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 1 ]

The committee met at 9:07 a.m.

R. Kasper (Chair): I'd like to call the Special Committee on Information Privacy in the Private Sector to order. We have, laid out before members, a proposed agenda. We have four items and then No. 5, "Any other business." If I could just turn it over to the Clerk to give us a brief outline as to item 1, discussion of a workplan.

C. James: A workplan hasn't been prepared, primarily because I'm not certain how members of the committee wish to proceed with their inquiry. If members have any ideas this morning, they would be very helpful to me in compiling a draft workplan. Ordinarily, what tends to happen with these projects is that once I have a sense of what members of the committee intend to do with the matter before them and how they wish to proceed, then a subcommittee is struck. I prepare a draft workplan for the subcommittee. If the subcommittee is happy with it, then, depending upon the views of the committee, either the subcommittee can approve it -- after circulating it to members of the committee, and with nobody responding in the negative -- or the full committee can become involved in dealing with the workplan itself.

The workplan will simply consist of a number of meetings, locations, potential public hearings, advertising and other communication-related items, and a start date and an end date -- in terms of either a report, more meetings and briefings with certain government and other officials and the potential of calling for witnesses or meeting elsewhere to obtain information relevant to the inquiry under discussion. All of that can certainly be prepared within a week from today.

R. Kasper (Chair): Do members have any comments or suggestions?

G. Janssen: I think the first thing -- and, of course, this is far beyond the scope of most of us at this table -- is about where the invasion or the protection of privacy actually takes place. I'm certainly not aware of all the information that's collected by various private sector companies, be they in the information business or simply. . . . When you fill out your point card at the local Overwaitea, or whatever, store, what happens to that information? Certainly it's used for monitoring better how much goes on the store shelves and for giving you discounts. They can have those products available and serving the public.

[0910]

I believe we should, first of all, have staff available that could provide some experts that could come to us and tell us exactly how far this private sector information-gathering has gone in our society.

R. Kasper (Chair): Anybody have any other. . . ?

S. Orcherton: Just to follow up on Gerard's comments, I share many of those views. I'm not an expert on this issue either, but there may well be some people out there who do have some expertise, both from consumer advocacy groups and businesses who proceed with their businesses with good intentions but sometimes not the best of results at the end of the day in terms of these kinds of issues. So I agree. I think we should have a look around and see if there are some people out there that we could bring in and have as witnesses to the committee to discuss some of these issues.

I also wonder if there are other jurisdictions that have tackled this question. If there are, I'd be very interested to see some of their deliberations and how they proceeded in the course of the discussions, in the course of public hearings and those kinds of things. I think it might be helpful for us as a committee to have a look at that, to see what other jurisdictions have done and how they've managed it. I think that every jurisdiction will be a little bit different, but there may be some things we can learn from those who have gone before -- if there are those who have gone before.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): I think, first of all, I'd like to know what the status of Bill C-54 is -- where it is in Parliament. I agree. I understand that England is well along the way to developing a privacy agreement with the private sector. If we get information from them. . . . There's no point in reinventing the wheel.

P. Calendino: I imagine that there must be, at the university or college level, some ethicists that are dealing with the issues. Perhaps we should look at them to make some presentations to us as well, even though we may not always agree with the experts out there -- whoever they are. The appropriate thing is to see what other jurisdictions have done, how they have come about introducing their legislation -- what kind of legislation they have, how much it covers and whether it is appropriate for us. Bill C-54, which the feds are introducing -- I think this month, isn't it? -- covers things on a partial basis, but they expect the provinces to come in with their own to complement Bill C-54. We have to do that ourselves as well.

G. Janssen: Could we also have, for the committee's information, where our jurisdiction ends and where federal jurisdiction starts? I'm not sure about that. Or whether or not what we are going to propose infringes on interprovincial. . .as we do this -- I know other provinces are concerned about it -- so that we don't go out and do a whole bunch of work that might have some concerns or some interests in other provinces. . . . Perhaps if we could share this information with other provincial legislatures that may be considering or may in fact have some concerns of their own. . . .

[0915]

[ Page 2 ]

R. Kasper (Chair): Just a clarification on these dates that were generated by the Clerk's office. That was as a result of our original setup meeting that we had by way of a conference call. What the Clerk's office did was select dates that were not conflicting with other committee work or other duties that members have. These were windows of opportunity to have this committee sit. Geoff, did you have anything that you want to say?

G. Plant: As members of the committee know, having read the paper that the government has prepared, there is in fact -- at least according to that paper -- only one jurisdiction in Canada that has legislation that purports to regulate privacy in the private sector, and that's Quebec. That's in answer to part of the question that was asked earlier. All of the provinces, presumably, are aware of Bill C-54 and the fact that the federal government intends to regulate some parts of the provincially regulated private sector here in the next little while. It would be useful to know what the positions and strategies are of other provinces. I agree with that.

This is not a new subject, and I suspect that there is an enormous body of literature out there. It occurred to me that there are a couple of things we could do. First of all, if the Clerk's staff have the resources, and working with the Legislative Library, we could prepare a reading list. I think that if people and the staff listened to the kinds of issues that have been raised here. . . . Gerard has essentially said that we need to know what the scope of the problem is. I think there's going to be literature that explains what the scope of the problem is, and we can go find that and read it.

I think we need to hear from the government's Information, Science and Technology Agency, who prepared this background paper and who are the ones within government charged with the task of sorting out what the province's position should be on Bill C-54. I think we need to have Mr. Culbertson or someone from the agency come and speak to us to explain the paper, to answer -- to the extent that it's possible to answer -- the jurisdictional issue that someone asked earlier. I think that would be a good start.

There are academics across Canada who are very interested in this subject. Colin Bennett at the University of Victoria is someone who is really the expert in privacy. David Flaherty, of course, the former commissioner, is somebody who has a longstanding interest in privacy issues. I suspect that it would not take very much work on the part of the committee to pique the interest of those people to the extent that they would be willing to come and talk to us.

The real question in my mind, the unanswered question, is whether we should commission a large-scale research paper. I'm mindful of the experience we had in the previous incarnation of this committee, where it became evident to me that it just took a long time to get a group of legislators to get up to a level where we could in fact respond at the level of detail to an issue where I think we all had a sense of the principles. But if it's detail that's required, it's a real challenge. In hindsight, I think that if we had perhaps commissioned a research paper there, there might have been some advantage.

[0920]

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. If I could sort of try to encapsulate what's been said, briefings perhaps is the first order. The representatives from the Information, Science and Technology Agency have conveyed to me that their staff are available to this committee to discuss this particular paper that has been released to the committee or any other matters dealing with this broad issue. That invitation has been put forward, so I'll confirm that.

I would agree that, yes, we should perhaps go through an initial process of getting briefings as Geoff has outlined and, picking up from what Gerard has said, perhaps look at the extent of what this issue in fact really is and how far-reaching it is. That would deal with sort of nuts-and-bolts issues.

The second step, in conjunction with the briefings, perhaps would be a call for submissions. That would be in conjunction with any advertising that the committee would embark upon, which could lead to perhaps three or four public hearings and which would give an opportunity to the general public to both respond to this discussion paper and. . . . Because this committee has had a reputation of open meetings, our deliberations and discussions and the briefings that we would receive from the individuals Geoff had suggested would be available on-line or through other means; so that would whet the appetite of, perhaps, special interest groups. I would also suggest that with our deliberations with ISTA, we could actually request organizations or contacts of organizations that the federal government had in fact approached or had been approached by, because there's already a list of people who have made submissions to them in regard to the federal legislation. Now, the concerns may be the same or they may be different or variations, and I think it's important to do that.

My other suggestion is that because of the committee's previous work, we already have a database of people who made submissions to the committee when we reviewed the provincial legislation covering the public sector. As you would recall, there were actually some submissions by individuals who suggested that the government embark on seeing legislation or some regulations pertaining to private information in private hands.

I would throw out that we've got the basis of a workplan. Perhaps, in order to streamline this, we could go to item 4 on

[ Page 3 ]

P. Calendino: Except for December 8.

R. Kasper (Chair): I understand.

It's my suggestion that the Chair and Deputy Chair be appointed as a subcommittee, and we will work with the Clerk's office to lay out a workplan, to put together an advertisement to do all those things and then to make the necessary arrangements to get briefings from the parties that have been suggested by Geoff. Does that make sense? So could I have a motion to that effect?

[0925]

R. Kasper (Chair): I also think it's important that members be cognizant of these dates and perhaps have these put into their schedules, with the exception of December 8 -- I think there's a conflict there -- and to deal with it that way. Geoff, John will keep your members posted, and I will keep my members posted as to what we are going to conclude. So our task for the Chair and Deputy Chair is that at our next meeting, we would have the workplan laid out. We will have staff from ISTA, and we will endeavour to get the previous privacy commissioner -- Flaherty -- and perhaps one other individual -- Colin Bennett, I think. . . .

G. Plant: Colin Bennett was the name that occurred to me. But either Mr. Flaherty or Mr. Bennett, or both, would be able to provide you with names of other people if they don't think that they're the right people.

R. Kasper (Chair): Right -- exactly. This is my hope: the day that we have our briefings, we will also present the Chair and Deputy Chair with the workplan, our proposed advertisement and a list of people that we may want to call upon to make a submission. So we would get approval for that. We'll try to do two bits of business at one meeting. And it's my suggestion that we meet on the 18th, okay?

G. Plant: Well, that meeting, Mr. Chairman, would actually include some substantive work in the form of hearing from ISTA or. . . .

R. Kasper (Chair): Yes, all of that -- okay?

G. Plant: Yeah.

R. Kasper (Chair): Let's see -- I can't really. . . . Would it be in our interest to perhaps approach David Loukidelis -- his office? He had indicated to me that his office would perhaps take an observer role during our process in anticipation of watching the committee and seeing where the committee is headed as far as future endeavours that may or may not occur by his office. But he did express to me that he has an interest in the committee's work. Yes?

G. Plant: It may be that what he is giving you is an expression of caution around whether he, as a commissioner, should take a position on the public policy question of how to regulate. But having said that, I am certain that within his resources personally or within the resources of the office -- either or both -- there has to be information that will help answer the question: what is the problem? That is where Gerard began. So it's not so much from the perspective of asking the commissioner to take a position on what the public policy outcome should be, but rather from the perspective of just getting a better understanding of the scope of the problem and comparative approaches and all that other stuff. It would be great to ask the office of the commissioner. . . .

Interjection.

R. Kasper (Chair): I didn't hear that.

G. Plant: I think what he just said was: "If nominated, I will not accept."

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. So I think we've basically established what we're going to do. Is there any other business that members have? I know that we're on a bit of a tight schedule for other business.

G. Janssen: Is there something happening in Toronto that we should be paying attention to?

R. Kasper (Chair): Yes. I had previously circulated to all members. . . . There is a conference in Toronto, and I think the dates on that are the 6th and 7th. It's in December. I had suggested that if any members expressed an interest. . . . Perhaps they may want to attend that conference. If that's the will of the committee, then. . . .

[0930]

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. Well, I'll make sure that the Clerk's office redistributes the information. It was actually forwarded to me by ISTA, Stuart Culbertson's office, and then I turned it over to the Clerk's office.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): It's December 9 and 10, by the way, at the Royal York Hotel in Toronto.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. The discussion is in fact around this issue. So if members are interested and if it's the will of the committee -- I don't see anybody dissenting -- they may want to approach the Clerk's office to get information.

G. Janssen: I definitely think we should have somebody there -- one or two members going -- to report back to us, so we can get a better grip on that.

G. Plant: This looks pretty interesting. I'll look at it.

G. Janssen: Good.

[ Page 4 ]

G. Plant: This hardly needs saying, but I'm going to say it anyway because sometimes things are better for being said. We had the challenge, when we had the last committee, that the scope of our work got broadened by the people who came and made representations to us about information and privacy issues generally. We dealt with that challenge. It seems to me that. . . . This is, I suppose, just my personal advice for the members of the subcommittee and the drafters of advertising. Let's be really clear about the focus of this part of our work, so that we would even have the opportunity during the course of public hearings to say to people who came to us to express concerns -- for example, about how the WCB was operating -- that that's not within our mandate, and: "Thank you, but no thank you." I just want to try and be as mindful as I can about defining the scope of a project which is actually within our capacity to carry out.

R. Kasper (Chair): I would suggest to the Clerk's office -- and the Chair and Deputy Chair will be cognizant of the fact -- that when the committee was struck, it actually laid out the purpose of why the committee was struck. I think that should be restated in the advertisement -- okay? And all members would get a copy of that advertisement prior to our next meeting. The committee will then meet on Thursday, November 18. That's our next meeting.

The committee adjourned at 9:33 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada