Chair:	* Rick Kasper (Malahat-Juan de Fuca NDP)
Deputy Chair:	* John Weisbeck (Okanagan East L)
Members:	* Pietro Calendino (Burnaby North NDP) * Glen Clark (Vancouver-Kingsway NDP)    Gerard Janssen (Alberni NDP) * Steve Orcherton (Victoria-Hillside NDP) * Erda Walsh (Kootenay NDP)    George Abbott (Shuswap L)    Geoff Plant (Richmond-Steveston L) * Katherine Whittred (North Vancouver-Lonsdale L)
Clerk:	Craig James

* Denotes member present

[ Page 93 ]

The committee met at 3:56 p.m.

R. Kasper (Chair): I would like to call the committee to order. It should be noted that we don't have a quorum. But by consent of the committee, we'll just get started and define the items on the agenda that need a decision or vote by the committee, which would be deferred until we have a quorum.

I've circulated the agenda through the Clerk's office. Item No. 1 deals with a status report. I'll just go through this. John and myself, the Chair and Deputy Chair, as instructed by the committee, had put out a letter. The letter is attached for members' information. Included with the letter that's been circulated is a list of all the organizations that the letter was sent to.

I should also note that the committee authorized John and myself to submit an op-ed piece for the media and the daily papers. I know it was picked up by one in the Victoria area. I don't have an immediate update as to what other publications may have printed the op-ed piece, which was to encourage additional response from the public. So I'll just leave that aside; that's for information purposes.

We also contacted ISTA to see what information they may have had available in regard to polling. That information is available for the committee. There is a synopsis; it's a summary of the opinion surveys that have been done. The committee should note that Angus Reid surveyed in July 1998. There was an A.C. Neilsen poll done in the spring of 2000. There was another survey from 1992 done: "Privacy Revealed." Further, in 1995 there was an update to "Privacy Revealed." There seems to be a wide range of public opinion surveys and information gathered which clearly indicates that Canadians feel that they do have a concern -- that there is confidential information they would not like to see randomly used outside their own control.

That information is presented to the committee, because it was requested by the committee at a meeting some three weeks ago that we look at the issue of doing polling work. When John and I met, we felt that doing new polling wouldn't really change matters as far as the opinion of the public. I think that was confirmed in the discussions that were relayed through our research staff and Mr. Chris Norman's office in ISTA -- that perhaps there would be no real net gain or benefit or additional insight that the committee might gather from doing new polling.

Does anyone have any comment around the polling information that was. . . ?

[1600]

Most of these polls seem to point to the fact the Canadian public has concerns about privacy issues to do with technology and the Internet and with certain corporations that are in the habit of selling information which would otherwise be considered private. I'm not sure whether these polls really tell us that we should or should not go ahead with legislation.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. Chris Norman is here, if the members want to ask him about some of the information his ministry has gathered. Perhaps the members would like to ask that question -- an opinion -- directly of him. Again, I have to stress that it would be an opinion as to whether or not a detailed focus group would in fact benefit the committee.

I'll leave it up to members, if members would like him to come forward so that he can at least address those questions -- if that's okay.

P. Calendino: Well, since he's here, why not have him at the table?

R. Kasper (Chair): Chris, could you just say who you are and, for the record, what your position is.

C. Norman: My name is Chris Norman. I'm the director of corporate privacy and information access within the Information, Science and Technology Agency, which is the agency that has central agency responsibilities for the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

R. Kasper (Chair): Based on what you had heard. . . . I've given a brief overview as to the summary, not in great detail but just the work that has been made available through your ministry.

There's been a question raised by one of the committee members on the validity of focus groups and whether or not we should pursue this. I know that your office has been tracking the work of the committee, and we did, at our previous meetings, outline a number of options that the Chair and Deputy Chair could bring forward. We have not made a specific recommendation as the Chair and Deputy Chair, but we have brought forward some basic information to the committee for them to deliberate on.

I'll just turn it over to Pietro. Would you want to rephrase your question?

P. Calendino: Ask the question directly?

R. Kasper (Chair): Yes.

P. Calendino: Yeah, and maybe Glen can add to that.

The last time we discussed the issue, we realized that polls in general indicate that the public is concerned about what happens to their personal information. We have the case of the fellow last week. That's a very good example.

Our intent for the discussions here at the last meeting we had was whether this province should go ahead on its own with introducing legislation on privacy in the private sector or whether the federal legislation would be sufficient to cover concerns within the province. The idea of having focus groups or some other form of questions is to stimulate some interest in the public, maybe even challenge them on the issue of provincial legislation in the private sector.

C. Norman: I think the issue about trying to get focused input is one that. . . . I understand that the committee would want to try to get some kind of public feedback on that. I think one of the problems tends to be that the polls and any survey information to date -- and more and more of them are coming

[ Page 94 ]

[1605]

So yes, the situation would be that if the province purportedly, depending on the federal government's claim that they can in fact do this from a jurisdictional standpoint and cover the provinces. . . . But for the sake of argument, if they could, the difficulty with public input would be trying to provide enough information to them to explain what that would mean, what kind of coverage that would be and what kind of gaps would be left out and that kind of thing. We're not saying that's not doable.

But even for the experts there's a considerable amount of discussion amongst the provinces and with the federal government as to what exactly it would mean if C-6 was allowed to happen in your particular jurisdiction. Many of the jurisdictions have essentially looked at it and said: "We do know there are some significant gaps. For example, employee records would not be covered in private sector entities if C-6 were to cover you." Is that something that a province would find acceptable? That's tended to be where the discussion has focused.

Where some of the jurisdictions. . . . My understanding is, for example, that Ontario is looking very seriously at bringing in its own legislation because of those gaps -- not that the C-6 standard itself wouldn't be an acceptable one or that it's not a reasonable benchmark to set. It's more the mechanism of coverage.

G. Clark: But the issue's a little different. I mean, one of the challenges in polling is precisely what you mentioned -- that is, it's difficult to communicate the sort of base level of information before you ask the question. That's why it was suggested here in this committee that we look at a kind of focus group technique, because that's one where you can sit down with the representative samples and engage in a discussion, where you have some time to probe and question.

The reason why I think it's reasonably important is that we really get very little turnout at public meetings on this subject, for the reasons you mentioned. I think there's a generational difference, as well, in terms of understanding, because it is very complex. As a result, we're faced with very little public input -- some interest group input but very little public input to this committee. We have, I think, good intentions on both sides of the House to try to see if we can work on something. We have the ability to hire experts, and we have, of course, your and your organization's capable assistance.

But it seems to me that at some point it would be helpful, at least in some organized way, to see if we can't engage some public discussion, because first of all, I think it is a very important issue. Secondly, it is one where there's a variety of solutions you might come up with, some of which are more draconian or more regulatory than others.

I think one of the problems with this kind of issue -- in my experience, anyway -- is that if you sit here in sort of splendid isolation with all the good intentions, you work very hard at it and come up with a big piece of legislation, there are unintended consequences to that, because you haven't brought the circle wide enough. Or there are not fully understood consequences. So people. . . . It raises alarms.

[1610]

This polling really doesn't help us, because this polling just reflects what I think we all know as citizens and as politicians particularly: that the public's worried about security in the Internet, etc. We need to go to the next step and say: "Okay, we know you're worried. Here are some of things we're thinking about which may have some positive impacts in terms of protection. What do you think of that? Does that assist you in any way and alleviate some discomfort you might have in terms of privacy?" That's really the thought there.

I don't know. You've been doing some polling in your organization. You've been doing a bit of a road show on different issues, so maybe you might have some thoughts on it.

C. Norman: If a venue were established where you were able to provide the kind of information you're talking about, where in fact you could ask people specified questions and were able to give them the kind of background to provide you with focused input, I think that might be useful. My personal feeling is that it would be a challenge to construct a venue where in fact you would be able to provide the background necessary to get the kind of right mix of people -- I'm not saying it's not doable, but I think it would be a challenge -- and to facilitate a discussion where you were addressing certain things like. . . .

And again, I mean, these are some of the issues that are going to have to come up. Do you go for a justification standard, or do you go for the standard that exists in the public sector legislation? Do you ensure consent in certain situations? Do you go for a consistent-purpose model? What kind of oversight mechanism do you like? Do you like the ombudsman's model? Do you like another?

I'm not trying to throw up reasons not to. I'm simply indicating that those will be legitimate questions or legitimate recommendations that will be necessary. They'll certainly be things that the government will need to turn its mind to when it's addressing these kinds of issues. To get input from the public in a meaningful way, it will be a very challenging session to construct. That's not necessarily a reason not to do it.

[ Page 95 ]

For example, as I say, you look at the polling, and you ask people about credit cards and the Internet, and you get everybody saying: "Oh, we're really worried about it." Then the question would be: "Well, how far should the government go to try to regulate that?" These are not the kind of questions you pose, which I certainly acknowledge are the legitimate questions.

But the challenge -- in some ways, the challenge of politics and the challenge of these kinds of things -- is to actually simplify it and try to get some meaningful input even in a broad-brush way, so that when we're framing it, we know that the public is more or less prepared to tolerate the province regulating this area. It may be that the public would say, "Well, I'm very worried about it, but I don't trust the provincial government to do it," or "I don't want another agency to do it," or "If the federal government's going to do something, I'd trust them more," or "I don't trust them; I'd rather the province did it."

That kind of very crude, almost, public opinion, I think, would be helpful to me, because we do have some. . . . It would just help to guide us in terms of the options we might choose in terms of the real technical options which might be presented to us.

[1615]

C. Norman: I think the one thing that seems quite clear between Quebec's legislation and C-6 is that it has become a nationalistic debate. Both sides are indicating that their legislation is stronger than the other's, so that is ostensibly a reason that the Bloc québécois opposed C-6. My understanding of the Quebec legislation is that it's not, in the fundamental representation of the principles, fundamentally different from what C-6 would argue for. In other words, there are certain principles of collection, use and disclosure, certain principles of access and oversight and that kind of thing.

My understanding is that the federal government has already indicated that they would consider the Quebec act substantially similar. In other words, it would meet a substantially similar test. Quebec is in, so to speak.

Again, my understanding is that businesses operating in Quebec essentially have come back with a report card saying: "We've adapted. It's not the end of the world." And there are certain things in the provincial legislation which have been adapted to the Quebec situation without fundamentally altering the principles.

I guess the only issue in a real sense, if we accept the fact that C-6 has the ability to cover us. . . .

G. Clark: No, we don't accept that.

C. Norman: That's what I'm saying. If we were to accept that principle -- and I know the jury's certainly out on that. . . . If we do see the C-6 train coming down the track in roughly three years' time and if it does attempt to cover the province, it would be, I guess, to get back to the points earlier. . . . Is that train an acceptable train model? Would we accept some of the cars that weren't on that train?

G. Clark: That's a mixed metaphor, I think.

C. Norman: I'm famous for that.

That would be an acceptable model for the province, because I think one of the things is. . . . Non-legislation, unfortunately, is no longer an option. That battle has been fought and either won or lost, depending on your perspective.

G. Clark: The Quebec. . . .

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. Could I just get Katherine. . . ?

G. Clark: Oh, sorry, Katherine.

R. Kasper (Chair): Katherine is being very patient.

K. Whittred: Well, actually, I hadn't been waiting that long. I just want to sort of back up a little bit, I think, and suggest that the initial conversation we had about doing these different things was really the feeling that this committee had no idea what the public thinks. So our task was to try to come up with some things that were going to engage the public, in fact, so we could reach some of those points. Glen, I think, made a very good point about who the public trusts. Do they trust the province? Do they trust a business warehouse somewhere? Do they trust the feds? I mean, I don't know who they trust. We haven't heard from them.

I think we did have some discussion about the various organizations that are included under C-6, like the banks. We've had nothing from the banks. We don't know whether they think the legislation is good or bad or anything else. I think our task is still the same today as it was before. We need to come up with something that's going to engage the public in some sort of dialogue about their feelings about privacy. It may very well be that focus groups. . . . If this is a difficult thing to do, maybe that isn't a way to go. That was one thing that was put out.

I think that we've done a couple of things. I think your op-ed piece was good, but it was only picked up, as far as I know, by one paper. I don't know what else we can do. We're getting out there to conferences and so on. It's very interesting to me that the public is up in arms now about Jane Stewart keeping a longitudinal file on people regarding -- what is it? -- labour market stuff.

P. Calendino: She said she's destroying it.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): She's moving it to another drawer.

[ Page 96 ]

G. Clark: Exactly.

R. Kasper (Chair): When John and I met, we discussed what the options would be for doing the focus group. I'll have to admit to you that what we came up with as an alternate option is item 4 in our outline, which would be an expert witness forum. So it would accomplish two things: it would have experts there who could actually speak to the technical issues that Chris alluded to, and at the same time it would be an opportunity to at least gauge some public dialogue or feedback. Just to sort of lay out C-6 and then to try to garner opinion as to what we should do in British Columbia. . . .

[1620]

G. Clark: First of all, I think the expert witness forum is great; we should do that. But I don't think they're mutually exclusive. What I would recommend -- but it's up to you. . . . I would put out a request for proposals to six or seven of these major companies and see what we get back. If you said to Angus Reid: "Design a program that would let us accurately gauge the public on this very complex subject so it would be useful for our committee, and make a presentation to us or to the co-Chair, the Chair and Deputy Chair; it doesn't matter. . . ." I would suspect you'd have at least three or four of these major firms making a presentation to us. They would tell us how they would structure such a thing. We could reject it if we want, or we could accept it. Why not get them to do some work on how they would test public opinion? That's their business. It's not our business; it's their business.

Believe me, they do focus groups on everything nowadays, and they do polling on everything. My preference would be for this committee, in quite a formal way, to put out a request for proposals: here's what we need; here's what we'd like; tell us how you would do it and what you would charge us. Then you'll get different presentations from different polling firms, and you'll get different costs. Then the committee or a subcommittee can decide whether we're prepared to entertain such a public outreach.

Again, my only reason for doing this. . . . I guess the member for North Vancouver. . . .

R. Kasper (Chair): You can use first names; we're on a first-name basis here.

G. Clark: I think Katherine said it best. It would be nice to know what British Columbians think -- not what a few experts or academics think, but what the average British Columbian thinks on this very difficult subject, at least in broad-brush strokes, so that it would help guide our deliberations. By all means, I think this is an excellent idea, because at the end of the day the really tough technical points. . . . We need the information on that to canvass.

Just one last point, Rick. This jurisdictional question is one which is a bit academic for most British Columbians, I suspect. I think it should concern us. It's part of the age-old Canadian question of jurisdiction: interprovincial versus intraprovincial trade. I'm sure Quebec's motivation was largely driven by desire to protect their jurisdiction -- or at least not to cede their jurisdiction to the federal government. While I'm certainly not as theological about it as Quebec is, it seems to me that I wouldn't want to defer to the federal government on this important subject.

[1625]

It may be that future MLAs or governments of British Columbia or the people of British Columbia may decide that this is an appropriate area for federal jurisdiction. I may even come to that conclusion some day because of the difficulty of regulating e-commerce. When I look ahead 20 or 30 years at a small jurisdiction like British Columbia, maybe there isn't a huge role for British Columbia. It may even be an international role as opposed to a subnational or even national role.

These are questions which I think are legitimate ones, and then may become increasingly important. I just don't think that the British Columbia government or this committee, today or in the near future, should cede the jurisdiction without that broader discussion of what the implications are. I think it's really important that this committee arrive at legislation, even if at the end of the day we only largely mirror the federal government's Bill C-6.

K. Whittred: I just wanted to follow up on one other area where I think there really has to be clarification -- that is, between the various provincial governments, which all have their own. . . . I think most provinces have their own freedom-of-information act that governs provincial bodies. Is that correct? Something that came out loud and clear in the various conferences that I was at was that those legislations differ quite widely. Therefore there are gaps, in some cases, between what the federal and provincial legislation cover.

This is one of the reasons that in Ontario, for example, there was such a huge outcry about the various health institutions. I don't believe that is a problem in British Columbia. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that our provincial legislation covers those various health institutions that were questionable in Ontario. I think that too has to be part of the dialogue. You do get into sort of grey areas, particularly in the areas of health care and education and so on, about what is public and what is private in some cases.

R. Kasper (Chair): Glen, I'm assuming you're going to make a motion to give direction for the committee to instruct the Clerk's office. . . .

[ Page 97 ]

R. Kasper (Chair): Well, it was only to look at the feasibility and to come back with some options.

G. Clark: It's really the same thing. My only suggestion was that rather than us making a decision, why don't we ask the major polling companies to make a pitch to us?

P. Calendino: In an RFP.

G. Clark: Either you can do an RFP or you can informally ask them to propose to us what they would recommend.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. I'll just ask the Clerk's office to give a brief explanation as to what was done with the Agriculture Committee. I understand there was a process engaged there.

C. James: What we can do in this case is. . . . Of course, Mr. Clark is right in relation to what the committee decided at its last meeting in respect of polling. What we can do is actually put together a very brief letter from the Chair and Deputy Chair requesting some ideas, including costs, in relation to polling on this issue in British Columbia. Maybe what we'll do is draft the letter. Then members can have a quick look at it as well, just to ensure that it encapsulates all the issues that they would like to see the firms respond to. Then we can send it off in a timely way and try to get something back within a couple of weeks.

G. Clark: One thing I'd just say. . . . I don't have any desire to read the letter, Craig. Go ahead and do whatever you want. I think we should make it fairly formal, not like, "Give us your ideas," but "Make a proposal to us." Make them give us. . . . Some of them may say: "I'm sorry, we're very busy. We choose not to do it at this time." I'd like to see some people making proposals to us that are fairly substantial so we can maybe short-circuit another step down the road. I think that if these people are in the business of making pitches all the time, they may make a very interesting proposal to us which we might immediately all agree with and carry on.

[1630]

G. Clark: Or reject. In some of them, we may decide that they're so elaborate and expensive that they're not acceptable.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): I'm still not clear on what we want to do with this poll. Are we looking for. . . ?

R. Kasper (Chair): I think there's a mistake here. It's not a poll; it's a focus group.

G. Clark: They may recommend both. Again, it's more broad-brush principles of what they want us to do. As I said earlier, if they come back and say, "We don't think the province should do anything about this, but we want the federal government to do something," then that would be useful to us, it seems to me.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): I guess my concern here is: does the public have enough information to formulate an opinion?

G. Clark: Well, they don't. That's why I think a poll would be difficult, except maybe in some. . . . There might be some ways of constructing it; I don't know. But I think a focus group. . . . Let's face it; polling companies pay people to engage in focus groups as well. If it's a complex area they may pay 12 representative people to come and spend four hours really engaging in a subject. That's not uncommon either. It's done routinely. So it's a matter of trying to get representative British Columbians to give us a bit more of a commonsense perspective, rather than an expert perspective.

R. Kasper (Chair): I just want to get it straight, because as far as. . . . We've got a quorum here, and the direction I want given to myself as the Chair and to the Deputy Chair is that a letter be sent to representative firms to specifically request a proposal on how we can either do a poll that is very specific. . . .

G. Clark: I was with you right up to there. Then I'd say: "Make a proposal on how this committee could best test public opinion in this very complex area." Then let them come up with what they might come. . . . They might say: "It's too complex for a poll, so we should do some focus groups. We have to do one in Kelowna and one in Vancouver and one in the north and one on the Island." They'll make a proposal to us.

R. Kasper (Chair): Chris, you wanted to add something or perhaps give us a view.

C. Norman: Could I just make a suggestion? I would suggest that a poll right now would be difficult to construct and get meaningful input on, because I think in essence what you're going to get is essentially what you've got already. You're going to ask people if they're concerned, and they're going to say yes. I think we're pretty sure about that view.

The idea of a focus group, I think, could have some real benefit, particularly if we gave those who are providing proposals some fairly good idea of the kinds of issues that they're going to be grappling with and the kinds of issues that we'd want to get some kind of an opinion about. So if, in the issuance of an invitation, we're quite specific about what we're looking for and the kinds of things we're trying to gauge and the kind of dialogue we're trying to stimulate. . . . I think to some extent the advantage of a focus group would be to stimulate dialogue and to educate people in the process, so that by the end of the process they're giving you information which is in a context that's useful to you.

Then I think we'll get potentially more meaningful proposals back from the polling companies or whatever companies would bite at this. To say, "I think I could construct something like this," which might get you part of the way there. . . . If at the end of that one of the results was that you had some specific questions you wanted to poll on. . .

G. Clark: Right, then you might. . . .

C. Norman: . . .then you could go to a second phase and perhaps follow up on that. Maybe the phasing will help us find our way along this process.

[ Page 98 ]

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. So is everybody in agreement with that? Okay. Then would everybody agree that the Chair and the Deputy Chair do that? Is there any need for the Chair and the Deputy Chair to come back to the committee?

G. Clark: No. Two things I'd say. . . .

R. Kasper (Chair): Yes.

G. Clark: One is that we should take advantage of ISTA, in terms of. . . . I agree; the more substance there is in their request for proposals, the more likely it is that it will be helpful to us. So you might want to get them to help draft it.

The second thing is that I think, if you're writing a letter, you should send it as broadly as you can -- you know? That means polling firms, like Judy Kirk. I think she used to be in the Liberal caucus. I think she does public consultation processes. Geoff Meggs used to work for me. I think he does that; I'm not sure. I'm just using. . . .

R. Kasper (Chair): A wide range.

[1635]

R. Kasper (Chair): It's agreeable, then, to all members, that if the offices of ISTA are available to assist the committee in preparing. . . .

G. Clark: Yeah. Go for it.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. So everybody agrees to that. Great.

G. Clark: Good.

R. Kasper (Chair): So it's by general consent. Our next item would be dealing with these time lines.

Interjections.

R. Kasper (Chair): Well, just hold on, Chris, because I think what I'm going to do is defer time lines and go to our next item -- which was 3, dealing with ISTA briefings -- while Chris is here. What John and I felt would. . . . If necessary for the committee, topics could include dealing with principles, types of oversight mechanisms, common definitions, coverage and issues in health information.

I know, Katherine, that that is a concern or an area that you had raised in regard to health information. It was something that you picked up on when we were in Toronto at the conference in December. John and I felt that it was important to at least re-establish a dialogue with ISTA. If members have areas that they would specifically like ISTA to give an additional overview or briefings on, covering these categories -- i.e., C-6 and elements of C-6 that do not specifically cover the province even three years down the road -- then we should at least take advantage of that. Or we could leave it up to the committee to specifically request which areas they would like us to have a briefing from ISTA on. Do you follow me?

Some Voices: Yes.

G. Clark: Could I just ask Chris one question? I haven't studied C-6 in any great detail. Is it purported by the federal government -- anyway, I'm asking an opinion now -- that Bill C-6 will cover the provinces? When it says that, does it mean heretofore areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction? Let me give you an example -- I think it's an example: credit unions. Banks are covered by C-6. Credit unions are provincially regulated institutions, solely intraprovincial. Is it the federal government's view that if the province of British Columbia passes no substantial companion legislation, C-6 will then cover credit unions? Or is it simply that they will cover banks in British Columbia?

C. Norman: They purport to initially cover all federally regulated bodies, which would include banks -- say, chartered banks. What they purport to do in three years' time and in the interim period would be to cover any interprovincial trade in personal information. Once the three-year period is up, they purport that they will cover things like credit unions within the province -- within provincial jurisdiction.

To make matters worse, the potential scenario you would face is that you would have a bank on one side of the street which would be covered as a federal organization, which would include everything in the bank. The trust company or credit union across the street would be covered -- everything up to but not including any employee information in that entity, because there would be no. . . . There's kind of a hole in the net, in C-6, that would not cover the employee information.

G. Clark: Because it's provincial jurisdiction -- labour law is provincial jurisdiction.

C. Norman: Yes. So you'd have, in a sense, the worst of all worlds, where you'd have. . . . Well, I guess that's a value judgment. You'd certainly have an awkward situation where you'd have employees on one side of the street having a set of rights in play and others not having that set of rights.

If I could just add, in relation to the briefings, one of the things we spoke about with the researcher is that these would be very targeted briefings. They'd be very short. In essence, we might do one or two a meeting, and they would be very short, to-the-point kinds of pieces.

Another area that was brought up, which would be of interest -- whether we would do this ourselves or kind of help to broker it for you -- would be to get some information on some of the technical issues, like: what is encryption? How does PKI work? You know, in fairly layperson's terms to say we know encryption; we kind of know how it works. But what does it really mean? We would try to broker those if we weren't going to deliver those ourselves.

G. Clark: Would it be the idea to give us, in a fairly simple way, the area that C-6 purports to cover in British Columbia and, more importantly, the areas it does not cover?

[ Page 99 ]

[1640]

G. Clark: Okay. I think that would be quite useful, including areas that. . . . If we assume that their interpretation of the constitution is correct and that they can cover areas of provincial jurisdiction by virtue of e-commerce, what would then come under their interpretation? And what would still be left out?

C. Norman: We would attempt to do that. The only caveat I must put on that is that the jury still seems to be somewhat out, even amongst Industry Canada experts, as to exactly how it's all going to shake out. They have made what they think is the broadest brush possible with the view of covering as much as they can, but there are still some of these grey areas where you're not really sure where private and public start and end; you're not really sure about where provincial, federal or international may start and end. There's still a fair bit of grey there.

G. Clark: Do we have any legal opinions from the province's perspective, or from the Attorney General ministry, about whether or not they have the power to move in on, say, credit unions?

C. Norman: My understanding is that there is a legal opinion which says that it's certainly arguable and suggests that there would be grounds to contest it.

G. Clark: So they probably can't, in other words.

C. Norman: Pardon?

G. Clark: They probably cannot, or. . . .

C. Norman: Industry Canada is equally adamant that they can. Our legal opinion suggests that we would have grounds to at least contest it. But. . . .

G. Clark: That would be another interesting area, maybe, for a quick briefing.

C. Norman: We have. . . . You made a point earlier about sort of not ceding the jurisdiction. If I could just remind the committee that our former minister, Andrew Petter, did send a letter to the federal minister of Industry Canada indicating that he was directionally supportive but did not cede the jurisdictional issue and that we would look instead at formulating a B.C. response to this.

R. Kasper (Chair): Does everybody agree with that approach? The proposed schedule says: Mondays, June 12, June 19 and June 26. That's when it would start.

G. Clark: Is the House going to be sitting on the 26th?

P. Calendino: At the same time? Yeah, that's a big question, isn't it?

G. Clark: If it's not, I won't be here.

E. Walsh: I'm still waiting, because on the 12th there might be a conflicting select standing committee meeting -- maybe. I'm just waiting to hear back from the Clerk's office.

R. Kasper (Chair): Well, you may want to tell that committee that this is a priority.

E. Walsh: No.

P. Calendino: As long as we have a majority, a quorum.

G. Clark: Yeah, that's fine.

R. Kasper (Chair): But, you know, I'm sure we'll deal with that. But at least we have to give Chris's office some guidance as to when we would like them to come. I'm suggesting June 12, 19 and 26.

G. Clark: That sounds good.

C. Norman: We're flexible. We can adjust.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. Is there any more discussion on that one? So it's agreed, general consent, that we're going to receive ISTA briefings. For any other items that members may want ISTA to present to us, contact Chris -- okay?

P. Calendino: Can I mention one of them in this briefing?

R. Kasper (Chair): Yes, go ahead.

P. Calendino: Would the coverage include direct marketers? When we were in Ottawa, there was a presentation by direct marketers, and I'm not sure if I got the message right, but they feel that they have an exemption from Bill C-6. It sounded to me from the presentation that it was business as usual for them.

K. Whittred: Yes, you're right. But I'm just searching my memory for the reasons why, and I don't recall.

G. Clark: Maybe ISTA could find out.

C. Norman: I don't believe that they do, but we'll certainly check that.

R. Kasper (Chair): Noting the time, we still have two areas that we have to deal with.

G. Clark: Thanks, Chris.

R. Kasper (Chair): Thank you very much, Chris.

Time lines -- now, perhaps it would be premature to deal with the time line issue. I only mention this because, first of all, we don't know what sort of response we're going to receive from the letter that was sent by John and myself to the groups and organizations; I don't know. There are some 40 or 50.

P. Calendino: Did it go out already?

R. Kasper (Chair): Yes, this has already gone out.

[ Page 100 ]

R. Kasper (Chair): Well, we don't know.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): Yeah, they're just lining up at the door.

R. Kasper (Chair): We don't know what that would entail.

P. Calendino: They haven't checked the mailbox.

R. Kasper (Chair): Secondly, under item 4, if we get some general consent from the committee in regard to an expert witness forum -- I hope people have read -- this is an idea that is another way to help stimulate public opinion, which the committee had instructed John and I to pursue or look at options.

[1645]

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. Yes.

P. Calendino: I look at the people you have there, and I notice the exclusion of experts from Simon Fraser. There is a number of ethics experts at Simon Fraser, and UBC has ethics experts as well. I'd like you to consider including Simon Fraser.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay.

P. Calendino: Now, as an expert witness forum, I wonder if we could consider having forums for university students in the universities. These are the people that really can come up with superlative ideas, and they take the matter seriously when they do engage in those debates. Many of them probably engage in these debates in their own classes. It's obviously additional to this thing. They're not experts, but we're looking at the public's opinion more than expert opinion, and I think that would a valuable thing to do. You can get in touch with the alma mater societies of each school to see if they would collaborate in organizing a forum on this issue.

R. Kasper (Chair): Right.

G. Clark: Good luck. It's worth a try.

R. Kasper (Chair): The only thing is that if we did that, I think it would be pushed into September. I don't know if that poses a problem for members or not.

G. Clark: Well, September's better than July.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): Yeah.

P. Calendino: I don't think you can hold student forums in the summer anyway, because the population in the universities is very scant.

R. Kasper (Chair): That's true.

G. Clark: This raises an interesting question. I'm just looking at your notes here. You're suggesting that it be held Monday, July 3, 10 or 17. I don't have any objection to that, and I certainly will try to attend. It's just that it's more difficult to get members to attend if the House is not sitting. You know, members may be with their families.

R. Kasper (Chair): We agree with that. This was done on the basis of if the House is sitting -- based on past practice of the House, that's all.

P. Calendino: Tentative.

G. Clark: Yeah. But you may also. . . . Because it's quite an ambitious undertaking, my guess is that it's going to take some time to organize.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): I'd look more for the fall.

G. Clark: I just think you're not going to get them to come in July either, so you're looking at September.

R. Kasper (Chair): So you're suggesting that we should shoot for mid-September.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): Uh-huh, absolutely.

R. Kasper (Chair): But as far as the format. . .

G. Clark: It's a great idea, perfect.

R. Kasper (Chair): . . .we should pursue it.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. So it's agreed by general consent that we are going to pursue this and that our time line as far as when it would it occur would be mid-September -- okay?

P. Calendino: And do add SFU there.

R. Kasper (Chair): Yes, it's noted.

G. Clark: Or SFU downtown.

R. Kasper (Chair): All right. The only other thing I would ask that we not deal with today is the overall issue of time lines: when the committee is going to report out or attempt to report out. If I had my druthers, it would be much sooner than later. I think it would be premature for us to actually select a date. But I would hope that if we could get something done in the fall, if the House is going to reconvene in the fall, then that would be an opportunity for the committee to report out -- in the fall. If the House is not sitting in the fall, and if the committee feels confident enough to complete its work and to file a report, it could still do so with the Clerk's office, and we would have fulfilled our mandate.

G. Clark: Sure, the House will be sitting in the fall.

R. Kasper (Chair): Well, somebody said it was going to sit in the fall, but. . . .

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): Yeah, can we push on that?

[ Page 101 ]

P. Calendino: You're hearing things.

R. Kasper (Chair): Can I have a motion to adjourn? I want to thank members for their patience.

The committee adjourned at 4:49 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada