STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'INDUSTRIE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, December 3, 1998

• 1531

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order, pursuant to an order of reference of the House, dated Tuesday, November 3, 1998, with regard to consideration of Bill C-54, An Act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments and the Statute Revision Act.

We're very pleased to have two witnesses before us this afternoon. We have, from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia, Mr. David Flaherty, the information and privacy commissioner for British Columbia, and Mr. Tom Mitchinson, the assistant information and privacy commissioner for the Province of Ontario.

My proposal would be that we hear both opening statements and then move to questions.

With that, I would like to begin with Mr. Flaherty, please.

Mr. David Flaherty (Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm very pleased to be here.

I would remind you that I'm both the information commissioner and the privacy commissioner in British Columbia. You have two separate officials at the federal level, but in the provinces they tend to be the same person.

As well, I don't represent the Government of British Columbia. I'm an officer of the legislature, much like your privacy commissioner is an officer of parliament, and I don't wish to have what I have to say taken as representing the position of the government, although, as I will tell you, their position on this bill is one that I think I share, and so forth.

I've given you a written submission. I regret that it's not in French. I will try to answer questions in French if anybody wishes me to respond to them in that way.

In opening, I want to establish some credibility on this issue with you. I would like to say that I had the good fortune, when I was a young graduate student at Columbia University in 1964, to be hired for a week by Alan Westin, who was writing a book called Privacy and Freedom. Published in 1967, this was one of the seminal works in this field. I was his research assistant for awhile.

In 1973 I was teaching at the University of Western Ontario. I'm still a professor of history and law, despite my current job. I began international work on the privacy issue. I've worked since then, until my current position, which began in 1993, in all of the European countries, in particular, and in Canada and the United States on privacy protection matters, particular in the public sector.

From 1984 to 1987, I had the privilege of being one of the two staff consultants to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General in its five-year review of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which produced a report in March 1987 called Open and Shut.

It was interesting for me to read two days ago one of the recommendations of that report, to extend the Privacy Act to the federally regulated private sector, which is one of the things you're doing, wisely, in Bill C-54.

Over the course of my career, I've had the privilege of testifying on these kinds of issues in various provinces in Canada, in the House of Commons, in the Senate, in the United States, in Australia and so forth. I was appointed the first privacy and information commissioner for British Columbia five years ago. I have a six-year, non-renewable term that ends August 1 of next year.

So I think I have both some independence and some credibility in talking to you on the privacy issue.

I feel I'm here basically as a cheerleader for Bill C-54. I'm very enthusiastic about it. I think it's long overdue. I think it's in the best interests of Canadian business. I certainly think it's in the interests of taxpayers and the residents of this country.

I want to encourage members of this committee to feel, as I suspect you already do, that you are doing something very important in promoting this legislation for the private sector in Canada. I share with Minister Manley the notion that it's very important to facilitate electronic commerce in Canada, that we're very well positioned to take advantage of a heavily wired country in promoting electronic commerce, but we well know a variety of Canadians have various anxieties about privacy as they try to use the Internet. Often in groups of this sort, you find that no one actually purchased anything on the Internet previously. One of the reasons is fear for privacy in even giving their credit card over the Net. I believe Bill C-54 is good for business.

• 1535

I also want to emphasize to you, from my perspective as a privacy advocate and as a privacy commissioner, that it's even more important to protect privacy as a human right, through Bill C-54, as you are proposing to do.

I'm delighted by the bill's potential application to the provinces and areas of provincial jurisdiction. Because I'm an academic by background, I've never been particularly shy about speaking for other provinces or commenting on developments in other provinces. I try to remember I'm a government official now and be less bold in that regard, but I still feel I can say that I think this is good for all Canadians.

I'll let Mr. Mitchinson, my colleague, speak for Ontario. So I'll say it's good for all Canadians except Ontario, but I hope he'll tell you in a few minutes that it is good for Ontarians as well.

I think this bill is a wake-up call to all of the provinces, except Quebec, which, as you well know, already has its own legislation. This bill gives other provinces a choice whether to act to simply accept Bill C-54 or to do legislation on their own.

Your work is really important for all Canadians in a bill that I regard as having truly historical significance, trying to be all things to all persons, including myself. I'm also an historian, so I think I bring some historical judgment to looking at certain pieces of legislation and saying this is a very important one, not least because it's been so long in coming.

You're going to hear some natural anxieties and fears expressed by the private sector about the burden of this legislation, the complexity of the law, and so forth. I would point to the Quebec experience in 1993-94, when certain businesses argued that if Quebec regulated the private sector, business would come to an end. That has certainly not happened.

European countries have had years of national experience and state experience in Germany in regulating the private sector. The United Kingdom did so in 1984; Sweden, 1973; and the Germans and the French, mid- to late seventies.

Many of our leading Canadian and American companies have been doing business in Hong Kong and New Zealand and European nations for a number of years, and living quite happily with even stronger legislation than you are proposing in Bill C-54. So by a European standard, by a Quebec standard, there's nothing terribly novel about this legislation.

I certainly can speak for myself, and I think I can speak for my fellow commissioners, that we adopt a practical, common-sense, down-to-earth approach to the implementation of privacy protection. We are not a bunch of zealots. We try to work out deals with the public sector. In the course of regulating the private sector, we would work on deals as well.

I hope “deals” is not too sordid a term to use with you, but that means we would balance competing interests. Our role is to articulate the privacy interests that are at stake in any particular situation, then to hear from the public sector or the private sector on what the other interests are in that particular situation so that we can balance competing interests.

None of us believe privacy protection is the only value worth protecting in our society, even though our job is to be upfront on this particular issue.

In question period, I'd be happy to talk with you about my experience in regulating, for the last five years, B.C. Hydro, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, B.C. Ferries, all of which are big companies, all of which have outlets all around the province and the equivalent of a business in terms of my working with them.

I also have jurisdiction, unlike many other provinces, except Quebec, over all the hospitals, the universities, and all the municipalities. We've managed to make our privacy act work in exactly the same way that I expect to be able to make it work with respect to the private sector, if and when Bill C-54 and any B.C. contribution to that debate comes into place.

I was here for an hour or so of your discussion yesterday, due to the glories of plane flights in the west, so I heard some of the questions you asked. Anticipating one that you might like to ask me as well—that is, “Isn't Bill C-54 rather complicated?”—I thought I'd pass around to you the B.C. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, a very modern piece of legislation, just so you can look at it and see that it's no more or no less complicated than what you're doing in Bill C-54.

All of these pieces of legislation are complicated. We certainly don't expect the average citizen to read this once a week, and there's no requirement for them to do so. What we provide is one-stop shopping. If you have a privacy problem, just like when you need a plumber, you look in the phone book and find out who does privacy in your jurisdiction, and then you give them a call.

Speaking from the British Columbia perspective, it is certainly my position that in response to Bill C-54, we need a made-in-B.C. solution for our private sector, one that is responsive to the fact, for example, that, as I'm all too well aware, it's a five-hour flight from here to Vancouver and Victoria and the west coast and there's a three-hour time difference. In terms of working with my fellow privacy commissioners, it's a difficulty for me that both my Quebec and Ontario colleagues are out to lunch—not figuratively, but literally—by the time I get to work in the morning.

• 1540

So we have some special problems in terms of how we best serve residents and citizens of British Columbia. I think there's a likelihood that we will come up with something that will be complementary to Bill C-54 but will also reflect the needs of the people who live in British Columbia.

Our first consultation with the private sector occurred last Friday morning in Vancouver, under the auspices of the Chief Information Officer and Industry Canada. Industry Canada was very well represented in talking about the needs of electronic commerce and how that fits in with the high-tech interests of the Government of British Columbia.

So the process of consultation by the government—as opposed to me—with the private sector has begun. What are our choices? One of the things we could do is extend our existing privacy act to the private sector. It would need some modification.

Another thing is for the Province of British Columbia to take account of the goal of business in promoting national harmonization of legislation in the interests of business across the country, which would mean letting Bill C-54 prevail. The kind of standards-based approach it represents through the Canadian Standards Association model privacy code is a tool for harmonization. That will be up to the government itself. I'll simply have one voice in that particular debate, at least until my term ends.

Going back to my first annual report, in the summer of 1994, in response particularly to the European Union's directive on data protection, I called for action to regulate the private sector in British Columbia in terms of the privacy interests of individuals.

One more issue I'd like to address is that at the end of the day, even if you are wise enough—as I hope you will be—to put Bill C-54 in law in the foreseeable future, there are real problems in making data protection and privacy protection effective in practice, whatever a law says.

I'm very well aware, being both information and privacy commissioner, how limited our financial and human resources are. These are very tough jobs to do. I regard the budget of the federal privacy commissioner as pathetic, even compared with our provincial budgets. It's certainly going to need considerable enhancement if he or his successor can do the job they need to do in terms of making Bill C-54 a reality, even if it simply means further work with the provincial commissioners.

I think having legislation of this sort and then having underfunded commissioners' offices runs the risk of giving the illusion of privacy protection. I hope your committee will say some strong things to both Justice and Industry Canada about the need to adequately fund the privacy commissioner's office if you're going to impose significant new tasks on him and his colleagues, as Bill C-54 definitely does.

I think the auditing powers, as newly placed in the hands of the privacy commissioner in Bill C-54, are very important. I'd be happy to tell you during the discussion how I've turned that into site visits, where I go around to most parts of the province visiting hospitals, police stations, municipalities and various government ministries as kind of a friendly visit, trying to raise the flag and promote privacy consciousness.

I believe at the end of the day that most of the work of privacy commissioners is privacy consciousness. It's promoting awareness of privacy interest and fair information practices among members of the general public, including members of the legislature, or the parliament, in this particular case.

I also believe at the end of the day that the way this Bill C-54 legislation is going to work is through cooperation between privacy commissioners and the private sector. That will largely be done through industry groupings.

I'll use the Canadian Direct Marketing Association as a good example of that. They've been a leader in the privacy field the last number of years in terms of promoting self-regulation. They have a privacy and ethics code, which I have framed on the wall in my office. They have a dispute resolution mechanism that is very effective. All they lack in terms of their privacy code is enforceable, legal rights to privacy.

What people like Bruce Phillips and I and my other colleagues have been calling for over a number of years is enforceable, legal rights to privacy that go beyond self-regulation. But at the end of the day, even when Bill C-54 is law, I still believe, if you have a problem with a bank or with a retailer of some sort, you'll deal, as you do now, with the retailer, with the bank, then go from there perhaps to the Canadian Bankers Association or the Canadian Banking Ombudsmen or to the Canadian Direct Marketing Association—and I notice it will change its name next year to the Canadian Marketing Association—and they will try to solve the problems.

So the privacy commissioner will only be charged with specific complaints when industry can't solve it for itself, whether it's Stentor or any other business.

• 1545

The privacy commissioner's main role, in my view, will be a proactive one of looking at the ways in which industry groupings, whether small business, large business, telephone companies or whomever, are addressing compliance with Bill C-54. I assume most of these industry groups will in fact be giving guidance to their members—for example, here's how you're a good citizen, and here's how you comply with the Canadian Standards Association model privacy code, in schedule 1 of Bill C-54—and the privacy commissioner and his or her staff will be engaged in ongoing dialogue as to how you do this sort of work.

For example, what's the appropriate trade-off between preventing fraud in the credit card business or whatever else the competing value may be? What are the interests of law enforcement? How would they be balanced against the privacy interests of individuals?

I should have said to you that I wasn't particularly following my prepared submission in what I've chosen to say to you.

There's one additional issue that in the interests of time I will simply not pursue here—that is, the fact that there is another model of privacy protection that has developed since the mid-1970s, when our current Privacy Act at the federal level originated. This is the model initiated in Quebec in the early 1980s; in Ontario in the late 1980s; in British Columbia in 1992; and then imitated by that great radical, Ralph Klein, in Alberta in 1993-94, in the adoption of the Ontario-Alberta-British Columbia model of privacy protection. All of us as commissioners—and we're all information commissioners and privacy commissioners—have order-making power.

I heard Mr. Phillips yesterday talking about the effectiveness of the ombudsman approach. All I would say is that I've never really had to order anybody on the privacy side to do anything except in response to specific decisions I make—and I've made close to 300 in the last five years—but it helps the discussion if they know, at the end of the day, I can tell them what to do, subject to review in the courts.

I think we can all work with and live with the federal model as created by Bill C-54, but it will certainly lead to some jurisdiction shopping. Someone with a privacy problem in Burnaby, British Columbia, can look around and say, well, where am I going to get better justice, from the privacy commissioner in British Columbia or from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada? That's one of the kinds of things that will need to be worked out over time.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thanks very much, Mr. Flaherty.

I'm now going to turn it over to Mr. Mitchinson from the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Tom Mitchinson (Assistant Commissioner, Information and Privacy Commission of Ontario): Thank you very much.

I'm here on behalf of Ann Cavoukian, the information and privacy commissioner for Ontario. She's very disappointed at not being able to come here herself today. She's actually out of the country this week, in Washington, at some other meetings.

We realize now that this committee is meeting again in the winter months, and certainly if there is any interest in having Ann Cavoukian come at that time, I'm sure she would be more than pleased to come back if there was anything any of the committee members wanted covered.

This is an issue that I would say is one of the most important issues as far as Ann is concerned. She's been an advocate for the extension of privacy protection to the private sector for many years. Although she's not always in sync with my buddy here, she's perfectly in sync with him on this one.

Ann had prepared some remarks, and I'm going to deliver those remarks for you today so that you can get a sense of what Ann's position is on Bill C-54. And I will certainly respond to any questions that come up from the Ontario context.

Before I begin the remarks specifically on Bill C-54—it should take me less than 10 minutes—I would like to take a moment to place them in the context of Ontario's current access and privacy scheme and the role of the information and privacy commissioner in her office.

As probably quite a number of you know, Ontario's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applies to all provincial government ministries and most provincial government agencies. There's also a second statute, the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which covers local governments across the province—municipalities, school boards, police forces, public utility commissions, and other local agencies.

The information and privacy commissioner is an officer of the legislative assembly, reporting to the house through the Speaker. She and her office have four broad statutory responsibilities.

First, we're the appeal body under both pieces of legislation, responsible for reviewing decisions by government organizations regarding access to general government records as well as access to your own personal information records.

These freedom of information responsibilities are somewhat similar to those of the federal information commissioner, although we act as an administrative tribunal with final and binding order-making powers on the freedom of information side of our business, in a sense combining the role played by the information commissioner's office and the role played by the Federal Court.

• 1550

Second, we're responsible for ensuring that government bodies comply with the privacy requirements of the acts. Obviously, this is the role that's most relevant to today's discussion, as is the next one—that is, that we're responsible for ensuring that members of the public understand their rights under the statutes as well as how to go about exercising those rights.

Lastly, we have a statutory mandate to comment on proposed government initiatives or legislation that have access and/or privacy implications. In this role, we believe we serve as an advocate for access and privacy more so than we do in some of the other parts of our business, given the tribunal nature of our responsibilities.

Returning to our second role, the acts create a system that protects the privacy of personal information and sets out rules that cover the way in which government organizations collect, retain, use, disclose and dispose of personal information. The scheme also provides a right of access to your own personal information and to correct inaccurate information in government-held records.

Both the provincial and municipal acts base their privacy protection rules on the widely acclaimed code of fair information practices. These fair information practices were developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, and are the basis for privacy legislation in most jurisdictions.

My purpose here today is to address the issue of the potential privacy implications of Bill C-54. In the context of our roles and responsibilities in Ontario, I'd like to share with you some of the issues that we feel should be addressed during consideration of the bill.

It's our view that Bill C-54 is an excellent first step in extending the protection of personal information held by organizations in the private sector. As you know, the vast majority of the broad public sector is already covered by corresponding federal or provincial legislation. However, it's only in Quebec that legislation extends to the private sector. Bill C-54 represents a new beginning at the federal level, and we commend it.

Canada has a long history of working to develop measures to protect the privacy of its citizens. The federal government is a signatory to the privacy guidelines developed by the OECD in 1980. The federal government also participated in the development of the Canadian Standards Association Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information, which forms much of the basis of Bill C-54.

The Ministry of Industry has noted that Bill C-54 forms an important part of the Canadian electronic commerce strategy, announced by the Prime Minister on September 22. In order to promote and encourage the development of electronic commerce, initiatives such as this legislation are greatly needed to establish the necessary degree of trust and consumer confidence that will be essential if on-line business is to become a mainstream part of commercial activity and daily life in Canada.

Canada is not alone in seeking to establish stronger measures to protect the personal information of its citizens. Indeed, it's incumbent on Canada to take the types of measures outlined in this legislation in order to address the European Union directive on the protection of personal data, which came into force in late October. The directive sets out rules to ensure that personal data is only transferred to countries outside the European Union when its continued protection is guaranteed so as to ensure that the high standards of protection introduced by the directive within the EU are not undermined.

It's important to note that while Bill C-54 has been perceived as a 21st century response to realities of electronic commerce, it is actually grounded in a core value that we, as Canadians, hold dear. We believe the protection of privacy is a fundamental human right that must be upheld by our governments.

However, as I touched on earlier, with the exception of the province of Quebec, privacy legislation only covers the public sector. It's right and proper to extend these protections to the private sector. Indeed, we urge the government to extend the coverage of the legislation beyond the currently envisioned limits to include all private sector activities, not just commercial activities.

We are aware of the concerns raised by some regarding the possible application of federal law to the provinces—challenging the constitutionality of such measures. However, we do not believe attention should be diverted to this issue. The focus should remain on the issues that are pivotal to this bill—namely, the need for privacy protection in the private sector. Let's not get caught up in a debate relating to an issue that will serve to shift our perspective away from where it properly belongs—how to protect our citizens' privacy.

We fully support the enactment of corresponding provincial legislation, harmonized wherever possible, and we've written to the Government of Ontario expressing this view and offering our assistance during the development of such legislation. We see this as a solution to any potential constitutional difficulties.

• 1555

It is also important to note that a number of businesses themselves have called for privacy legislation for the private sector, one example being the Canadian Direct Marketing Association. CDMA has called for clear rules through legislation to govern business practices. While the CDMA voluntarily subscribes to the CSA privacy code, roughly only 80% of its marketers are members, leaving a significant number who do not follow the CSA privacy code. Private sector legislation would solve this problem by creating a level playing field, with privacy protected across the board.

The general public is also very much in favour of strong protections for their privacy and the protection of their personal information. Surveys have consistently found that an overwhelming percentage of Canadians believe their personal information should be kept completely confidential, except in very special circumstances. I believe the most recent survey showed that approximately 80% of people were in this category. In response to these public concerns, many companies are developing and publicizing their own privacy codes.

As information becomes an increasingly valuable commodity, and technological developments enable inexpensive data-mining and facilitate easy access to all types of information about individuals, it's more important than ever to ensure that the personal information of Canadians is strongly protected through legislation.

Both the public and many in the business community are supportive of laws that clearly detail measures for the protection of personal information. Provided that organizations are all on a level playing field, no one group faces unfair burdens that could put them at a competitive disadvantage.

We recommend that the coverage of the law be expanded to include other groups in the private sector, such as non-governmental organizations, the not-for-profit community, and self-governing bodies and associations, regardless of whether they are involved in conducting commercial activities. A person's right to privacy should not depend on whether or not their personal information is being used for commercial purposes.

We're also supportive of the government's specific initiatives to adjust the legal framework for electronic commerce. Changing existing legislation to allow for the use of a secure electronic signature will go a long way towards furthering the goals of conducting on-line business with government and promoting the goals of electronic commerce in general.

We're very pleased to see that the role of the federal privacy commissioner will be expanded under Bill C-54. This will be much needed in order to perform the required functions. If and when our province introduces its own legislation, our agency will be ready to perform the comparable oversight function in Ontario.

We're also pleased to see that the proposed legislation gives the federal privacy commissioner a mandate to develop and conduct information programs to promote public understanding of privacy issues. Our agency has this role as a statutory mandate, and we know from experience that it's an extremely important one. Only informed citizens are able to truly understand and consent to activities involving their personal information.

This committee is engaged in highly important work, and we appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today.

In closing, I'd like to leave you with a request. In your deliberations, I ask members of the committee to not lose sight of the fundamental issue at the heart of this legislation—namely, the protection of privacy for all Canadians. It's not only important for the government to enact this type of legislation in order to satisfy European regulations regarding data transfers but it's also critically important, in the future world of electronic commerce and network communications, to ensure the public that individual privacy need not be compromised.

Only legislation adequately meets this challenge. Legislation that extends the protection of personal information to the private sector is the right thing to do for Canadians, and we in Ontario lend our support to both the government and this committee in making sure that Bill C-54 works.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Mitchinson.

We're now going to go to questions, beginning with Mr. Jaffer, please.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was interested in Mr. Flaherty's comment about the radical Ralph Klein. It's because of that radical Ralph Klein, it seems to me, that there's a mass exodus from that great socialist republic of British Columbia to the province of Alberta. But that's neither here nor there, Madam Chair.

• 1600

I would like to say, to begin with, that I've heard a lot about the differences you've outlined within the privacy protection legislation. One thing that concerns me—and I think it's been brought up as well with some of the provincial justice ministers—is with regard to the privacy legislation that's outlined in Bill C-54, if, first of all, it's in fact going to conflict with some of the provincial jurisdictions and the mandates of the provinces.

As well, specifically, because of the scope of Bill C-54, and the fact that it's trying to deal with such a big issue of Internet commerce and privacy in an increasingly global world, how do you in fact provincially fill in the gaps that maybe to some extent Bill C-54 will not be able to fill in, when it comes to consumer protection, when it comes to issues of medical records?

I'd like to hear your thoughts on those two areas, if I may.

Mr. David Flaherty: I'm obviously not in a position to talk with you about the constitutionality of Bill C-54, which is in part what you're asking about. Many of the provincial commissioners, including my colleague from Quebec, Paul-André Comeau, were fortunate to be here in early October, when we had a briefing from Justice and Industry Canada on these issues. We were reassured to learn from their lawyers that they weren't just taking a flyer with Bill C-54.

I've since gone and read this 1989 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that sets out the two parts of the trade and commerce power. To the extent that my opinion is worth anything, I think you have good reason to act on Bill C-54, to act federally on this matter.

In fact, that's tied in with the second part of your question. Many of the large American, foreign and Canadian companies operating in commercial business in this country are operating across the country. All you have to do is walk through the shopping centres across the country; the same stores are there, whether you're in Montreal or Vancouver or Victoria or Halifax. So there needs to be a national approach to this issue.

It's my view that in Bill C-54, by incorporating the Canadian Standards Association model privacy code, which was developed by the private sector over a period of years, in cooperation with Industry Canada, Justice, and even the office of the privacy commissioner, you have kind of a self-regulatory code. All you're effectively doing is taking this form of self-regulation and giving it the force of law, which is something I've been advocating for a long period of time.

There are still companies that only do business in British Columbia, for example, that don't move personal data for commercial purposes across the country. There are small operations that are local in character. But I also know that a magazine like Beautiful British Columbia Magazine, which you would have seen, moves data around the country. It rents lists through an American list broker. It has subscribers and consumers in Germany and France and the United Kingdom. People who come to British Columbia and who love it so much—I'm not from the tourist agency, by the way—want to have this magazine. So there's trade in personal data.

At the moment, a company like Beautiful B.C. Magazine is at risk of one of the national European privacy agencies, in any one of the 16 or 18 member nations, saying, sorry, but you can't move personal data back to your headquarters in British Columbia, because you do not have adequate or equivalent data protection legislation in British Columbia, never mind Canada as a whole.

My colleague, Colin Bennett, a professor at the University of Victoria, whom I hope you will have here to testify in due course, has just finished a series of case studies for the European Union as part of a research team from four countries. He actually has a series of case studies looking at the specifics of Canadian businesses trying to move data from Europe, in particular, having to do with airlines, banking, and companies like this magazine I'm talking about.

The Chair: I just want to make our witnesses aware that we're under five-minute time blocks for questions and answers, so if everyone could try to keep their questions and answers relatively brief, it would help things.

Last question, Mr. Jaffer.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: I was going to ask Mr. Mitchinson if he had a comment on that as well.

Mr. Tom Mitchinson: As to the question of whether one system is better than another system, or whether one system works or one system doesn't work, I don't think that's what it's all about, really. I think the system as designed in Bill C-54, assuming it's constitutionally valid, can probably work. I think the question is whether it's most effective for members of the public.

You identified the issue of health information. I think this is something we've experienced in Ontario, not fully regulating the health sector in Ontario. We are restricted to the ministries of health as opposed to the public hospitals.

I think what the public is looking for is a system they can understand. So if they are complaining about their personal information that's held in a provincial context, they're going in a certain direction, and they're not worrying about whether this is part of the federally regulated area or whether it's part of the provincially regulated area.

• 1605

I think it's compounded to some extent by the fact that although no one system is the right system—and the extent to which the ombudsman model federally works, I have no dispute with—when you introduce a common national system where you have different effective schemes at play, I think it does run the risk of creating some confusion.

Was that the type of thing you were getting at with your question?

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Yes. To put it simply, how can you bridge that somewhat relationship between the provincial jurisdictions, to some extent, and the direction they're going in with the national scope?

I think they've answered my questions.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Jaffer. Ms. Jennings, please.

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Thank you.

It's very insightful, listening to both of you. I have a couple of questions, though.

Mr. Mitchinson, you've said very clearly that you think Bill C-54 is definitely in the right direction. However, you seem to have some hesitancy as to the effectiveness of the legislation in the form it is now in because of the differences at the provincial level and at the federal level—those provinces that do have information and privacy commissioners who have order-making powers, for instance.

Are you suggesting that this should exist at the federal level?

Mr. Tom Mitchinson: No. I think maybe you're reading a little bit too much into that. We're very supportive of Bill C-54, and in fact quite supportive of the approach that's been taken, which David described as a bit of a kick to the provinces to get their act together on privacy.

While we will argue with our government that perhaps an Ontario-made solution might be preferable to what would otherwise be the case under Bill C-54, I don't want you to read into it that we would think nothing would be better than Bill C-54. Far from it. We would make Bill C-54 work, if that's the model that was left.

Does that clarify it a bit?

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Sure.

Mr. Flaherty, you talked about how, given that under this legislation the information and privacy commissioner at the federal level is going to have a very expanded role, you would hope that the government departments would recognize that in terms of increasing resources to that agency.

I'd like you to expand on that a little bit, because I think that's an issue that sometimes governments don't realize when they put into place new agencies, and sometimes set them up to fail by not providing them with adequate resources.

Mr. David Flaherty: I'm pleased that Mr. Phillips took me to a good lunch, because I now feel better about advocating a larger staff for him.

You can't do this kind of work without professional people working with you who become specialists in the various aspects of existence. In my office, where we have broad health responsibilities, we have a family and children area, health area, human resources, we call them, and the forest industry, which is more freedom of information. We have specialists in all of those things. They cross over. We mix them up. There's never only one person. We have specialists on the municipal government.

The federal privacy commissioner is going to have people who understand credit reporting well, understand banking well, understand telecommunications well, and understand retail better than we do right now. If you don't, you can't talk to the industries, and you have to understand it well enough to know how the system works. That's the sine qua non of doing privacy or data protection, which is what we're doing here.

He or his successor needs the kind of staffing that will allow that to happen, just as the provincial commissioners, if and when they acquire jurisdiction for Bill C-54, or some made-in-their-own-province solution—or their own territory, for that matter, because the existing territories have information and privacy commissioners—they will need additional people to do it.

We are not bureaucratic in character. I have 25 professional staff, 15 of whom are professionals. We do a thousand freedom of information inquiries per year. Cases are brought to us. We are driven by the freedom of information act. In fact, one of the reasons to keep the privacy commissioner separate from the information commissioner at the federal level is that those of us who are both are swamped by freedom of information issues, and we have trouble getting the privacy work done, never mind having short staff.

The Chair: Last question, please, Ms. Jennings.

• 1610

Ms. Marlene Jennings: To Mr. Mitchinson, you're suggesting that the coverage of the law be expanded to include other groups in the private sector who do not necessarily collect, use, retain, dispose of, etc., personal information for commercial purposes, such as NGOs, such as charitable organizations, and such as not-for-profit and self-governing bodies.

I'd like you to expand just briefly on that, because I would like Mr. Flaherty to address that issue of whether or not he also thinks the legislation should be expanded in order to cover this other sector.

Mr. Tom Mitchinson: Unlike freedom of information, which is really founded on the basis of public accountability and open government, privacy is universal in its application, as far as we're concerned. If you have privacy concerns about how organizations collect and use and dispose of your personal information, those concerns are equally valid, no matter who has that personal information.

So although Bill C-54 is brought in a commercial context, in the sense that it's about electronic commerce and facilitating access to electronic commerce, in our view the same basic values of privacy protection exist whether or not there's a commercial context to the information.

Mr. David Flaherty: The point I would make, Ms. Jennings, is that we need this bill. It's not a perfect bill. The original Privacy Act wasn't perfect. The federal freedom of information act wasn't perfect. My legislation isn't perfect. We need it, and I really don't want to spend a lot of time fine-tuning it.

There are some issues that can be dealt with by the provinces. It doesn't cover employee data. A major privacy issue within The Bay would be the privacy interests of the people who work there, the thousands of people across the country, or at T. Eaton's, or Equifax, or big insurance companies, or whoever it is. As far as I can see, that's not covered by this legislation, but it's an area where the provinces should act.

As Tom has said, this bill is a wake-up call. The provinces are meeting regularly with Justice and Industry Canada—in fact, they're meeting next week—on, “What are you going to do about it?” And I applaud Industry Canada on that kind of initiative, to try to make this thing work.

Mr. Tom Mitchinson: Could I just add one very brief comment to that?

One difference between the Ontario model and the B.C. model is that we do not cover self-regulating bodies, and David's jurisdiction does. We have more problems with that, because of the fact that people are operating under different rules, than David would have, where people are used to the rules. I think the extent to which there's some consistency just benefits everybody.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Go ahead, please, Madame Lalonde.

Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): I will resume where Mr. Mitchinson left off, saying that a problem arises when there are two sets of rules. That is one of the main problems that will come up in Quebec, that bitterly regrets that the process did not take into account Quebec legislation which, in its present application, covers all organizations, even those that are said to come under federal jurisdiction and that are subject to the Labour Code. The Supreme Court has already rendered a decision, that has been appealed, and we are awaiting a decision from the court of appeal, so as to know whether the provisions apply or not to things other than working conditions.

Over time, Bill C-54, that constitutes a second set of rules, weaker than those set out in Quebec's legislation—and I will give you numerous examples of that—will apply to a growing number of businesses and create serious problems, on top of weakening the protection provided overall.

What I have been saying since the beginning is that it is unacceptable for Quebeckers to see their rights diminished, especially since they were the first to venture onto this new ground that was, as you will recall, quite slippery when they first stepped upon it.

I would like to hear comments from both our witnesses.

Mr. David Flaherty: Please forgive me if I answer in English. I express myself more quickly in English than in French.

[English]

I had the privilege of being brought up in Quebec, and I have great admiration for the Quebec Civil Code, which gives Quebeckers explicit rights to privacy that don't exist in other parts of Canada. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not include the right to privacy.

• 1615

Mr. Phillips and I had the privilege, in 1991 or 1992, of trying to make the argument that privacy should be put into the charter—and Mrs. Finestone, I think, would support that—so that everybody could go to court in this country and argue for a general right to privacy, whatever he or she thinks it might be.

The Quebec legislation, which I much admire, is a product of the Quebec Civil Code. It's a response to the Quebec Civil Code, it's extremely progressive in North America, and I envy it, but at the same time, the Quebec commissioner works with the other Canadian commissioners at present, in a cooperative fashion—we have annual meetings, and lots of interaction—to make his legislation work and to work with us on common problems.

For example, we've been meeting regularly on the advisory council on the health infrastructure, an advisory council to Health Canada, which is due to report at the end of the month. Obviously, we have great concerns in that kind of privacy issue. We work cooperatively together, even though his bill is slightly different from my bill, from Tom Mitchinson's bill, or from Bill C-54.

There clearly are some issues to be worked out between Bill C-54 and the Quebec legislation. On the other hand, it's arguable that the federal government should regulate the federally regulated private sector, which is banks, transportation companies, radio companies, transportation and so forth. That's kind of plausible, to me. They're clearly industries and organizations, to use the language of Bill C-54, that are in operation across the country and all the territories. How you then take the clearly stronger provisions of the Quebec act and not have the protections for privacy rights in Quebec dragged down by Bill C-54 is a matter for cooperation. But the federal privacy commissioner is accustomed to working with Mr. Comeau on these issues, and I'm confident things can be worked out.

The Chair: Mr. Mitchinson, do you have any comments?

Mr. Tom Mitchinson: I think it's a valid point to make. What we have to not lose sight of, though, in this whole process, is that the success of these schemes is based on the attitudes of the participants in the schemes, not necessarily the enforcement processes. I think Mr. Comeau would support that view, with his experience in Quebec in regulating the private sector.

So although compromises always have to be made, I guess, in dealing with these seemingly, on some levels, incompatible schemes, I don't think it necessarily needs to compromise the overall success of the privacy business.

The Chair: Mr. Flaherty.

Mr. David Flaherty: I should have said, Madame Lalonde, that I have read the avis of the Commission d'accès à l'information in Québec, and I agree with it. It poses some very fundamental issues that need to be worked out.

Mr. Comeau was with me at the briefing from Industry Canada and Justice a month ago. We had an opportunity to ask questions, and we both did plenty of that. He has even more questions. I understand he's going to testify before you at some point, and he can make his own pitch.

The Chair: Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Exactly. In his avis, Mr. Comeau stated that the commission has quasi-judicial powers in the following situations:

a business refuses access to personal information to a person affected by this information;

a business refuses to respond to a request to correct information that is incorrect, incomplete or ambiguous;

a business disregards the request by a citizen that his or her name be removed from the list of names provided for purposes of commercial or philanthropic protection.

I have studied Bill C-54 and I will continue to do so. It is not only complex—and one understands that bills are complex—, but it is also confusing and has some serious deficiencies, notably relating to the two last points brought up by Mr. Comeau. There is no way of protecting a citizen if there is no cooperation on the part of the business. Past experience in Quebec however shows that overall 66 to 50 percent of complaints, depending on the year, are resolved through mediation, whereas the remainder are resolved by decision and the citizen is entitled to immediate compensation. I am not talking here about fines, but the citizen should have access to information and be able to have his or her name removed from a list. It seems to me that any citizen should be entitled to these rights and that these rights shouldn't be the exclusivity of Quebeckers. Similar forms of recourse should be available from one end of the country to the other.

[English]

Mr. David Flaherty: Madame Lalonde, I favour having regulatory power. I have regulatory power. In general, I've rarely had to use it.

When I tell a psychiatric hospital that their physical security for their records of out-patients is completely inadequate, they do what I tell them to do. Hospitals have reconstructed where they keep alcoholism and drug addiction records because I've recommended that they do it. I've never had to say to them, “You must do it”.

• 1620

I agree that I don't know what will happen with the private sector. We're doing a lot of outsourcing in British Columbia, despite the allegation that it's a socialist regime. IBM, ISM-BC, BC Tel, and MacDonald Dettwiler are all running very sensitive developmental programs for sensitive, personal, government databases. They have to comply with the Privacy Act.

My role is to tell them what that means. We have a checklist we put into the contracts: Here's what it means. And then I tell them: Here's what else it means. You have to prove to me, to demonstrate to me, why you, American Express Canada, or the Stentor group in Canada, think you are privacy-sensitive. Where's your privacy code? Where are your confidentiality agreements? What are your training programs for your employees?

They're all bellying up to the bar and trying to keep me happy, because they want to do business with the Government of British Columbia. So those are examples.

I visited MacDonald Dettwiler, which is an extraordinary company in the aerospace business, and it is doing a lot of linking to locational information. They're going to be running one of our major types of databases, BC OnLine. I spent Friday afternoon with them in Richmond, British Columbia, and they are extraordinarily sensitive to these issues already. They want to become even more sensitive.

The Canadian Standards Association has their western headquarters across the street from them, and they're going to work to an ISO 9000 certification, because they're already...on privacy, and your standard, that's already in Bill C-54. The president of the company said to me in public on Friday afternoon, at a seminar, that they also wish to learn to comply with Bill C-54.

So that's an example of a progressive company that wants to make business doing link-ups of various kinds of personal data, and they're getting ready for this legislation.

Mr. Tom Mitchinson: I think in our experience, where we do not have anything but fairly limited order-making authority in the fair information practices side of our privacy business, we do have order-making responsibility in appeals of decisions to deny access to personal information. I think we do have a fair bit of business in that field, so I think that might be perhaps distinct.

In our world of combining freedom of information and protection of privacy, we often think of requests for access to your own personal information being more like an FOI-type issue than we do about regulating fair information practices. I think that's where you may find some more difficulty in the value of persuasion, because we too have great success in persuading people to deal with their information management practices properly. But requesting your personal information is a different issue.

The Chair: Merci, Madame Lalonde. Mr. Murray, please.

Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Thank you.

I have just one question, and it relates directly to provincial privacy commissioners. Clause 25 of the bill would allow the Minister of Industry, with cabinet approval, to delegate to, as I understand it, essentially the federal privacy commissioner's provincial counterparts “any of the Commissioner's duties or powers under this Part” of the act.

I'm not clear on what that would involve. Is this saying, you know, absent a provincial act, that the minister would be able to delegate powers to a provincial authority, or is this almost a housekeeping thing to manage something easier? I'm assuming that during the consultation phase this was discussed with you as provincial authorities.

So that's what I'm asking. I'm just not clear what it means.

Mr. David Flaherty: Perhaps I can go first, Tom.

I think it's actually a wise recommendation to the Minister of Industry to tell the privacy commissioner you have to cooperate with these other people, but it won't come as any great surprise to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. We already meet regularly, semi-annually probably, on these kinds of issues. We finally use the Internet effectively to communicate with one another, including the territories and provinces.

We've already talked about the fact of getting ready for just Bill C-54, no matter what our provinces do. We should start getting together, perhaps as early as February, to start saying how we're going to deal with this stuff.

I think our view would be that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada will have difficulty, unless he has a sub-office in British Columbia, dealing with everything that happens out there. I've rarely seen an investigator of the privacy commissioner in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. There's one out there right now, but that's because we have problems with tonnes of material that was suppose to be shredded but wasn't.

• 1625

May I say that's the reality of privacy protection today? We're not dealing with the most sophisticated issues of electronic commerce. When you have a paper-shredding contract, you would think that people would actually do the shredding rather than shipping it to China to make paper out of it. I would think that even if the Province of British Columbia did nothing there would have to be co-operation between our respective offices, and the fact that the legislation says there should be co-operation is, from my point of view, a good thing.

Mr. Ian Murray: I read it as more than just that there should be co-operation. I read it as you, actually, in your position, having the powers of Mr. Phillips because the federal minister of industry has decided that you should. Maybe I'm misreading this, but that's the way it reads to me, and that raises further questions of whether you want the power or not and also whether you have the resources, therefore, to do whatever it is you are supposedly being asked to do. As I say, I may be misreading this entirely, but...

Mr. Tom Mitchinson: No, I think you're reading it accurately. My reading of it is that it's a companion piece to the provision which defaults to provincial coverage in three years if there's no equivalent. It has to go along with that in order to actually implement it. That would be my biggest fear in that circumstance. All of a sudden there would be this expectation of provincial privacy commissioners discharging those additional responsibilities, yet our funding source comes from the province, which would have no role to play. We would be in quite a pickle in that circumstance.

Mr. Ian Murray: Hence the need for us, as the federal government, to encourage the provinces to move quickly on this.

The Chair: Mr. Flaherty.

Mr. David Flaherty: Could I add that there is not a great history of devolution of federal obligations to the provinces, although I read the newspapers and I see what's going on with the social union talks at the moment? I would think that if a province had no privacy commissioner we could end up with people in those provinces having privacy rights in the commercial sector and none in the public sector, and I regret to say that three Canadian provinces don't—Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland—which is regrettable.

I have to believe that the ministers of justice, in the course of the next three or four years, are going to wake up and smell the roses in this regard. And I would think that the Province of British Columbia would be reluctant to see my successor saddled with federal responsibilities if, in fact, the province believes strongly that a lot of this is within provincial civil jurisdiction. This is where I am pleased that Andrew Petter, the minister responsible, as part of the consultation process, was quoted in interviews last week as saying that British Columbia needs privacy legislation for the private sector.

Mr. Ian Murray: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Murray. Mr. Jaffer.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: I just have one short question.

[Technical Difficulty—Editor] in fact in favour of this legislation. My question, though, is whether the legislation is in fact moving from a voluntary regime to a compulsory one. I'd like to hear that from you, Mr. Flaherty. You mentioned that in the role you have as a privacy commissioner in B.C., you have a decent relationship with various organizations, whereby you make suggestions and there has never been a real necessity to enforce anything. I would like to hear your comments. If there is no real problem as it stands currently, is there a real advantage in moving from that voluntary type of CSA code to a mandatory one?

Mr. David Flaherty: Absolutely. I do not believe that Canadians or residents of Canada should have privacy rights that are weaker than those of every member of the European Union or residents of Hong Kong. Hong Kong has a privacy commissioner with complete jurisdiction over the public and private sectors. We do a lot of business with Hong Kong from British Columbia. We have a lot of people who move back and forth. Why should people of Chinese extraction, of whom there are a lot in British Columbia, have lesser privacy rights than the people they left behind in Hong Kong?

At the end of the day, with all of the anxieties the public has about privacy as we enter the twenty-first century, they should have enforceable, legal rights to information privacy, which is what you're doing here. I believe you should also give us a more enhanced constitutional right to privacy by putting privacy in the charter of rights and freedoms, the way the Quebec charter has already done.

The Chair: Any comments?

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Just one follow-up question, out of curiosity, because I'm not familiar with how the privacy protection laws in Quebec have actually worked. You must obviously follow that. I'm curious. In your own opinion, has it helped the situation in Quebec? How many complaints have come forward? What's the situation there that you can reflect on?

Mr. David Flaherty: I think you'll really have to ask Mr. Comeau those questions when he appears before you.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Okay.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Jaffer.

Ms. Finestone, please. Do you have any questions?

• 1630

Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Yes, I do. Thank you very much.

I have a question for the chair first. Do we have a graph that describes the differences between the nine or ten provinces that have such legislation—and the territories—and a comparative analysis against the federal bill, Bill C-54?

The Chair: The only one that has privacy legislation that affects the private sector is Quebec; the other provinces don't have it right now. They're talking about the different legislation they have with regard to the public sector within their provinces.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: You're saying there's no privacy protection in any other province but Quebec?

The Chair: For the private sector.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: For the private sector.

I still think it might be a very good evaluative tool, Madam Chair, to have a design graph in front of us so we know that, because my next question to the chair was going to be to see the comparison between what Quebec has and what's in this federal piece of legislation.

My question goes to you, Mr. Flaherty, and you, Mr. Mitchinson. How are you going to handle the shopping about that's going to happen with corporations that may have offices across the country? It would seem to me that with the lack of concordance you're going to have a competitive environment.

Mr. David Flaherty: Basically, as Mr. Mitchinson has pointed out, everybody has fair information practices. The same fair information practices were invented in the early 1970s in Britain and the United States at the same time and, in an extraordinary process, have been copied around the world. Even Malaysia, Korea, Japan and Hong Kong all have the same fair information practices we have in Canada.

Most of the time, as the privacy commission, we don't spend our time looking at section 22.2 or clause 4.3.2 of the first schedule of the CSA code; we talk simple things, like consent and, in particular, transparency.

I've had a run-in with Safeway in British Columbia. I wanted to save 10% on my groceries when I went to buy—not drugs, thank God—laundry soap and things like that, and I didn't like what I would have to fill out to join the Safeway customer club. So on a particular morning, I took it upon myself to call Victoria, then Vancouver, then Calgary, and then I got a California operator who told me they had great privacy laws there, which I'm highly suspicious of. Eventually, I talked to public affairs in Calgary. The first thing they told me was that the customer data is stored in the headquarters computer of Safeway. Guess where? Salt Lake City. Now, that doesn't give me many enforceable legal rights. And unfortunately, Safeway doesn't operate in Quebec, where it would be caught up by the existing legislation.

And the argument I had for them is that they're not transparent with me, as a customer, when I want to join their club. Where is my data going to go and what legal recourse am I going to have and so forth?

Now, I can't resist mentioning a table, which will be somewhat unpopular with some of the people in this room. As part of my submission to the four-year review of our legislation in British Columbia, which is taking place at the moment, I prepared for our legislature a comparative table of the fair information practices in our B.C. act, in the European Union directive and in the CSA model code. It's about seven or eight pages. I'd be happy to leave it with you, especially for your staff to look at.

I still subscribe to the refrain of the former Prime Minister of Canada, who said, “You dance with the woman that brung ya.” As far as I'm concerned, I came in here with Bill C-54 and I'm happy to leave with it. I'm not trying to throw a monkey wrench in here, but I think it is worth comparing, given the fact that the first Privacy Act was enacted in the mid-1970s and has basically hardly changed in response to Open and Shut in 1987. It's like Parliament addresses these privacy issues every 25 years, and if by a little bit of fine-tuning by the committee and its staff, you can make some little bit better, then God bless you. I think you ought to do it, as long as we get this bill into law in the next six months or so. That's the need the privacy commissioners feel.

The Chair: Thank you. I'd appreciate that, Mr. Flaherty. The clerk will take that and copy it.

Mr. Mitchinson.

Mr. Tom Mitchinson: The only thing—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Before you answer, Mr. Mitchinson, and before I forget—it depends on the day and the age—to add to the list of evaluative undertakings which I would find necessary, I think we should add the European Union and the newest piece of work they've done, which would prevent business from coming to Canada if we don't make these changes that are important in Bill C-54.

The Chair: Mrs. Finestone, I know you've just joined us today. A number of papers have been distributed to the committee for background information. I have asked the researcher to inquire into what comparisons are already available and to perhaps undertake this as her January project in getting ready for our meetings in February. Okay?

• 1635

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you very much.

I still didn't get an answer about the problem with shopping around with concordance and the legislation. Perhaps, Mr. Mitchinson, you could answer that.

Mr. Tom Mitchinson: Yes, just very briefly, I'll say that I do feel the same way David does about the need for Bill C-54. I think some of the purpose behind the design of the three-year period before the extension to the provincial jurisdictions kicks in is for the very reason of trying to sort out some of these jurisdictional issues that go beyond simply the privacy element here. We're not the ones who designed the bill, but we feel confident that during that period of time we can sort things out and come up with the best national system.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Do you think that having the regulations and standards written outside of the bill, but in a regulatory part of the bill, is an effective way to work? Do you not believe it should be in legislation?

Mr. David Flaherty: I know there are trade reasons for putting the standards in as a schedule to the bill. It has to do with Canada's interrelationship with the United States under NAFTA and what American companies might try to do to us before the World Trade Organization. That's as far as my expertise goes on that issue.

Let me give you an example, since I know you felt I ducked your question initially. I think I may go into politics based on that skill.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: You'd be darn good at it. You know that, though.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. David Flaherty: Thank you.

Look at the credit reporting area, the credit information area. These are regulated provincially. All of us have credit reporting acts in our provinces. Long before I knew what the scope of Bill C-54 would be, I told our legislature that our credit reporting act needed to be looked at, whatever else may happen. I think the legislature of British Columbia and all the provinces and territories are going to have to decide what to do about credit reporting, but at the same time, there's one big national credit reporting company, Equifax—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Oh, yes.

Mr. David Flaherty: —and I think Equifax is quite good at looking after itself.

I will say to you that I did some work for them before I became commissioner, so I should put that on the record. I was starting to look at their fair information practices. I stopped when I became commissioner in British Columbia.

They're going to have to make some choices too. And they're quite capable of looking after themselves. This is not a mom-and-pop grocery store near my home in Victoria. This is a big powerful organization with a lot of commercial interests, and I think they're going to work it out with the federal commissioner and with the provincial and territorial commissioners as to how this is going to work. Plus, you have all these provincial legislatures that may want to sort of keep their jurisdiction over credit reporting.

The Chair: Ms. Finestone, last question, please.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Do I understand you to say, then, that it would be too rigid for this bill to carry standard rules and regulations for practices, that you need this as a statutory regulatory matter—the standards and the regulations?

Mr. David Flaherty: I think this is a question for Industry Canada and the Department of Justice. I'm satisfied with the questions I posed to them as to why the standard is in the schedule. It's very much like the British Data Protection Act, where the principles of fair information practice are in the schedule. This was Margaret Thatcher's famous 1984 Data Protection Act, which, by the way, has just been revised in response to the European directive.

So here we have Canada, which hasn't looked at the Privacy Act since 1975 except for some tinkering in the late 1980s, and we have the British act, which is only from 1984 and has just been revised to comply with the European directive. It may be a bigger task, actually, to take another look at the Privacy Act for the public sector and see whether that's strong enough, but that's not really what we're doing here today.

The Chair: Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Finestone.

[Translation]

Madame Lalonde, please.

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: The question that comes to my mind when I listen to you is this: why, in Canada, should we be content with less than the Quebec legislation? Let's improve the bill. Why not have a legislation just as strong in the first place?

We, in Quebec, do lots of trade with the United States and we also have very large businesses, including Equifax Canada Inc., Alcan and many others. I never heard that they have major problems. We trade with the United States and our legislation complies with the European Union directive.

I should say that since this bill has been introduced, I talked to a lot of people who have been active in the privacy area. Many were very surprised that the federal bill is not based on the Quebec legislation, which is already in place and which has already been tested. We could benefit from this experience, look at its strengths and its weaknesses. I agree that we need to deal with the coding issue, but why not?

• 1640

It is rather ironic that we find ourselves somehow being accused, while the issue is to write a bill that will protect Canadians.

[English]

Mr. David Flaherty: I have one simple response, Madame Lalonde, and that is, if you look at most areas of civil law, there is a difference between what Quebec does because of the Civil Code tradition and what we do in the other provinces and territories because of the common law tradition.

Now, at the end of the day, I would like, from a privacy point of view, to have the level rise rather than be diminished, so I'm with you on that point.

The Chair: Mr. Mitchinson, do you have any comments?

Mr. Tom Mitchinson: I just agree with David's comment. I think we just can't lose sight of the fact that there are different ways to be effective in protecting privacy. In Canada, in all of our meetings that we have all the time when we compare how we approach privacy protection, we've been used to trying to look at how different people handle the same issues in a different context successfully, and I just encourage people not to lose sight of that as we work through what is realistic.

[Translation]

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: I could repeat the example I gave yesterday of an Air Canada employee who insisted on getting access to her health file. She filed a complaint against Air Canada with the Access to Information Commissioner of Quebec. The High Court issued a decision that has been appealed. Contrary to what I said yesterday, I have not been able to obtain a copy of the decision of the appeal court. Air Canada refuses to provide the information the employee is seeking, although this large business is supposed to comply with these fair practices you talk about. This is a serious issue for individuals, citizens and consumers. Sometimes even large businesses cause problems.

So how about all the other SMEs who may not even have an idea of what it all means. We know the difficult situation they are in. As Mr. Pierret mentioned during the conference on electronic commerce, businesses have to do their part. They have the means to do so. But, at specific times, when the consumer needs support, the state has to step in. I think that in common law, it is...

The Chair: Please ask your question.

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: I would like to have your comments. Is it not possible to make the common law tradition evolve?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Flaherty.

Mr. David Flaherty: That's why, Madame Lalonde, Bill C-54 gives Canadians a right to access to their personal data in the commercial stream, just like our laws, provincially, give British Columbians an absolute right to their personal data held by government, by hospitals, by whatever. The kind of situation that has arisen in Quebec, where there's litigation taking place between Air Canada and the Commission d'accès à l'information is not unusual.

To the best of my knowledge, the data inspection board in Sweden has taken American Airlines to court in Sweden over the SABRE airline reservation system, a issue similar to what's happening with Air Canada here.

The Chair: Mr. Mitchinson.

Mr. Tom Mitchinson: You're describing the model in Quebec, which is probably closer to the model that David and I are used to working with in Ontario and British Columbia, so we're not supportive of the concept of that model working.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: You are not supportive?

Mr. Mitchinson: We are not supportive.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Okay.

Mr. Tom Mitchinson: It could work very well, but I think there are wrinkles in that model as well. There are models that work more effectively. In the Quebec model, things are going to court all the time for a final determination, whereas in Ontario things are kept out of the court for final determination. There are different wrinkles in it that we could talk about when you get into the fine-tuning of a particular model as well.

The Chair: Thank you. Merci, Madame Lalonde.

Mr. Lastewka, please.

Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, I want to thank the witnesses for their presentations and their Qs and As. I think it's important that we have a lot of discussion on this bill with stakeholders and people across the country.

• 1645

I think it's a bill that we don't need to rush. But as Mr. Flaherty mentioned, I think, we need to get it done and not delay it, because it's long overdue. I think Mrs. Finestone, who worked on this many years ago, sighed with a little bit of relief at the fact that finally we're getting to the point of making it happen.

I just want to go back to the discussion about strengthening the bill. Could you tell us what the areas are in which the CSA standard maybe should be modified to strengthen the protection of privacy?

The Chair: Mr. Flaherty.

Mr. David Flaherty: I was critical of the CSA standard when it was being finalized. I sent them some relatively technical points. They chose, in their wisdom, not to accept all of them. That's fine. It's a free country. Can I live with it? The standards are now nine pages, practically single-spaced. That's a lot of standards. That's more than we have in our British Columbia bill in the terms that spell out our fair information practices. I think it's quite detailed.

The academic in me would always like to make things perfect. I'm worried that if we start playing with the CSA standard, there are so many competing interests here that then we get the CSA unhappy. I would prefer to move forward with the bill the way it is, and then we—consumer groups and others—can continue to pressure the CSA on any particular area in which we find problems, just like you have a five-year review built into this legislation.

I'm in a kind of ironic situation to argue that five-year reviews are wonderful, because I helped do the five-year review for the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and the Mulroney government did nothing for us on freedom of information. They did a few things for us on privacy. So I'm a little skeptical of how well these four- or five-year reviews are going to work.

But you can take another look at how well this bill is working after a few years, and if the lack of regulatory power is causing real problems for the privacy interests of Canadians in those areas that are solely of federal jurisdiction...and we can also work with the CSA to make sure that the standards are up to scratch. That's my personal preference.

The Chair: Mr. Mitchinson.

Mr. Tom Mitchinson: This doesn't relate technically to the CSA standard, but there is an area within the bill which, from our experience, I think, could be improved, and that is the area of audit power. Right now, the audit power in the bill is reactive to the existence of a problem. We have found over the years that we are most effective in providing a consultative, co-operative role with government, and I don't see any reason why this would be different with industry if we are more proactive in the kind of work we do, in helping people without the context of a problem, in trying to design information management systems that would work most effectively.

We in Ontario don't have a specific audit authority within our act, and that causes us problems. We want it so that we can be proactive about the help that we do, like a risk management kind of audit function.

I do support David wholeheartedly on the issue of the five-year review. We had two three-year reviews in Ontario, and committees conducted very comprehensive reviews of both the provincial and the municipal statutes. Reports were made and no action was taken, and I would suggest that you take a look at your clause on the five-year review, or whatever period there is in here, and see if you would feel comfortable with expanding it to require a response from the government after a three- or four-year review, rather than just requiring the three-year review itself. That was an experience that we've had, which wasn't the best one in terms of reviewing legislation.

The Chair: Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: In the legislation there are areas of exception—culture, artistic and journalistic items. Do you have any comment on that?

Mr. Tom Mitchinson: That was part of the CSA process, which I was not directly involved with, so I'll defer to David on it.

Mr. David Flaherty: I agree with them.

The Chair: Last question, Mr. Lastewka, please.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Thank you.

Yesterday, we had Commissioner Phillips here. We asked him what he considered the single biggest threat to privacy. His answer was “ignorance”. I'd like to ask both of you that same question.

Mr. David Flaherty: I heard the answer yesterday and I knew the questions. I wondered overnight what I'd say if you asked me the question.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: There it is.

• 1650

Mr. David Flaherty: I think I'd want to put more high tech... Ignorance is clearly a problem: lack of sensitivity to one's privacy rights. People don't realize how important privacy is to the conduct of daily life, whether as individuals, as friends, as members of families, or as members of societies.

I think the sophisticated issues that are relevant to commercial information are things like data mining. The kind of software that has been developed, particularly by banks internationally, has an immense capacity to go through the digital footprints that we leave every day as we're going through our lives.

I teased Mr. Phillips as he drove into his parking garage at one of the big buildings around here. There was another digital footprint. And it was: it said he entered the parking garage at such-and-such a time. It's another form of surveillance.

Some data mining is done for beneficial purposes, but a lot of it is out of control. It's not transparent to us that it's happening and we have not consented to it. Consent, as shown in schedule 1 of your bill, in the CSA standards, is crucial to the privacy business. Many of us would be quite happy to have a great banking enterprise, take complete account of all of our “relationships” with it and tell us what we need more of in the way of home insurance or auto insurance or having a million bucks sitting around in your savings account—a problem that most of us don't have—not being properly invested.

But if I want that, I want to ask for it. I don't want to be the beneficiary of direct marketing or telemarketing or something else that I really don't want on the basis of data-mining algorithms that are essentially quite sophisticated. I think it's this problem of not knowing where you're getting approached from, whether it's a phone call, direct mail, or a bank suddenly displaying a great interest in your savings account and wanting to invest it for you without you ever asking. That's the kind of thing that bothers people and, in everybody who has commercial relationships in our society—and that's all of us—it arouses anxieties about privacy.

The Chair: Mr. Mitchinson? You've had a couple of minutes to think.

Mr. Tom Mitchinson: Yes. Building on Bruce's comment about ignorance, I think it's in the technological context: it's making sure that we are using technology to enhance privacy rights as opposed to running the risk of having a technology invade your privacy.

One of the real challenges we're facing in the next little while is the level of sophistication that is required in order to really understand that a fingerprint on a pad is one of the most privacy-invasive things that can happen but a finger scan into a biometrically encrypted database can be perhaps the most privacy-enhanced kind of technology you could have.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Lastewka, Madame Lalonde, and then Mr. Bellemare.

Madame Lalonde, please.

[Translation]

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Thank you. We have banks in Quebec and since bill 188 was passed, they are subject to even more stringent privacy rules. But they have accepted them and this has not been a problem. So I have to ask again: why be afraid of asking more? I don't think the explanation about our trading relationship with the United States holds water. If that was an issue, it would already have arisen in Quebec. Bernard Landry pays a great deal of attention to our trading relationships.

We are extremely concerned that the Quebec legislation will be weakened because we have every indication that this will indeed happen. You said that Bill C-54 is an improvement on the common law tradition but in fact it doesn't protect the rights of individuals as well as the Quebec law.

What concerns me, and this I felt even as the Minister made his presentation, is that this bill is aimed mostly at promoting electronic commerce. Indeed, this is what the title says: an Act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information. So, business is behind this. I don't need to repeat everything that has been said about the footprints we leave.

• 1655

I learned recently that when you buy something from a business that provides air miles premiums, all transactions are linked up and the data are used to establish marketing lists. Again, why not have greater requirements? The bill is vague and the rights are not clearly spelled out. If businesses object to a specific rule, they can easily go to court. I would have expected you to ask for more stringent requirements. I tell you this frankly, in all friendship.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Flaherty.

Mr. David Flaherty: If I could speak very briefly on this, there has been a ripple effect and benefit from the Quebec legislation on privacy right across the country. Quebec insurance companies sell across the country. I know that they don't want a different set of forms to collect information on a life insurance application form, so by the mere fact that Quebec has legislated, a person who wants to do business with Laurentian Bank or the Laurentian insurance company in Prince George, British Columbia, will have the benefit of the fact that the form has been approved by the Quebec privacy commissioner.

There will always be areas that are completely within provincial jurisdiction and affect the daily lives of many people. And the result of the Quebec law may very well be that Quebeckers will continue to have, even in the privacy of information or data protection field, better rights to privacy than I have in British Columbia. I would hope that by the time British Columbia acts within areas of primarily civil and provincial jurisdiction, they will rise to the Quebec standard. I will certainly encourage them in that fashion.

I regret to say that you and I can't rewrite the Canadian federal Constitution. And there's something called “areas of federal jurisdiction”.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yes.

Mr. David Flaherty: Airline companies, railways and banking are areas of federal jurisdiction, and it's up to the federal government, I guess, at the end of the day, to set the standards, which is what Bill C-54 does.

The Chair: Mr. Mitchinson.

Mr. Tom Mitchinson: When Quebec was expanding public sector access in privacy legislation to the private sector, it tried to model, as much as possible, on what it already had and was doing well with. And that certainly is the approach that we'll be taking in Ontario, where we have a model which is much more like the Quebec model than the federal model. We, too, would want to take what we have, which we think is a very good and very effective access and privacy scheme and argue why the privacy sides of that—as they are—can't be expanded to the private sector. So we're not at all at odds with your views.

The Chair: Mr. Flaherty.

Mr. David Flaherty: Could I say one more thing? I did a book in 1989, which was called Protecting Privacy in Surveillance Societies and deals with Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States. At the end of the day, I could be here saying to you, “Why don't we adopt the 1977 law of the Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés on l'informatique et des libertés? It's the French way of doing things—in this case, France rather than Quebec.

At the end of the day, it's a question of how well any law that incorporates fair information practices is incorporated, how it's brought into common parlance, as reflected in best practices of Equifax or the Royal Bank or the Sun Life Assurance Company.

And since all of these laws are based on fair information practices, there are not that many differences in practice. I would not be able to say to you that because of the French law in France they have stronger privacy rights or lesser privacy rights than Germans or Swedes or Scandinavians in general. I think the fact that Quebec is doing it in a different way reflects broad cultural differences.

[Translation]

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: This is why we would like to continue in this direction, and not be forced to change.

Mr. David Flaherty:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]... on this point.

The Chair: Thank you, Madame Lalonde.

Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): I would like us to have a look at section 4 of the bill.

[English]

This bill would not apply, in paragraph 4(2)(c),

to any organization in respect of personal information that the organization collects, uses or discloses for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes

I have some concerns about that. Maybe I'm misinterpreting something, but I'm afraid of, for example, newspaper people, an organization. Not just a newspaper person but a whole organization could be gathering data from any organization—it could be a commercial organization in this case—and then using it for their own purposes, which could be misused or “mal-used”.

• 1700

What are your views on this particular piece of the bill? Then I'll go to paragraph (b).

The Chair: Mr. Flaherty.

Mr. David Flaherty: It's been my view that—reflecting the words of Mr. Phillips yesterday—the charter of rights and freedoms supports a free press, and if journalists are collecting personal information for journalistic purposes, it should not be covered by our legislation.

But let us say that The Vancouver Sun decides to get into the database business of selling information commercially across the country, which they may very well be into. U.S.A. Today runs big databases of various sorts, information services that are not directly related to the work of publishing a newspaper communication. If a big journalistic enterprise is running databases, running information retrieval services or doing other things that are purely commercial, then, I would think, Bill C-54 should and would apply to them. But in the purely free-speech-publishing-a-newspaper business, with respect to collecting sources for writing newspapers, Bill C-54, in my opinion, wisely excludes that from the scope of the act.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Do you feel that it's very clear here? As a layman, I read this and I don't see that it is clear. I see that it could be an interpretive issue.

Mr. David Flaherty: I think, Monsieur Bellemare, that all of the words in all of our pieces of legislation are subject to potential interpretive disputes, and this will be no better or worse than any other type of language. I suspect you will have representatives of the Canadian Daily Newspaper Association before you in the months to come, and if they don't think this is specific enough, I'm sure they'd be quite happy to tell you.

However, having looked at journalistic exemptions in other pieces of data protection legislation, this seems to be a reasonable effort to address the problem.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I'm not clapping my hands because I was hoping for a different answer. I was thinking of where it could be done in an abusive yet legal way, whereby a journalist or a journalistic organization would gather data, not through accessible information that everyone can get, by going to the court, for example, and getting information that is public, getting documents that anyone has access to, but by going into commercial computer information or database information services, building up a case and then attacking someone in an article. Don't you see that there could be abuses there?

Mr. David Flaherty: Are you familiar with the fact that there are privacy tort acts in many of the western provinces? There is actually a privacy act in British Columbia—and probably in all the western provinces—a provincial act that is the tort of invasion of privacy, the civil wrong of invasion of privacy. If someone comes into your house when it is for sale under the guise of being a legitimate purchaser but is in fact a gossip columnist with a camera trying to take a picture of the inside of your house because you're Mick Jagger and you're incredibly wealthy and prominent, and does take pictures of your house, you would then attempt to sue this person, this alleged journalist, for invasion of privacy under the British Columbia privacy act, which is a tort act, completely different from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which I'm charged with administering.

We are dealing here with Bill C-54, and in the work that Mr. Mitchinson and my Quebec colleague and I do, we're dealing with data protection or information privacy. I have an article—and of course I personally believe that anything I've written should be paid attention to—coming out in a forthcoming book which argues that all privacy issues should be given to privacy commissioners. It's ridiculous that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has such a limited jurisdiction. If you're concerned with eavesdropping or peeping Toms or wiretapping, why can't you have one-stop shopping?

I think Mrs. Finestone's report of two or three years ago addressed privacy more broadly as a human right. And I would like her to think about—preferably after this particular Bill C-54 is law—seeing more done for the general protection of Canadians' privacy rights, including specifically the kinds of issues of invasion of privacy by the media that Mr. Bellemare is talking about. Looking at all the countries in the world, every advanced industrial society has this kind of legislation for privacy protection. None of them would be able to address the kind of issue you're talking about, the issue of malfeasance on the part of a journalist. You'd have to depend on the Civil Code in Quebec, on our provincial privacy acts, or on the common law privacy protection, which isn't much of a common law.

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare, your last question.

Mr. Mitchinson.

• 1705

Mr. Tom Mitchinson: I just have one comment in response to that. I think the last phrases in that clause are meant to address, to some extent, what you're concerned about, where the use, disclosure and collection is for another purpose, arguably not the purpose for which it was collected.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you.

The Chair: Before I go on to one last question from Madame Lalonde and Mr. Lastewka, I just want to pose something to both of you and bring it back to a provincial level. My understanding is—and I will assume this applies in British Columbia, as well, but I'm not sure—that in the Province of Ontario there are a couple of registries, which I'll refer to.

In particular, there is the land registry system, whereby my mortgage is recorded and, as a consumer, my mortgage is technically public record. However, as a consumer, I can guarantee that 95% of consumers don't realize their mortgage is public record. I'm a lawyer, so I'm aware of that.

I didn't know that my motor vehicle record was public record. My understanding is that the Province of Ontario is presently selling this information on lists with respect to when my mortgage comes up for renewal, with respect to things about the type of car I drive and how old it is. As a consumer, I personally find that offensive. It is an invasion of my privacy.

And I would think the majority of people in Ontario, that 95%-plus who don't realize their mortgage is public record to begin with, would find it offensive that the Province of Ontario is selling what they would consider very private information. I guarantee you that if you had a room of ten consumers, nine out of ten of them would not be willing to tell you what their mortgage information is, not being aware of the fact you can look it up at the registry office. Nine out of ten would consider that to be extremely private information—maybe ten out of ten.

Mr. Mitchinson, I throw that out to you because it's my understanding that now that it's available in electronic format it's being sold, very easily, and I'm a bit concerned.

Mr. Tom Mitchinson: I'll speak to the driver registration database, which is a publicly accessible database in Ontario. Over the years, we have tried to to put some structure around how the use of that information is handled in an electronic world. What we succeeded in doing is—not interfering with the one-off request for access to driver record information, which is a statutory right that people have access to—trying to limit, by contract, who can have access to bulk data out of the driver registration system and trying to limit what subsequent use they can make of that data.

That was as far as we were able to succeed in dealing with the use of the information, but it does control it, so that if a legitimate insurance company or a private investigation company should have access, for their own reasons, to the information from that source, they are at least controlled on the use they can make of that information subsequently.

But I think that personal information in electronic format, as all of us who are involved in this field know, is one of the major gaps in the legislative structures that we're required to administer, because, generally speaking, they were designed in a world that did not accommodate or did not reflect the massive growth in potential for electronic record use and disclosure that's happened since the legislation was in place.

The Chair: What I'm throwing out at you is this: is that considered to be public information under the public responsibility of the Province of Ontario or is this in the private sector responsibility? I consider the land registry system a government registry system, and government has control of that information, so how could that information be sold to the private sector?

Mr. Tom Mitchinson: As far as I know, what's happened with the land registry system in Ontario is a public-private partnership that was established through a company called TerraNet, which set up the land registration system. I'm unaware of the Government of Ontario selling a database of personal information drawn out of mortgage records on assessment rolls. Are you talking about the TerraNet partnership?

• 1710

The Chair: My understanding is that someone is making a lot of money on the sale of this information, so that, for example, when my mortgage comes up for renewal, I'll receive solicitations not only from my bank but from several banks, and I'll wonder why I'm getting them, because, as a consumer, I'm not aware that they have access to this information. I might just think it's timely. I personally find that offensive, and I'm assuming that as consumers a number of others would. That is an invasion of my privacy.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Is it covered in the new Bill C-54?

The Chair: No. To begin with, I'm trying to find out if they consider this provincial or federal. I consider it provincial, so technically, because the Province of Ontario doesn't have any...it has government laws, but is this provincial-private or is this provincial-public?

Mr. Tom Mitchinson: I think the sale of that data is not being done directly by the government. The sale of the data, if it's being done, would be done through the private sector arrangement they have, which is a contractual thing that should be controlled. I agree with you.

Mr. David Flaherty: My recommendation to you is that you complain to the Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

Voices: Oh, oh.

The Chair: In fact, Mr. Flaherty, I will be doing that.

Mr. David Flaherty: Oh, good. Please—

The Chair: I'm raising this because I want to get some clarity in this issue. I, as a lawyer, am very confused here. My understanding is that the Province of Ontario is making money, so whether they have an agreement with TerraNet or whether it's TerraNet that's making the money, it's something we need to resolve. I have been informed that the Province of Ontario is actually making a lot of money on the sale of private information—or what I would consider private. Maybe you don't or they don't consider it private. I shouldn't say “you”; you're not here on behalf of the government.

That being said, I'm just throwing that out there because I think it's a real issue as to what is provincial, what is federal, what is commercial, what is government and who is responsible.

And how did this happen? How did it go from being a registry system whereby you had to go and look up my mortgage? And nobody was going to do that for purposes of selling it to mortgage companies. No one was going to waste time and go down there. How did it go from that to putting it on the electronic system so that all of a sudden, en masse, everyone has access to my own—and everyone's—commercial records?

Mr. Tom Mitchinson: I think David has had adjudications on this. We have as well. We will deny access to electronic bulk data of personal information that is otherwise accessible on a one-off basis through a statutory right of access. We treat electronic personal information in bulk as a whole different product from a hard-copy single record. We have given as much direction as we can to the government through our adjudications—that this is our interpretation of it—but we have to be quite creative within our statute in order to do that.

The Chair: Mr. Flaherty.

Mr. David Flaherty: I'm not bothered by any sense of limitation in dealing with any publicly available data in British Columbia. In the last four or five years, I've been making strong efforts to make the practices of these databases transparent. I'll go back next week and find out what happens with our land registry, but I have one success story to recount to you.

We have a highly automated system of real estate assessment records for the entire province. For $10 you can go into a library and you can have an account. I found, after practice, that I could look up Mike Harcourt's name and find out what property he owned and where he lived. I did it for Vicki Gabereau once, just to entertain her on her show.

I found it unacceptable that this kind of automated database could be used as a locational device in British Columbia. I had very little support initially, but last spring, co-operatively with the B.C. assessment authority, we published a report on it. Jenny Kwan, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, took our recommendations and made them part of the Municipal Act, much to my surprise, although the practice would have improved just with what I was saying anyway, and now you cannot find on the automated database in the province any single person.

I live in Saanich. If you want to know what property I own you can go to the city hall and get my property record, but you can't pay $9 and find out where I live because I happen to own property. If you want to find out who owns my personal address—which I'm not going to give you at the moment—you could look it up and you could get the information. That is very important, not just for abused spouses but also for psychiatrists, police officers, some elected politicians, some privacy commissioners, and other people who have legitimate interests in not being found.

Now we're working on the personal property registry, which is even more significant. People have no idea that if they buy $1,000 worth of furniture from the Brick with no money down for 32 years they're in the personal property registry.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Is that where they are?

Mr. David Flaherty: Yes. They are in the personal property registry. So the battering spouse who wants one last lick at the woman who's just left the battered women's shelter can find that individual through a private detective, or, if they're smart enough or devious enough, through the personal property registry. That is not transparent. We're working on that literally right at this moment.

But as a male—I'm happy be called a feminist—I was surprised when I started this issue four years ago that I didn't even get as much support as I expected from the Ministry of Women's Equality, as it's called in British Columbia. Now things are improving in that domain.

That's an example of what privacy commissioners have to do on a proactive basis in this area of stuff that is totally within provincial jurisdiction.

The Chair: Thank you.

• 1715

Madame Lalonde, and then Mr. Lastewka.

[Translation]

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: I would like to finish by dealing with the very detailed directive on the European Union. I would still like the bill to be withdrawn in order to put in place a different and coordinated legislative process. If this bill, which purports to protect the rights of Canadians, were to be passed, it seems to me, on its face, that it would depart from the spirit of the European Union directive. Excuse me for mentioning once more the Quebec legislation, but it says that any personal information, whether it belongs to a citizen of France, of Japan or of the United States that transits through Quebec is entitled to the same protection and to the same rights. It seems to me that, at the minimum, the bill should do the same. However, I know that the European Union requires the protection to be effective and to be an enforceable right.

I am convinced that we need to discuss this further because in my reading of the bill it does not satisfy the requirements of the European Union.

[English]

Mr. David Flaherty: I'm going to hone my political skills, Madame Lalonde, in response to your questioning. If I'd done better in answering your questions, I wish I could get a doctorate after surviving this struggle with you.

[Translation]

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Thank you.

[English]

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. David Flaherty: But I haven't done well enough to get a doctorate, you see, that's the trouble.

I'd like to think that the Europeans regard Bill C-54 as a very progressive step forward. It will be up to them and the national data protection authorities in the 18 or 16 member countries, whatever the number is, to decide whether our legislation is adequate. As far as I know, they've regarded the Quebec legislation as adequate for the public and private sectors, which is quite good for Quebec.

My colleague, Professor Bennett, I understand, may testify before you. In his case studies and those of another three professors, an American, an Australian and a British one...they have done a set of studies at the European Union on all of the questions of adequacy from various countries, including Japan. They're supposed to be up on the European Union's web site this week. I'm not sure that they are, but that will be something for your staff to look at. And I would be happy to put them in touch with my colleague. I have the Canadian case studies with me, but I'm not at liberty to give them to you. If he appears before you, you can also ask him these kinds of questions.

[Translation]

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Mitchinson, do you have any comments?

Mr. Tom Mitchinson: I have nothing to add.

A voice: You don't want a degree?

Voices: Oh, oh.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Lalonde.

[English]

Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to be very brief.

With Canada legislating Bill C-54 and the fact that we have the Province of Quebec with its legislation—and hopefully the other provinces will quickly get into their legislation too—but with the U.S. taking the attitude of having everything on a volunteer basis, would this be a penalty to Canada? Will this be a competitive benefit to Canada? Or will it be neutral?

Mr. David Flaherty: I regard Bill C-54 as a tremendous competitive advantage for Canada in electronic commerce.

I also happen to be a historian of the United States. My first book was on the history of privacy in early America, believe it or not, and I've testified a number of times in the 1980s and early 1990s in the U.S. Congress on the inadequacies of American federal privacy protection.

I like pointing out that in the United States your video privacy rental records are protected by statute, whereas your health records are not, and they have no privacy commissioners. A lot of states have privacy laws, but no one is in charge of the shop.

I'm pleased that the European Union indicated this week that the effort by the United States to argue this safe harbours approach was not going to meet the European standards. In fact, a wag said, “Pearl Harbour was suppose to be a safe harbour too.” That points out some of the inadequacies of the American approach.

• 1720

I don't understand why the United States, which invented the legal constitutional right to privacy in the 1870s and 1880s and had the famous law review article on the right to privacy, by Warren and Brandeis, in the Harvard Law Review in 1890, doesn't get with the program on privacy and go along with European standards.

As an historian, although my work in is the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, I'll make a twentieth century comment. The United States has been accustomed to running the world for the last 50 years or so. I'm quite pleased, as a Canadian, that the European Union now has countervailing power to the point where they can say in the privacy field, “We want to have the European Union a nation of shopkeepers, but we also want a nation of shopkeepers that's very sympathetic to human rights, including personal privacy.”

I really don't understand why the American government doesn't get that point. I can tell you that with respect to the kinds of things we're saying to you here—and I regard myself as an academic in this regard—the American academics, of whom there are about five or six who made formal comments to the Department of Commerce on the safe harbours business, were as critical as I have been of the whole conception. I don't think self-regulation is going to work. I'm quite grateful that the European Union has provided a stimulus, to Canada in particular, to act in this area of protection of human rights.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Flaherty and Mr. Mitchinson, I want to thank you both for being here. Your colleague, Professor Bennett, has contacted the clerk. We don't have anything in writing yet, but we anticipate we'll be scheduling that meeting at some later date.

Just to clarify things for committee members, on Tuesday afternoon, we'll be meeting again with the public interest advocacy groups with regard to Bill C-54. In the morning, we have one final meeting on Y2K, municipalities, waste water sewage, and the retail council.

As well, just to clarify this for the record, we will be continuing our hearings on Bill C-54 in February and probably into March, depending on the number of witnesses we have before us. We intend to thoroughly review this bill and hear as many witnesses as we possibly can. Hopefully that will clarify the record: we're not going to rush the bill through.

I will thank our witnesses and adjourn the meeting.