I remember one witness in a previous meeting talking about the importance of getting this right, and I noticed that phrasing was in the Credit Union's opening statement saying that in this case they thought Bill S-4 does get it right, or gets a lot of things right.

On consent, for example, we've heard arguments that we should go in one direction or another. We've heard that with breaches: people saying it goes too far; people saying it doesn't go far enough. On information sharing now we're hearing the same thing.

Ms. Gratton, in your comments it was interesting, because I think your opening statement captured that balance, and the question of balance that we're trying to strike. It sounds like you think the legislation needs to go forward—you said that in questioning—but at the same time you have some questions. They're not necessarily declarative statements that this is what's going to happen down the road, but you asked whether we can find ways to avoid “over-disclosing”.

As this legislation hopefully passes and moves forward, what you are going to be watching for over the next few years in terms of the execution of this? We've heard, for example, on that issue, that in Alberta and B.C. there haven't been issues with that. Someone said that it's different circumstances with the federal legislation.

[Dr. Éloïse Gratton]

For the sharing?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Yes, the information sharing.

[Dr. Éloïse Gratton]

I advise private sector businesses, so I'm going to be answering these calls: “Can I share or can I not share?” I'm going to have to guide them on whether they have reasonable grounds, or if it makes sense, or if it's in compliance with the amended law.

I'm going to have to see the kind of findings that are issued. I'm going to have to stay really up to date to see how the market is reacting and what is the best business practice, depending on the industry.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

You asked if we can find ways to avoid over-disclosing, but interestingly, I don't believe you laid out amendments potentially—

[Dr. Éloïse Gratton]

Specific? No.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

What thoughts might you have, though? Or do you have thoughts on that?

[Dr. Éloïse Gratton]

I'm concerned about fishing expeditions and about sharing to investigate in case. I guess that would be my concern as a consumer.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Are there specific wording changes you would make that you think would tighten that up?

[Dr. Éloïse Gratton]

Yes, but I would have to take my pen and draft something. I can't answer—

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

That's never a bad idea. You can always through the chair at some point.

[Dr. Éloïse Gratton]

I didn't prepare it. Okay.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

To revisit consent—I'll just stay with you because you're talking now—your concern about consent is interesting, looking at the version, because the clause on consent is very short. It strikes me as very reasonable in the way it's worded, that it's only valid if the person “would understand the nature, purpose and consequences of the collection”. You made the point about clicking through and getting these long statements that you're required to click through. I think most consumers would welcome some form of a statement that says that they would have to “understand the nature, purpose and consequences of the collection”. Most parents, of course, would understand the importance of that.

I don't see the problem to the same extent you do, but—

[Dr. Éloïse Gratton]

You said the word “parents”, so that's interesting.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Yes.

[Dr. Éloïse Gratton]

PIPEDA currently requires that consent be reasonably understandable by the individual. For me there's a clear understanding in the industry what that means. Current practices have evolved over the last 10 years. I'm concerned that we're reopening a door or trying to address a problem that perhaps we don't have.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Do you not think there's a problem already? If I'm talking to a round table with my constituents about technology and the use of different apps or different software that you'd sign up for, these endless series of windows that no one ever reads and just clicks “I accept”, is there a problem already with that?

[Dr. Éloïse Gratton]

There's already a problem, and I don't see how the proposed amendment will address that.

Tomorrow, if this becomes law, I'm going to have clients saying the consent they had before is no longer valid; perhaps we need to reopen the door. How can I be sure the consent of the individual is valid because it is reasonable to expect that the individual “would understand the nature, purpose and consequences of the collection, use, or disclosure”? How do I do that? How do I achieve that? Do I include more wording? More clicks? Do I have a longer policy? I'm not sure we're going to address the problem that we have with this current notice and choice model.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

It's interesting that you say that, because when I read this the first time, I thought it was certainly not longer and more clicks. I don't think right now that everybody understands “the nature, purpose and consequences of the collection, use, or disclosure of the personal information”. I certainly don't understand it all the time. I can't imagine that everyone else does and I'm the only one who doesn't.

Peggy maybe says that's understandable, but....

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I do think that needs to be changed. Hopefully, your clients are looking at this change and asking themselves how they change their policy to—

[Dr. Éloïse Gratton]

I'm advising them to be extremely transparent and to be clear and to have proper consent in place. We still have a problem at the end of the day that people click and don't read. That's a reality. How is this going to address the problem? I don't know. I don't know, and I'm just concerned about the confusion it's going to create.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I have only a minute left, so I'll switch over to the CLHIA.

I noticed you mentioned that in your statement, so I'm just going to throw the ball to you and ask what your organization or your company is doing to try to make things more understandable for your clients.

[Frank Zinatelli]

Well, we're certainly paying attention to the amendment. We're scratching our heads a little bit as to what exactly it means. I have been asked the question by a variety of my clients. We represent more than 99% of the life and health insurance industry, and many of the legal folks within that industry have come to me and said, “What does that mean that we have to do, technically?” That's technically in the sense of “On the ground, what am I supposed to do to ensure that this kind of understanding is there?”

As well, what's the difference from the rules now? Again, I think there's been a sense of knowing what you at least have to disclose to the consumer: what is the change going to be? I've certainly been asked the question, and I don't know what the answer is. That is why, in our opening statement, we said that we need to have that discussion with the folks at the department, with the folks at the OPC, whom I saw supported this. Obviously, the department supports it because they put it in, and the OPC was a witness indicating that.

I think we'll need their help with the provision, because we're a compliance-driven industry and we want to comply.