Industry committee  I can talk about a very recent case. A few years ago, actually, the OPC made a finding with respect to Meta and the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The commissioner issued its report of findings a few years ago. Meta disagreed with those findings and took the OPC to court on those.

Industry committee  We've discussed several international examples, but also domestic and other federal examples where tribunals are used. I'll start with domestic. The CAI, which is the privacy regulator in Quebec, is an administrative tribunal. It operates extremely efficiently and is able to reach the outcomes that you outlined.

Industry committee  That is absolutely correct.

Industry committee  Both the Privacy Commissioner and the tribunal don't have formal rules of procedure, so it makes it more accessible and easy. Unless you wanted to engage counsel, you wouldn't have to pay anything to go through that process.

Industry committee  The de novo is from the Privacy Commissioner to the Federal Court, which is the case right now. What we mean by de novo is that, because the Privacy Commissioner right now does not have any decision-making power—Bill C-27 contemplates that decision-making power—the court doesn't give any deference to the Privacy Commissioner's findings.

Industry committee  “Deference” means that it's a standard of review. Deference would just be how much you're relying on the commissioner's findings. What proposed subsection 103(2) of the CPPA contemplates is that, on questions of fact and on questions of mixed fact and law, the tribunal has to go with what the commissioner said about it, unless there is some compelling reason not to.

Industry committee  Thank you very much for the question. If somebody has an issue with Meta, the first thing they can do is send a complaint to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. That costs nothing. You can do it online. The Privacy Commissioner can look at that complaint and seek a resolution through alternative dispute mechanisms such as conciliation or mediation.

Industry committee  I just wanted to add perhaps some more context. In the case of the Social Security Tribunal, that tribunal is supported by the administrative tribunals support service system, which we have contemplated would also support the tribunal that is contemplated under Bill C-27. Again, compared to the two years the OPC is currently facing, the Social Security Tribunal heard cases in 2021 to 2022, for example, in 43 days.

Industry committee  What proposed subsection 119(2) does is allow the OPC to enter into agreements or arrangements with the provinces to do a number of things. They can collaborate on research and they can collaborate on guidance, but more importantly, they can coordinate their activities to provide for mechanisms for the handling of any complaint in which they are mutually interested.

Industry committee  Thank you very much for the question. I think the consequences can actually go further than that. If there is a charter or constitutional challenge, the enforcement system—as contemplated by CPC-9—does not meet principles of natural justice and does not guarantee perception of a free and independent hearing.

Industry committee  I would add to my colleague's point that the OPC, in addition to the order-making powers, has the ability to engage in alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, including mediation and conciliation. That is another avenue the OPC can use, which obviates the need for parties to go to a tribunal.

Industry committee  I'd just like to add one point, and that is what the courts themselves have said about administrative tribunals. My colleague discussed how the process for going to the courts can be expensive and long, and I just want to say that the Supreme Court of Canada has also recognized that.

Industry committee  Just to be clear, the tribunal will be supported by the administrative tribunals support services institution, which already supports about a dozen other tribunals. It's not a question of creating a tribunal machinery from scratch. It's very much going to be supported by an organization that already exists and that already provides services to a number of administrative tribunals.

Industry committee  I want to clarify Ms. Diane McLeod's testimony. She did say, “Our informal case resolution team operates separately from our adjudication team. When a file moves to inquiry, our adjudicators conduct a de novo hearing.” What I want to say is that, in Alberta, there is this separation between the adjudicative and the investigative functions that is just not there in the CPPA with the way it's currently structured, and that's not brought in by the amendment.

Industry committee  Thank you very much. I'll just talk a bit about.... Here, on this amendment, we're talking about a PRA, a private right of action, which is about damages. It's somebody who has lost something because of a privacy violation, and they go to court to make themselves whole again. This is not about correcting the privacy violation.