Industry Committee on April 21st, 2015

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

What would be the impact of that?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

If you vote against all these amendments, all 40 of these amendments are going to fail and the bill will go forward in its current condition.

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

Do you want to move all the amendments together?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

No, I'm just saying that I think we should have a discussion. You asked if there was any way we could deal with the timing of all these amendments. I'm just suggesting that if the government is going to vote against all of them, that is something we should have a discussion about because the next four meetings as we do all this will be a really futile waste of time.

I'm quite happy to do it. I just think we should know where the government is coming from and why they didn't move any amendments.

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

I think it would be good to hear the arguments in favour. Keep in mind that many of the amendments are duplicates from Mr. Hyer and from Ms. May, so the half that are Ms. May's will not be moved because Mr. Hyer is going to move his.

I think it would make sense to group them, but I certainly want to hear about them and give opposition parties the chance to explain why they're moving the amendments they're moving. For situations where there are almost identical amendments moved by multiple members of the opposition, I think then certainly we could group them together and hopefully move fairly quickly through those. But I certainly think it would be best for us to make sure that we hear the arguments that opposition members have in favour of the amendments before we make decisions.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

All right.

Shall amendment NDP-1 carry?

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Do you want to vote on each one?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll now go to amendment PV-2. I believe that is Mr. Hyer's.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you know, these three paragraphs in amendment deal with sharing information related to insurance claims. Our amendment is based on recommendations from the Privacy Commissioner.

Bill S-4 contains three separate provisions allowing an organization to collect, use, or disclose witness statements without consent at the request of the insurance industry. We have not been presented with any information or evidence demonstrating that the absence of these provisions has created any problem for the industry. We introduce these amendments in the hope of limiting the potential for fishing expeditions, to put it bluntly.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Lake.

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

Could we have a quick explanation from the witnesses on the impact of the amendment?

[John Clare]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This issue was raised during the first statutory review of PIPEDA that was carried out in 2006-07. The recommendation of the committee at the time was that the government consult with stakeholders and the Privacy Commissioner to examine the issue of the use of personal information when it's contained in a witness statement for the purpose of processing an insurance claim.

There was a concern raised at the time and discussed during the consultations. If I witness an accident, say that I saw an individual recklessly driving through an intersection, and provide that witness statement to the police, there was concern in the insurance industry that the individual who drove recklessly through the intersection could refuse and not provide consent for the use of his or her personal information—the fact that they were at that place at that time—for the purpose of processing the insurance claim.

Based on the consultation, there was a pretty wide agreement among the stakeholders, including privacy advocates at the time, that you didn't want to create a situation whereby individuals can protect themselves from responsibility in an accident, essentially, by invoking their personal privacy and saying that the witness statement can't be used because it contains their personal information. The purpose of the amendment in Bill S-4 is to provide a very limited exception so that insurance companies can get access to witness statements that contain personal information, only for the purpose of processing the insurance claim.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Is there any other debate? All in favour?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next is amendment Liberal-1.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll try to be brief and speak directly to the issue. The amendment I put forward would restrict the exception to circumstances where the employee is aware that the information is being collected and that the intended use of the peripherally collected information is consistent with the intent of the original work. As an example, notes created during a job interview by the interviewer would meet that definition.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Lake.

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

In the interests of time, maybe I will ask the officials about this.

It looks like we have six amendments, with a couple of duplicates from the Green Party, so maybe it's four amendments in total that deal with the work product sort of area. Maybe you could explain the impact of those amendments in one shot as opposed to my asking you about each individual amendment.

[John Clare]

Absolutely.

This group of amendments deals with the way PIPEDA is structured. There's always an exception to collection, an exception to use, and an exception to disclosure. This group of amendments deals with exceptions to the collection and use of personal information that is a product of someone's occupation, their work.

Together the proposed amendments limit the exception to say it would apply only to personal information that was created with the knowledge or consent of the individual, and only to personal information that was incidental to the work products, not the main focus.

It would create a requirement on an organization to first ensure that the personal information in question in the work product...that the individual is aware that they created it and that it is personal information that they put in the product.

The second part would qualify that the personal information has to be incidental. There are two definitions of “incidental” in the Oxford dictionary. One is that it means less important, secondary, or subsidiary. The other definition is that it's connected with, related to, or associated with something. There's some line you'd have to distinguish between when it is the main part of the work product and when it is incidental to the work product.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Is there any discussion on that?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next would be amendment PV-4.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, in the interest of time you might want to lump together PV-4 and PV-5. I can make a brief—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Those are both yours, Mr. Hyer?

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Yes, they are.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Please, go ahead and speak to them.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, these amendments deal with work product exemptions. They're based on CBA recommendations regarding use at work. We can envision scenarios where the broad language of the proposed legislation could be abused.

Keystrokes on a computer, records of comings and goings, images on covert video surveillance are all personal information. If these provisions are retained, they should be restricted to personal information that the individual is contracted to produce, with the knowledge of that individual.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Do you want to go to the officials, Mr. Lake?

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

Are you sensing a trend?