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)
Clerks:	Craig James Kate Ryan-Lloyd
* denotes member present

[ Page 65 ]

The committee met at 1:04 p.m.

R. Kasper (Chair): I'd like to say good afternoon. My name is Rick Kasper. I'm the Chair of the Special Committee on Information Privacy in the Private Sector. I'd like to begin by making a few opening remarks about the mandate of the committee.

This committee was established by the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia to inquire into the possibility of regulating privacy protection for personal information held by organizations in the private sector. One major recommendation of the Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which reported in June 1999, was that a committee of the Legislature undertake such an inquiry. This committee is a result of that recommendation. 

[1305]

Some of the questions that the committee is addressing are as follows. What are the responsibilities of private sector enterprises in the use of individuals' personal information? How do new information technologies, such as those used in e-commerce and data mining, impact private sector use of personal information? What form of regulation is most appropriate: self-regulation through organizational or sectoral codes, or legislation? What type of oversight mechanism is necessary to enforce the protection of personal information collected, used and disclosed by the private sector organizations?

These are just some of the issues that the committee would like you to address in speaking today. For more information, see the discussion paper that has been widely circulated, "Protecting Personal Privacy in the Private Sector." That discussion paper, which was referred to the committee for consideration by the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, provides additional questions for your consideration.

I'd now like to introduce committee members present. On my far left is George Abbott, then Katherine Whittred and John Weisbeck, and we have our researcher, Wynne MacAlpine. On my right is Pietro Calendino.

Our first presenter here is Murray Rankin of Arvay Finlay, barristers, if you could come forward. Is Marlene Speers with you also?

M. Rankin: That is correct.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. If she could come forward. . . . We're fairly informal here. What we'll allow is ten or 15 minutes or as long as you see fit to make your presentation. Then the committee members may have some questions. I understand that your submission deals with. . . . Is it Equifax Canada? And you're representing them or speaking on their behalf.

M. Rankin: That is correct.

R. Kasper (Chair): I'll now turn it over to you, Mr. Rankin.

M. Rankin: Thank you very much, Mr. Kasper. And thank you to the committee for giving us the opportunity to appear before you. Appearing with me is Ms. Marlene Speers, who is the regional vice-president, western Canada, for Equifax Canada. I have provided the committee with a five-page written submission, and I believe that the Committee Clerk has already distributed it to the members.

R. Kasper (Chair): We haven't had a chance to read it.

M. Rankin: No, quite understandably so. What I'd like to do, Mr. Kasper, is simply highlight some of the key points that we hope we've made within those five pages. I'll speak to the document, but as I say, I'll try to merely highlight the major points.

Equifax Canada may not be known to all members. It is Canada's largest credit reporting agency, collecting and storing credit information on some 19 million Canadian consumers. This information is disseminated in accordance with provincial laws to its members, which include, of course, credit card issuers, financial institutions, major merchants and agencies of government. In the last year, for example, 28 million such reports were issued.

Here in B.C., I'm informed by Ms. Speers that in the Burnaby office of Equifax alone we are seeing about 155 to 190 consumers per month plus about 400 calls that are made locally per month and, across British Columbia, a total of about 4,000 calls a month from consumers.

In British Columbia, Equifax as well as other credit reporting agencies are regulated by a provincial statute. I'll speak a great deal about that statute, called the Credit Reporting Act. All other provinces, save New Brunswick, have similar legislation.

When Bill C-6 was first introduced into the House of Commons, many observers agreed that Equifax had simply been caught in the crossfire. The objective of part 1 of the proposed Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, Bill C-6, is to enhance electronic commerce in Canada by addressing data protection in the private sector. We believe that an unintended victim of this laudable bill was the credit reporting industry. This industry has long been regulated, as I say, by provincial laws. In the case of Equifax, its main database is located in Montreal, Quebec. Equifax deals with consumers and financial institutions in all parts of Canada.

While the federal government undeniably has the jurisdiction to regulate interprovincial trade and commerce, Equifax has never previously discerned any interest on the part of the federal government in regulating the credit reporting industry, despite the fact that it's long had this interprovincial nature. Equifax has participated from the outset in the deliberations surrounding Bill C-6 and never had any inkling that regulation of the credit reporting industry was somehow on the federal agenda.

[ Page 66 ]

[1310]

We hope to enlist the support of the credit reporting registrars in the various provinces in our efforts to achieve an exemption from Bill C-6 for the credit reporting industry on the basis that, as I say, there has been effective regulation in most provinces. The provincial officials in various jurisdictions effectively administer the legislation at issue. In short, the credit reporting industry believes that it is already closely regulated by constitutionally valid provincial legislation that already contains extensive provisions for the protection of privacy and the confidentiality of the information held by Equifax and that permits disclosure for only those permissible purposes set forth in the Credit Reporting Act.

At present, as you know, Quebec is the only Canadian province that has a comprehensive statute governing personal information in the private sector, and it deals with credit bureaus in that province as well as other industries. It does not, however, have a specific credit reporting act as we have in this province and all other provinces except New Brunswick.

Perhaps I can take you to page 3 of the presentation, as I think the material that's on the earlier parts of page 2 will be well known to you. The CSA model code is incorporated, as you know, into Bill C-6 as schedule 1. This code was developed through a consensual process by a volunteer committee consisting of business, government and consumer organization representatives. Equifax was an active participant in the development of this CSA code, which has ten principles codifying so-called fair information practices. The CSA principles address accountability, identifying purposes, consent, limiting collection, limiting use, disclosure and retention, accuracy, safeguards, openness, individual access and challenging compliance.

Let me come to the recommendations that we would like to specifically make for this committee. Firstly, we're hopeful that this committee will agree that the aftermath of Bill C-6 must not be a patchwork quilt across Canada, with conflicting statutory regimes governing privacy in the private sector. In the jargon that's emerged in this debate, Equifax strongly supports the need for harmonization. So in general terms, Equifax urges that any B.C. legislation that is enacted in response to Bill C-6 be harmonized with the federal legislation.

Equifax believes that it has successfully struck an appropriate balance between the privacy interests of consumers, on the one hand, and the legitimate need to know of businesses in the credit adjudication process, on the other hand. The task the federal government is undertaking with this bill, and which we earnestly hope the provinces will follow in enacting its own harmonized legislation, is no less a search for this kind of balance.

Secondly and more specifically, Equifax respectfully seeks the support of this committee in its efforts to have the federal cabinet order that provincial credit reporting legislation like our B.C. Credit Reporting Act constitutes substantially similar legislation, in the words of the act, to Bill C-6, so that the credit reporting industry is exempt from the requirements of that federal law.

Section 26(2), which is in the materials, provides that the Governor-in-Council and the cabinet may, "by order. . .if satisfied that legislation of a province that is substantially similar to this Part applies to an organization. . .or a class of activities, exempt the organization, activity or class from the application of this Part in respect of the collection, use or disclosure of personal information that occurs within that province." We think that under the authority of this provision, the federal cabinet can determine that our B.C. Credit Reporting Act is indeed substantially similar to Bill C-6, in that it provides the kind of privacy protections contained in the model code for the protection of personal information. Therefore the class of activities undertaken by credit reporting agencies subject to our B.C. Credit Reporting Act may be validly exempted from the application of Bill C-6.

We're hopeful that members of this committee will share our concern about the potential for federal intrusion into this longstanding area of provincial regulation and recommend that the credit reporting industry be exempted in this manner. 

[1315]

Secondly, and perhaps of greater concern, Bill C-6 sets up the federal cabinet as the arbiter to determine if any resulting provincial legislation passes muster and can be considered substantially similar. In other words, if B.C. chooses to pass privacy legislation which for some reason the federal government considers inadequate, Bill C-6 would still purport to override it. It is hoped that the province will assert its provincial jurisdiction in the face of this dubious federal approach.

The concerns of Equifax are exacerbated by the fact that it is subject to Bill C-6 upon proclamation. Industry Canada appears to agree with the legal opinion commissioned by Equifax that confirms this position. It is unique among Canadian businesses to which this legislation will apply, for at least two reasons. Firstly, although clearly within the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces and therefore subject to provincial regulatory regimes, as I've said, the legislation will apply immediately to Equifax. There will be no three-year hiatus for Equifax, since the legislation refers to the exchange of information interprovincially, and over 90 percent of Equifax's information flow is in fact interprovincial in nature. So Equifax will in effect face double regulatory compliance from day one.

Secondly, unlike a host of business organizations that use information as an adjunct to the products and services they sell, in the case of Equifax and other credit reporting agencies, information is itself the product. If efforts by Equifax to receive an immediate exemption under section 26(2) of the bill are unsuccessful and if the federal government believes it must wait for equivalent provincial legislation to be enacted, then Equifax will be asking B.C. to specifically deem compliance with our B.C. Credit Reporting Act to constitute compliance with any new provincial legislation.

Equifax has a proud history of protecting consumer privacy. It has served Canadian businesses and consumers

[ Page 67 ]

[1320]

In conclusion, Bill C-6 cannot be allowed to become a catalyst for confusion. If a consumer seeks a remedy, he or she should continue to have recourse to the B.C. registrar of credit reporting and not have the uncertainty as to whether someone else, such as the privacy commissioner in Ottawa or Victoria or both, also has a part of the regulatory authority. We submit that this kind of overlap is the opposite of harmonization. The resulting red tape and confusion do not serve the consumer. They can also hobble a very competitive credit reporting industry in this province.

R. Kasper (Chair): Marlene Speers, do you have anything that you want to add?

M. Speers: No, I'm here simply to answer any questions, if there are any, based on the industry itself.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. Questions?

G. Abbott: Thank you for your presentation.

When the Retail Council of Canada made their presentation to us last Friday, they said some of the same things you have said today. They put a lot of emphasis on harmonization across the country, on avoiding a patchwork quilt across the country and so on. But in striving to achieve that end or that goal, they formed some rather different conclusions and, in fact, came to the conclusion in their brief that C-6 would be the vehicle whereby that harmonization would be achieved and that patchwork quilt would be avoided.

Your presentation is interesting in that you certainly are seeking the same things. But as I understand it -- and perhaps there are some subtleties here that have escaped me -- the theme of the Equifax presentation would appear to be that the province should resist the application of C-6 and should maintain that their existing provisions are adequate. I'm having trouble, at this point, identifying or understanding how that would square up with avoiding a patchwork quilt, whereby Ontario would have different provisions, Quebec. . . . Indeed, the nine other provinces might well have different ways of dealing with this. So that's certainly the broad question I have to begin with.

M. Rankin: Perhaps I might start, then invite Ms. Speers to add anything she wishes to add.

Our essential position is that we accept and agree with the Retail Council on the need for harmonization across Canada. We believe that the legislation that should be enacted in this context should be provincial legislation. We think, in a sense, that the credit reporting industry has been sideswiped as a result of this federal initiative. We strongly believe that harmonization is necessary, but we say that the credit reporting industry, which is national in scope, ought to be exempted from the federal statute for the reasons I've indicated. If provincial legislation is enacted, which we would support in principle, then that legislation itself should accord an exemption to the credit reporting industry so as not to have this double regulatory compliance that I've talked about.

As a player in the commercial marketplace, Equifax applauds the need for harmonized legislation. Specifically, however, with reference to the credit reporting industry, it says that there needs to be an exemption for that industry -- which, after all, does business effectively interprovincially and is effectively regulated in nine out of ten provinces already.

G. Abbott: Thank you for your response. The position, then, of Equifax is that we should have, in all of the provinces, legislation modelled on C-6 perhaps, but nevertheless each province introducing their own model of C-6 but with exemption of credit reporting agencies.

M. Rankin: Yes.

G. Abbott: I think when we had our first briefing on C-6 a few weeks ago, it was indicated that one of the groups that C-6 was going to originally apply to but which were later exempted was, for lack of a better word, the journalism industry. They were able to achieve an exemption. What arguments would you advance for why the credit reporting industry deserves an exemption from this act? 

[1325]

[ Page 68 ]

While Equifax is concerned about what we say is an unwarranted intrusion into provincial jurisdiction by C-6 -- which, if this interpretation of trade and commerce power were applied elsewhere, could have serious consequences for the province's ability to regulate its commercial sector -- we still think that our industry needs to have that exemption in order to function efficiently. As I said in my presentation, this is not just in the interests of Equifax. We think that the confusion, the red tape and the expense of having yet a second regime overlaid on an effective credit reporting regulatory scheme across Canada is wrongheaded.

G. Abbott: Thank you.

K. Whittred: Yes, I too would like to thank you, Mr. Rankin, for your presentation; it's very clearly presented. Like my colleague, I'm a little bit bewildered. It almost seems to me that there is a conflict between your response regarding the harmonization. . . . That is, you think that harmonization of legislation is a good thing but that it is not good for your industry. I sense a kind of a dichotomy in the arguments here. But perhaps you have tried to address those to my colleague. So could I ask you specifically: what particular change would occur in your industry? Give me an example of how your industry's life would be different when C-6 is enacted than it is now.

M. Rankin: Okay. Thank you for your question. I would like to speak to the first point about the apparent inconsistency and try to put it this way: Equifax participated as one of the key members of the group whose work led to the CSA model code. So there's no question about its commitment to a uniform regime of fair information practices in the private sector. It is part of the private sector. It welcomes harmonized legislation because of its laudable, positive impact on the private sector, of which it's a part. However, it says that that can be achieved in the case of the credit reporting industry by providing an exemption for that industry, which, after all, is already regulated very effectively and already adheres to fair information practices. If technology advances and one wants to improve the situation with respect to the regulation of the credit reporting industry, do so in the industry-specific legislation. Don't do so in another statute that may or may not jibe with the existing regulatory regime.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): Did you have the opportunity to present your argument to the federal government when they were developing Bill C-6?

M. Rankin: Yes.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): What was their response?

M. Rankin: Equifax made submissions to the House Committee on Industry, as well as to the Senate committee that dealt with this legislation. As I say in my material, we believe that they accept the legal opinion that was commissioned for Equifax to the effect that the bill applies to Equifax immediately, federally. They accepted the submissions and improvements to the initial bill in respect of changes to the fair information practices that are in schedule 1. So the submissions were taken to heart by the federal government.

As for the need to have the credit reporting industry exempted, as Mr. Abbott pointed out happened to another industry in Canada -- journalism -- that was unsuccessful. We are therefore left with the need to deal with this issue in each of the provinces of Canada.

P. Calendino: Let's see if we can get this clear. You're asking that whatever we introduce in British Columbia should be in harmony with Bill C-6. Your industry obviously is an industry that collects and disseminates information on a national basis. Therefore, the transborder issue comes into play. You are regulated under Bill C-6 because of the transborder movement of your information.

At the same time, you're saying that you're also regulated provincially. I'm not quite sure whether I understand where you're coming from. You're not happy that you're regulated under Bill C-6. You're happy that you're regulated provincially, yet on a provincial basis we can only intervene within the province. We cannot intervene when your information crosses our border and British Columbians are not happy with how your information is used or disseminated -- if it goes across the border.

M. Rankin: Perhaps I can clarify the last aspect of your question. It is the case that Equifax would be governed by Bill C-6 when it comes into force. It has never, however, been the intention of the federal government to regulate the credit reporting industry. So how did this happen? It happened because the legislation, by its terms, governs personal information in the private sector that goes across provincial boundaries. That's Equifax; that's the credit reporting industry in

[ Page 69 ]

We don't understand whether this is the unintended consequence of a laudable effort to harmonize personal information management across Canada or whether there was an intent to deal with the credit reporting industry. We think that at the very least, that intent should be clarified. Does the federal government wish to do that or not?

We are content with what we think is a cost-effective and efficient regulatory regime in British Columbia, so we say that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. We believe that if there are people who feel that the credit reporting industry is not currently regulated effectively, the place to change it in the future -- perhaps to deal with information across the borders, perhaps to deal with the Internet, perhaps to deal with technological advances -- is in provincial legislation and the office of the registrar, who are officials appointed by the provincial government and who do their work very well. 

[1335]

M. Speers: With your permission, perhaps I could answer that somewhat. From the consumer's perspective, if there has been wrongful access to their file, the consumer now has recourse in British Columbia to contact the registrar. The registrar would in turn contact us, and we would then take it upon ourselves to investigate the access to the file. I'm not sure I understand fully when you say the information is transported. Are you saying, for example, that if a credit grantor was to access the file of a consumer who is resident in B.C., it would still be the registrar within British Columbia that would look after that consumer? That's what happens now.

P. Calendino: I suppose that the legislation forbids you to give information without consent right now.

M. Speers: That's correct.

P. Calendino: Okay. You also mention in the report the similarities of the Credit Reporting Act and part 1 of Bill C-6. I don't have the details. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, our staff can validate those claims that are in the report and let us know whether that's true.

M. Rankin: Perhaps I could just elaborate on what you asked. On the issue of consent, Mr. Calendino, I want you to note section 12(1) of the Credit Reporting Act when the research is done. It states: "A person must not obtain from a reporting agency a report respecting a consumer. . .without the expressed written consent of the consumer. . . ." And it's says in section 12(2): "The consent may be contained in an application for credit, insurance, employment or tenancy, if it is clearly set out in type not less than 10 point in size above the consumer's signature." So the issue of consent, which I know you've asked about in other sessions, has been addressed very specifically -- even to the point of how large the type is -- in this statute.

Secondly, there are other sections in the Credit Reporting Act that define credit information very clearly and distinguish it from very personal information, which is not collected, and it talks about many of the contents of reports and rights of consumers that very much parallel the fair information practices that are contained in Bill C-6 and in the CSA model code.

K. Whittred: Just one more question. In a perfect world, Mr. Rankin. . . . The reason this committee is sitting, obviously, is to examine the need -- or not the need -- for substantive provincial legislation similar to Bill C-6. Would your industry prefer to remain under the Credit Reporting Act, or would it prefer to be incorporated into provincial privacy legislation and have that act repealed? Which would achieve the harmonization you would envision the most?

M. Rankin: I believe our preference would be to continue with the credit reporting regime, for the reasons I've indicated -- because of the confusing jurisdiction and powers that the privacy commissioner, for example, would have vis-à-vis the registrar of credit reporting. If those deficiencies could be addressed, then possibly there could be a coherent regime of which credit reporting were a part. But our preference would be to leave it the way it is, on the basis that it works just fine.

I can see where one might roll credit reporting into a provincial statute. I can see that occurring. But I point out to you that credit reporting regulation isn't just about personal information; it's about the requirement, for example, of credit reporting agencies who want to do business here to be registered and checked and so forth. It's hard for me to see a clear fit between a credit reporting-specific regulation and this general provincial legislation. For us, the simpler fit would be simply to provide in your provincial legislation an exemption deeming the credit reporting industry to already be in compliance with the general provincial rules. 

[1340]

You've noted, for example, that New Brunswick doesn't regulate the credit reporting industry at all. Is there going to be an argument made -- and I expect there will be -- that in fact, in the absence of a Bill C-6 type of national regulation, we are leaving it to be a provincial patchwork quilt with different ways of managing this? Assuming that argument is going to be made, how would Equifax respond to that concern and

[ Page 70 ]

M. Rankin: Firstly, the registrars responsible in nine of the ten provinces -- in Quebec's case, it's the commission -- have already been very vigilant in their efforts to have harmonization of regulation of the credit reporting industry. After all, as in answers to Mr. Calendino, we pointed out that the credit reporting industry is interprovincial and has been for years. So there's a need for that harmonization that the registrars have already addressed.

Secondly, in the case of New Brunswick, where there isn't coherent legislation at the present time, the credit reporting industry acts as if it were covered anyway. A consumer in New Brunswick can call into a 1-800 number and find out his or her credit information, the same way as a person in Ontario, Quebec or British Columbia can. So there already is a. . . . I would submit that if New Brunswick is unhappy with the way the credit reporting industry works in that jurisdiction, then of course it should be for that province to address that province's concern, rather than us being caught in the crossfire trying to address. . .playing catch-up for a federal statute. We believe that the legislation is already coherent in its application across the country and that there's no need for it to be altered as a result of federal legislation.

R. Kasper (Chair): Now, the question I've been asking people who have cross-border or multiprovincial business interests is: what has the Quebec experience led to, as far as Equifax is concerned? And did Equifax make similar overtures to Quebec, when they were contemplating bringing in legislation, as they did with C-6 and as you're presenting to us right now?

M. Rankin: Yes. I have Bill 68 here. It is a comprehensive act governing the private sector, as you've suggested. Its possible applicability to British Columbia must be assessed in light of the fact that there is no credit reporting act as such in Quebec, but rather it's rolled into this bill. Quebec is the location of the Equifax database for Canada, so you can be sure that there has been ongoing dialogue between the Commission d'accès à l'information, as it's called in that jurisdiction -- and Equifax. 

[1345]

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. Secondly, are you specifically stating here today that the B.C. legislation that deals with credit report information and how it's administered and dealt with, for both private individuals and commercial companies, would be the same as what is in place as far as Quebec is concerned?

M. Rankin: For all intents and purposes, the legislation is very similar in its application.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. I guess in closing, as far as a question. . . . It's not your concern about the provisions of C-6 -- as opposed to the multi-jurisdictional issue and the confusion of having a C-6 provincial legislation that covers the industry -- and/or future legislation, if it came to fruition, that is your main concern, but not necessarily the intent of what C-6 is or, for that matter, what Bill 68 is in Quebec.

Now, I say that because Equifax, as you noted, participated in the CSA code, or the establishment of that code. Quebec is the only province that has legislation that covers commercial activities or information that is personal information contained by the private sector, which includes commercial transactions. What I get from your presentation -- the main thrust -- is the concern that is raised that, as far as Equifax is concerned, they would perhaps end up dealing with three separate agencies or three separate pieces of legislation in British Columbia, if British Columbia brought in legislation similar to C-6.

M. Rankin: Yes, if there was no exemption granted by the federal government or in the provincial legislation to acknowledge the way credit reporting is currently regulated.

R. Kasper (Chair): In response to my question: Equifax is not opposed to the intent of C-6 as far as the protection of private information and to make sure that there are specific checks and balances -- right to consumers or other people who have had private information collected. Is that correct?

M. Rankin: That is absolutely correct. As you just noted, that is one of the reasons why Equifax was a participant in the development of the model code. It is, as a commercial actor in Canada, anxious to avoid a patchwork quilt, anxious to have harmonization, and it understands the need to address the issues. It simply says that it has had a longstanding commitment to fair information practices, both because it has to under its legislation and because it's critical, if it's to continue to have the support of the consumers of British Columbia, that it continue to earn their trust. It simply is opposed to having, as you pointed out, potentially three regulatory authorities governing it in respect of the same business.

R. Kasper (Chair): I will add one more question. Does Equifax Canada -- in particular, the B.C. chapter; I don't know what other term to use -- have internal mechanisms in place that deal with how private information is handled, just as part of the corporate policy?

M. Speers: Certainly. First of all, the database is housed in Montreal.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay.

M. Speers: So are you referring more to the access to that information or the actual storage?

R. Kasper (Chair): Well, just checks and balances.

M. Speers: Very definitely. It's very rigid. It goes beyond what is required.

R. Kasper (Chair): How many years have you subscribed to that?

[ Page 71 ]

[1350]

M. Speers: The storage of the information. . . . As the electronic age has advanced, the storage requirements -- the capacity, the security -- have met with whatever was required at the time. So all access is secured. We're talking about dedicated lines -- that sort of thing. Am I answering your question?

R. Kasper (Chair): Yeah. Okay. Now I just want to add something here. I need sort of a refresher. The legislation that you're governed under in British Columbia right now. . . . It's my recollection that there were some amendments to the act. Did Equifax involve itself in B.C.'s legislation changes -- you know, the sort of enhancement of making sure that consumers and/or commercial businesses have a right to access and to change information that may or may not be correct?

M. Speers: We've long held the position, both under Equifax and under the Credit Bureau of Vancouver. . . . We were available for a consultation and certainly worked with the registrar and any other interested persons whenever new legislation was being tabled.

R. Kasper (Chair): You mentioned the Credit Bureau of Vancouver.

M. Speers: That's correct.

R. Kasper (Chair): Is that part of Equifax?

M. Speers: You would have known it. The Credit Bureau of Vancouver was based in Vancouver, and we dealt with the provincial government for a number of years. A year and a half ago, the Credit Bureau of Vancouver was purchased outright by Equifax.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. Great.

Are there any other questions?

P. Calendino: Yeah, just one. Moving aside from the legislative requirements -- and just out of curiosity -- how does Equifax collect its information? Who provides it to you? And do you have any relationship with the enormous database that's in Atlanta for all of North America -- or vis-à-vis credit for individuals? I don't know what the agency is called down there, but obviously they store all the information about everybody in the world. So what is your relationship with them?

M. Speers: I wish we did.

First of all, the database on Canadian consumers is domiciled in Montreal; the mainframe is housed there. How we acquire the information is from credit grantors themselves. They provide us with tapes or diskettes, autodata information, normally on a monthly cycle. Retailers. . . . If you've applied for or received credit, that credit grantor most likely is providing us with that information. Does that answer that part of your question?

P. Calendino: Well, let me give you a little more curiosity. Under Bill C-6, won't these agencies have to have consent from individuals before they give that information to you?

M. Speers: That's correct, sir. If you have applied for credit, tenancy in a building or a mortgage, you'll notice. . . . Within the application form, it'll be set forth. Within the province of British Columbia, the consent. . . . The reporting act is actually identified. Your signature as a consumer must appear, then, just below the section of the act that applies to it. So that is where the consent comes from -- on the actual application itself.

To answer your question on the worldwide database, it would be nice, but it's not there. If you're referring to Equifax in the U.S., our American database is housed in Atlanta, but the U.S. database is totally separate from the Canadian database. To my knowledge, there is no reporting agency that has a global database.

P. Calendino: That's debatable.

M. Speers: Well, it would be nice. I think there's probably a need for that eventually, where there probably would be a global database. But to my knowledge, at the present time there is not one. 

[1355]

Our next presenter is Sheila Haegedorn. Sheila, I don't know if you were present when I opened the hearing. I gave an overview. Were you here when I did that?

S. Haegedorn: Not in this room, no.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. Just to give you some guidance as to what we're doing. I felt it would be important, because some new people have arrived.

The committee was established by the Legislature of British Columbia to inquire into the possibility of regulating privacy protection for personal information held by organizations in the private sector. One major recommendation of the Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which reported in June '99, was that a committee of the Legislature undertake such an inquiry. This committee is the result of that recommendation. Not only are we hearing verbal submissions, we're also accepting written submissions. We had two hearings in the lower mainland and again here in Victoria.

Some the questions the committee is addressing are as follows. What are the responsibilities of the private sector enterprises in the use of individuals' personal information? How do new information technologies, such as those used in e-commerce and data mining, impact the private sector use of personal information? What form of regulation is most appro-

[ Page 72 ]

These are just a few of the issues the committee would like you to address in speaking here today. I've mentioned and am assuming you would have picked up a discussion paper, "Protecting Personal Privacy in the Private Sector." That discussion paper was referred to the committee by the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology.

I would now turn it over to you, after reading that overview. So go ahead. We're very informal here too.

S. Haegedorn: Thank you, Chair Kasper. I do have the literature from the ISTA agency, so I will address probably three of the questions that are posed there.

To begin with, I'd like to compliment the Times Colonist, because it was due to their very brief news item about four days prior to the Christmas break, where a very short news article appeared on the fact that this committee was actually in operation. . . . Many of my friends, I think, might have been here today. They say they don't read the Times Colonist, though. I don't have full Internet access, so I don't go surfing the Net looking at what all the committees of the Legislature are always up to.

Time-wise, I see now that my watch says approximately 2:03 p.m. So I'll look for guidance from you people as to when this is becoming boring or I'm way, way off topic.

R. Kasper (Chair): Usually we allow people ten, 15 or 20 minutes. Then we have an opportunity to ask you questions afterwards. Okay?

S. Haegedorn: True. Yes. I would actually prefer questions to be posed to me once I've explained the context in which I wish to make some comments, rather than. . . . I have no script prepared to read to the committee.

To begin, I would like entitle this presentation "Privacy and Accuracy in the Private Sector." My credentials for being here, I guess, are being a citizen of British Columbia -- someone who has, as we all have, interacted with both public and private organizations -- and my past background, which was a classroom educator in the province of Alberta, where I did. . . . Hearing the former presenter, Mr. Rankin, speak so eloquently about credit bureaus, I can recall having the credit bureau of Edmonton in to demonstrate -- way back in the eighties, before we were anywhere near along the information highway as we are now -- how the credit bureau reporting system worked. I'm speaking today more as a generalist rather than a specialist. My credentials are such that I have no credentials to speak on the information highway beyond about 1986-87. 

[1400]

"Law to Protect Native Intellectual Property

 

"The Peruvian government is drafting a law to protect indigenous rights over their ancestral knowledge in an attempt to prevent the history of plundering native wealth from repeating itself as well as controlling the international exploitation of Peru's native plants. Indigenous communities will be the intellectual owners of genetic resources coming from plant species whose curative or nutritional values form part of their ancestral knowledge, according to the text of that legal bill." 

Government and the private sector. It seems we are having a very large collective discussion about the approach of regulations versus incentives -- beyond this particular issue. So often I ask myself, as we keep moving on and we talk about public-private partnerships, etc.: what is public, and what is private? I respect that we do have people who are well educated and who can address those matters.

My hope is that in two to three years from now, for people to ensure that they know how to look after themselves in the society that we're collectively creating, we won't have to have everybody being either a corporate or a civil rights lawyer to sort out. . . . That is no offence to the legal profession. But sometimes, I think, for people who have not gone the route of university and who are not part of networks that are plugged into the legal system, it's very confusing. Therefore people find their own ways to protect themselves.

I'll give an individual example at the moment. Young people tell me -- and people who have come to this country from other nations, such as Korea -- that when they are continually asked for their telephone number at a retail store, they get tired of that game and of explaining. What they do is make up a phony telephone number. Well, that data goes somewhere; maybe it's used for market research.

What bothers me more about that, as an educator, is that it instils in people a behavioral attitude to start falsifying records, and that becomes a pattern, then, that I think under duress can eventually lead to what we call criminal activity. You think: I've had enough of the way that system works. I'm going to look after myself. I'm going to use my own street smarts. I'll just make up some number or some address. 

[1405]

[ Page 73 ]

I'm happy to hear cooperation with international jurisdictions being talked about, because Bill C-6 from Ottawa is only part of this. As we have movement of capital around the world -- and I'm not talking about people who are arriving, sadly, in cargo containers, but financial capital -- there is a lot of linking, in my view, between data of people -- their spending resources, their spending habits -- and the movement of capital that is so easily possible now with the electronic age. One of today's noontime broadcasts announces that Time Warner, beyond the merger with America Online, is now merging with EMI from Britain, which is an entertainment recording industry, I believe. So we are into the international scene, whether we want to just address this from a north-south perspective in the Canadian-U.S. corporate undertakings.

Before I move on to health and education records, I'd like to comment about the security of TV reporting footage. In my view, if there's any industry that does need to have some guidelines worked out cooperatively rather than punitively, it is the ownership and caretaking of reporting footage. We see people with video cameras running around -- not just when there are protests in Seattle. Some people wonder what happens to those materials afterward. Do they sell them to the Oprah Winfrey show, so that they can show a car accident at the corner of Quadra and McKenzie here? What happens to all of that footage?

Leaving those as introductory comments, now I'd like to move on to a little bit on health, education and the records and collection of personal and family data that is therein contained. Yes, we do think of health and education as public sector. I know, from attending a public meeting with the former privacy commissioner for British Columbia and his colleague from Ottawa, that parents from slightly up-Island were raising concerns that one of the required courses for graduation, one of the career and life planning courses. . . . Apparently some educator was requiring students to disclose on forms who were the networks for their parents in the community. As an educator, I would have to look at the context and what the educator was getting at. And I agree that's a bit invasive. These parents. . . . Maybe some of you will remember that issue from about two to three years ago. I think the Minister of Education at that time gave some direction to the education profession in this province.

Libraries, in my view, are part of education, whether they be in the same school buildings and get their funding through the Ministry of Education. I'd like to read from Heather Menzies' Whose Brave New World? The Information Highway and the New Economy, published in 1996. This is the beginning of the quote now, from page 148 of this publication:

"Public libraries are not only sites for receiving and distributing packages of knowledge and information. They are also knowledge centres in their own right. A library's role is to gather knowledge that is both locally distinct and relevant. Libraries also help people inform themselves on their own terms, which aren't necessarily the same as the standardized and often Americanized terms provided by a few Wal-Mart-scale databases. If Canadian public libraries 'ramp up' to the infrastructures of the information highway on their own terms as communitarian and cultural institutions, the highway infrastructure will have to be negotiated accordingly. This means locating a lot of effective communicating and programming capacity in the hands of end users, extending librarians' jobs and the freenet model of inclusive community information services, and preserving the inclusive, open-architecture infrastructure associated with the Internet." 

[1410]

Within the medical setting, yes, this is a debate, I guess, on what is private and what is public. True, there are public funds going to provide for people who are hospitalized and to access medical and health services. I'd like to speak from my own experience. This is the only place I've really had major difficulty. Physicians, though, are in some ways either corporations or proprietorships, so they really are somewhat in the private sector already.

Maybe my situation is unique; I'm not going to generalize it to others. I have had major difficulty in having to follow up and correct factual errors that are in these private records. At one point I finally thought: that's not my job. I've had enough of this. Maybe I'll just let it be, and eventually it will all come out in the wash, so to speak. It concerns me, again, particularly when we refer to things such as the mental health system, when we have -- and maybe it's because of limited funding -- an organization within the providers of mental health services in this province making errors in fact, not errors in their objective viewing of their clients. It's because I believe that that data can then follow the individual perhaps into a court hearing, perhaps into custody.

I find it very troubling that the individual. . . . Again, I have a professional background, so I know a little bit how to work through those institutions. For people who don't, though, do they have to go and retain a lawyer to help them find out, because they saw a practitioner, what that practitioner recorded and where that might go? I mean, it's a game of crazy-making. I'll leave that comment at that.

As for education, I truly am not in a position to comment on how the information highway is in place so far in the province of British Columbia.

The second area, beyond health and education, is retail e-commerce. The first question, you know, is: who is responsible for these databases that are being created? Now that we don't need as bulky hardware and software to store the data, as we know, with all the microchips. . . . I guess the question is, though: who is responsible for ownership and who is responsible for the caretaking of these massive amounts of data that are being generated and shared amongst people in the private sector? 

[1415]

[ Page 74 ]

"At heart, then, the struggle to control technological restructuring in worksites is one and the same as the struggle to control the construction and governance of the information highway and the Internet. Both involve a struggle over values: such as equity and reciprocity, versus exclusivity and competitive power. Equally, it is a struggle over different social visions: with what Ursula Franklin calls the growth model set against the 'production model.' " 

Again I'll bring in a personal experience. Very recently I, with my own knowledge, released a telephone number to the cashier in a retail store, because I mentioned that years ago, yes, I did have a credit card with this store. No, I've not used it for many years. Because the store was offering an incentive that day. . . . You could get 10 percent off if you took a credit card from the store that day. Well, from my phone number -- with no identification being provided by me to confirm that I really am who I am with that phone number -- the cashier very quickly brought up on the computer screen my address from a year ago. I know that I had no interaction with that retail store a year ago.

So obviously somewhere through -- maybe through a credit bureau reporting. . . . Again, I'm not personally worried that someone who's standing around is going to go to that former address. The employee in the store is revealing this to me, thinking that I am the person who has that telephone number.

I do, though, think of people who are a bit more at risk, who do not understand how this technology works and who become vulnerable -- very vulnerable -- standing in a large store, their address being given out both visually and verbally. True, people who are seniors' age. When I talk to seniors in the apartment block, who I live with, of this world of computers -- God, no; they just don't want to have anything to do with them. They don't realize, though, that they probably are already in the computer networks themselves. Fortunately, I think many of our seniors do have good discerning skills. They've been through depressions and wars, and they've learned a little bit.

Anyway, who is responsible for all this data that's being collected? The credit cards and debit cards. . . . I'm happy when I meet young employees in the stores who say: "You know, I really like seeing real cash, because I know what I've got to spend today." It's encouraging that we have young people who are employed in these organizations, in my view.

The third area of information, lists, etc., is through societies, clubs and professional organizations. For many of us, I'm sure that it's hard to say that we have not been, at one point in our lives in the past ten years, signed up by some society, club or workplace organization.

I know we're not quite at a provincial or federal election at the moment. But when we get to that point, I'm often surprised that people have lists. That seems to be the name of the game: who's got the most lists? I am so happy to say that the Speaker of this Legislature would not release a list to an organization that wanted a list when she was an MLA, before she became Speaker. That, to me, maybe says something about why we have this woman as Speaker of the B.C. Legislature.

P. Calendino: It's legislated. That kind of information is protected by legislation anyway.

S. Haegedorn: Oh, true. We can have -- we have -- dual realities, though. We've got laws, and then we've got this other world that, you know, makes up the laws as they go along, called natural law. 

[1420]

"Virtual Unions and Coalition-Building.

 

"Unions need to remember their roots as community benevolent and self-help societies. In the deinstitutionalized 1990s, these roots would suggest a reversal of the hierarchies that developed in the heyday of bureaucratic business unionism. The new critical discourse on restructuring needs to be centred in actual experience and concrete actions that will turn the restructuring agenda around in the specific sites of the here and now as well as in the larger policies of the information highway. It requires therefore that people largely speak for themselves, instead of being spoken for by union leaders and professional staff. It also implies that people act on their own behalf, with staff working to support their discourse of action." 

"The corporate restructuring that accompanied the integration phase of computerization established a consistent trend to consolidate tasks that had been brought into the orbit of computer systems and simplified by their software. A large portion of the new jobs created in this process were so structured as to be entirely defined by the computer. They could then be controlled by the computer, too, which made it easier to monitor performance and to manage the work with a part-time 'contingent' staff. Equally important, these choices also set the stage for work to be deinstitutionalized further, to a global post-it-note workforce conscripted via the information highway. Not only can work be distributed to any places that feature plug-ins and technical accessibility, but it can also be controlled to an unprecedented degree of detail through remote management systems."

I want to return to the importance of education -- whether it be on the worksite, in a college, in a training environment or in our K-to-12 system where the computers are being leased -- to be free. I don't have a problem with the cashier at the store here the other day. She's doing her job. Has anyone ever taken the time and had that woman be part of professional development or updating as to how her job fits in with that little machine that she pushes buttons on? In some cases, yes; in many cases, no.

I'll refer to a debate that we had in our school many years ago in Alberta. I suppose then, well, I was referred to as a radical from B.C. I had a strong argument that we were not there to simply test on who could remember the keystrokes for that particular program. I mean, that was part, and we could assess that by giving the students an application. We were there to be sure that they understood the environment in which they would be working and that the equipment they had access to and were required to work on would be working.

[ Page 75 ]

R. Kasper (Chair): Sheila, I don't mean to cut you off. You've had about. . .

S. Haegedorn: Twenty minutes?

R. Kasper (Chair): . . .25 minutes.

S. Haegedorn: Yes, you're correct, Mr. Chair. You know, I'm right at the very end here.

R. Kasper (Chair): I just want to. . . . Okay. So are you going to wrap it up shortly?

[1425]

S. Haegedorn: Sorry. I'm through with that. I sort of got the social clubs lined up or mixed up with the education again, didn't I?

Okay. We've done that one. You have a handout of a few materials that are recent -- one being from the Internet -- and some reading resources. This text, Heather Menzies' publication, is referred to on the last couple of pages. There's a quote from Peter Newman about the Canadian establishment from his recent publication, Titans, which I also wrote on the reading resource list: It's not with clubs anymore; it's with networks. We can apply networks through our social networks, the computer networks.

Let's leave it at that. I'm not sure what your time is. If there are any questions on what I have presented today, I'll be happy to have a look at them.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay, thank you.

Members, do you have any questions? I have one. Oh, sorry. Katherine?

K. Whittred: No, thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't really have a question. I just want to thank the presenter for really putting before this committee the need to think about the public's sensitivity to privacy.

R. Kasper (Chair): I have a question. You mentioned early in your presentation that people would have a tendency -- and I'm assuming you made reference to shopping cards -- to give false information. Correct?

S. Haegedorn: Uh-huh.

R. Kasper (Chair): You did mention that. Then also you touched on the question of accuracy of information that is held. You did mention the public sector, but we're focusing in on the private sector.

My question is: do you feel there is a need for some form of regulation or legislation in the province governing commercial transactions or private sector -- you said clubs or societies that in fact have private information -- as to how they should handle it or how they should use or disclose that information? It's a long-winded question.

S. Haegedorn: No, because it will return to one of my opening comments. In the free market economy that we appear to be in, we can regulate, or we can offer incentives; we can work cooperatively, or we can let the competitive model fight it out in the big scene out there.

On a personal basis, I believe that education, integrity, ethics. . . . We can't educate everyone in our society on those principles. I prefer that approach rather than making more laws, because it's more restrictive for the people who actually benefit from creating an abundance of or excessive laws. I answer that question, Chair Kasper, without knowing what the details of legislation are to date.

R. Kasper (Chair): Fair enough. I don't have any further. . . . Any other member's questions?

Sheila, I would like to thank you for your presentation. You've given us some areas to look at and also stated your views on some of the elements covered under the public sector issues you've raised. Thank you very much for your presentation here today.

We don't have any other witnesses scheduled. I would perhaps entertain a motion to stand adjourned. I will be in consultation with the Clerk's office at 3 o'clock to see if any other presenters have made their views known.

P. Calendino: Mr. Chairman, before we call for the motion, I have received an application form. I don't know exactly what company requests this kind of information. But it was presented to me because there is a statement that has to be signed by the applicant, which asks for the applicant to be willing to submit to a medical examination and to allow the doctor to provide that kind of medical information to the company or its representative, and they had concerns with that. So I'd like to submit that for consideration of the committee in drafting legislation.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. If we could just hand it in to the Clerk and perhaps get a copy for other members. . . . We will stand adjourned. Thank you.

The committee adjourned at 2:30 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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