Evidence of meeting #78 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was casl.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:30 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
In terms of enforcing CASL per se, yes, we have the authority we need, but we think we need more authority to share outside of CASL.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I think it would just be odd. For the CRTC and Competition Bureau, we'd expect that the collaboration would take place. It seems like more of an oversight in terms of the creation of the legislation that we would block you unintentionally from being able to communicate with the Competition Bureau
11:30 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I would agree that it's low-hanging fruit.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
With regard to Compu-Finder, so much has been reported on that. You have in number two here, with regard to the report of findings, the example of clarification that's required. Can you be more specific? How would that benefit consumers and privacy protection in particular if you had—
11:30 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Our second amendment?
11:30 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I'll ask my colleague to respond.
11:30 a.m.
Regan Morris Legal Counsel, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I think the idea is just to make sure that PIPEDA remains the baseline protection for personal information for consumers. CASL is meant to provide extra additional requirements. PIPEDA is the baseline.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Thank you very much.
We're going to move to Mr. Baylis. You have seven minutes.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Good morning, Mr. Therrien.
You mentioned the power to decline or discontinue complaints. You also spoke about advancing so that you can focus on the practices that pose the greatest risks.
Could you tell me more about the changes that have been made following the coming into force of Canada's Anti-Spam Legislation?
11:30 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
The consequential amendments to Canada's Anti-Spam Legislation go beyond the two activities I mentioned. Previously, because of the ombudsman model, when a person filed a complaint with the office and claimed that the act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector had been violated, we had to investigate.
11:30 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
There were only some extremely limited exceptions.
The consequential amendments to Canada's Anti-Spam Legislation have reasonably expanded the reasons for which we can refuse to investigate. There are half a dozen exceptions; if you wish, my colleague Regan Morris can clarify this.
If another tribunal was dealing with a similar case, we could refuse to investigate, for instance, when a grievance mechanism would achieve the right outcome. We could then direct our attention to other matters.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
You want to focus on practices that really pose great risks. Is that it?
11:35 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Yes.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
11:35 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Basically. We would like to have even more flexibility, but this still helped.
11:35 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
What is fundamental is that we must investigate all the complaints we receive. Given our limited resources, we may not be able to focus on what is most important and what would have the greatest impact on privacy protection.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I have another question to do with implied consent. Many of the witnesses talked about looking at the form of implied consent that comes with PIPEDA compared to with CASL. They were making the argument that we should look at PIPEDA, and that there are forms of implied consent that should be brought from PIPEDA to CASL.
Are you aware of the differences between PIPEDA and CASL when it comes to implied consent or the lack thereof in CASL?
11:35 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Generally, yes.
11:35 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
It's an interesting question.
My understanding of the CASL provisions on consent—even though we're not enforcing them, we're generally aware of them—is that it's an opt-in regime in which an individual receives communications from an organization only if they have opted in to that conduct.
PIPEDA, more generally, does not define specifically the relationships that are subject to opt in or opt out. It gives a certain number of general considerations. Under PIPEDA implied consent is permissible, but explicit consent is required based on a number of criteria. For instance—