2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament
SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
 INFORMATION PRIVACY IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR
MINUTES AND HANSARD

MINUTES SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON INFORMATION PRIVACY IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR Monday, May 1, 2000 3:30 p.m. Birch Committee Room Parliament Buildings, Victoria

Present: R. Kasper, MLA (Chair); J. Weisbeck MLA (Deputy Chair); P. Calendino, MLA; S. Orcherton, MLA; G. Clark, MLA; E. Walsh, MLA; G. Abbott, MLA

Unavoidably Absent: G. Janssen, MLA; G. Plant, MLA; K. Whittred, MLA

1. The Committee approved its agenda for today’s meeting.

2. The Committee discussed and approved its meeting schedule.

3. The Committee considered the issue of further public consultation, including a list of prospective witnesses, a web-based questionnaire, and meetings with officials in other jurisdictions.

4. The Committee considered a draft editorial prepared on behalf of the Chair and Deputy Chair and approved it for submission to newspapers for publication.

5. The Committee approved a list of additional witnesses that would receive a request from the Chair and Deputy Chair for a written submission on the matter of information privacy in the private sector.

6. The Committee discussed alternatives to the public consultation process including issues raised by a recent parliamentary committee report from the Australian federal House of Representatives.

7. The Chair and Deputy Chair were delegated the responsibility of investigating the feasibility of polling and the use of focus group discussions.

8. Resolved, that the Chair and Deputy Chair issue a request for proposal from various polling organizations for the purpose of research, focus groups and Internet questionnaires. (Mr. G. Clark, MLA)

9. Resolved, that Members of this Committee be authorized to attend conferences relating to the work of this Committee. (Mr. G. Clark, MLA)

10. The Chair advised this Committee of the receipt of a letter from Allan Macdonald, Chair of the British Columbia Branch of the Canadian Bar Association dated April 20, 2000.

11. The committee adjourned at 4:35 p.m. to the call of the Chair.

Rick Kasper, MLA Chair

Craig James Clerk of Committees and Clerk Assistant

 

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 83 ]

The committee met at 3:44 p.m.

R. Kasper (Chair): I'd like to call the Special Committee on Information Privacy in the Private Sector to order. We have an agenda, but the first thing that we'd like to do is. . . . The Clerk has a few words.

C. James: If I could just advise members, we've adopted a new procedure whereby with the committee Blues and ultimately the final product for committee Hansards, we're attempting to include at the very beginning the minutes of proceedings for each of the committees. That will consolidate all of the paper and information in one spot. So if you happen to see the Blues coming out from this particular meeting, at the very beginning will be the minutes themselves, which record the decisions.

G. Clark: From the previous meeting, or from this meeting?

[1545]

Meeting agenda approved.

R. Kasper (Chair): The first items of business are our meeting schedule and our timetable. Now, what I've asked the Clerk's office to do is slot this committee, on a regular basis, on Monday afternoons. The reason is that with estimates proceeding and the work of other committees, I wanted to make sure that this committee -- because it is a special committee, with a task, not a routine standing committee. . . . We have to use our elbow room to get a time slot. Otherwise, we'd be scrambling to find dates and also to get it in members' minds when we're going to meet, with the exception of today.

It was noted by the Deputy Chair that because of estimates and because of briefings by two other members, they had a difficult time making this meeting today. I just want to make sure that people get their heads around the fact that on Mondays this committee will meet. If there is no business forthcoming, then there is no point in meeting. Does everybody agree to that? Any discussion?

P. Calendino: I have a problem. I have roster duty from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., so I have to come after 4 p.m.

R. Kasper (Chair): I would hope that members would at least make some arrangements. I know it's difficult, but the consensus of the committee at our last meeting was to get on with dealing with what our work is and with the task at hand. I am of the view that perhaps these meetings will not even take place, based on what we do here today. This would give us an opportunity to perhaps cancel one or two of the meetings, until we get response and get approval of the business plan. Does anybody have anything to say about that?

G. Clark: No, it sounds good, Rick.

R. Kasper (Chair): John?

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): No, it's fine. Yeah, we're not going to please everybody.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay, great. So it's approved by consensus here.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): So at the same time, then -- between 3:30 to 4:30 p.m. on Monday. Is that what you're saying?

R. Kasper (Chair): Yes.

G. Clark: You'll give us notice if you cancel?

R. Kasper (Chair): Yes, notice will be given.

P. Calendino: So will this room be free? Is this room going to be pre-empted from estimates if. . . ?

C. James: If it is, we would then meet in the Hemlock Room. That's the next-largest room.

R. Kasper (Chair): Yeah, because there's talk of another committee working.

The next item of business is a report that was developed by staff, and it deals with further public consultation. Now, I don't know if everybody has had an opportunity to look at this. The first item it shows is a survey of public consultation methods. It gives a brief outline to date as to what the committee has received and the current actions of the committee, by way of myself, and also what the committee did as far as their public hearing meetings.

At our April 10 meeting there was a specific request for additional public consultation. The next item here deals with issues in public consultation. I think it's pretty straightforward. What's outlined is advertising and perhaps additional public hearings. Maybe we could just deal with those sections there. If one wants to deal with this on an item-by-item basis or just have an opportunity to bring yourself up to date with the report.

P. Calendino: Are we supposed to have that, Mr. Chair?

R. Kasper (Chair): Yes. Would you like one?

S. Orcherton: We don't have that record.

R. Kasper (Chair): I suppose we need more copies?

A Voice: Yeah, I'll get some.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. So how about we have a little five-minute recess?

Interjections.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay, while the Clerk's office is getting copies for members, perhaps in the essence of time, we can go down to item 4, and it's "Opinion Editorial."

[ Page 84 ]

[1550]

The other one is about people who make donations to charities. They make a donation to one or two charities, and then suddenly they're inundated with phone calls from charity groups -- all worthwhile groups, of course. Then you get inundated with mail solicitations and those kinds of things. I wonder if those might be issues that the public might be interested in looking at in terms of this editorial piece.

R. Kasper (Chair): Those are good points. Anybody else? What do you think? Do you think we should have those?

Well, if everything else is okay, then we could add credit card solicitations and donations to charitable organizations as two examples of where information -- and I have to stress it -- may be shared or given out. We use the "may."

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): I guess the more examples we have. . . . It's probably a good idea. The more examples we have, the more people can relate to the whole problem, and maybe we can get more input from them.

R. Kasper (Chair): Good. All right. So could I get a motion to approve the editorial piece with those two additions?

Motion approved.

R. Kasper (Chair): Actually, I was going to mention this one, but I won't. Okay, we'll deal with that.

Now, were we going to get those copies?

C. James: Yeah, they're on their way up.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay, they're on their way up.

C. James: They were actually intended initially just for you and the Chair, and then for Wynne to speak to.

R. Kasper (Chair): While we're waiting. . . .

P. Calendino: Rick, before you go ahead. . . . It's just something that occurred to me. When you go make a purchase, they want two pieces of ID. You give them your licence, which has plenty of information, and you give them another piece of ID, like your social insurance number. They won't take a social insurance number; you have to give them a credit card number. I consider my credit card a very sensitive piece of identification. But they won't give you the sale unless you give them the credit card number. That's another item to consider adding to those that Steve put up.

R. Kasper (Chair): Well, at least you'd know who you were. [Laughter.]

G. Clark: That's why he wants a credit card number.

R. Kasper (Chair): Yeah.

Just while we're waiting, on this draft business plan there are two appendices. On appendix 1 there is a list that's been supplied. I think it's important that we get a little feedback on this while we're waiting for the other material. What I'll do is just it read out:

"Below is a list of private sector business associations that the committee may wish to have appear to discuss the regulation of privacy in the B.C. private sector. This is the same list distributed to the committee in a memo of February 14, 2000."

"Vancouver Board of Trade, Business Council of British Columbia, B.C. Business Summit, B.C. Chamber of Commerce, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, B.C. credit unions, B.C. Federation of Labour, Health Employers Association of B.C., B.C. Medical Association, British Columbia Health Association, B.C. Biotechnology Alliance Society, private physicians' offices in British Columbia, B.C. Association of Clinical Counsellors, Restaurant and Food Services Association of B.C., Hospitality Industrial Relations, Rental Housing Council of B.C., Tenants Rights Action Coalition, Archives Association of British Columbia, British Columbia Historical Federation, Law Society of British Columbia, Chartered Accountants of British Columbia, Federation of Independent School Associations."

[1555]

S. Orcherton: Did you mention the Better Business Bureau?

R. Kasper (Chair): No, I didn't.

S. Orcherton: What I'm thinking is that there are some businesses and some broad provincial organizations that are on the list. I think the Better Business Bureau should be on the list. Surely there must be some consumer advocate organizations in the province that are sort of consumer watchdogs and worry about these kinds of questions and other questions around consumers' ability to protect themselves.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. Well, perhaps I'll turn it over to Wynne. Wynne, would you like to speak to that?

[ Page 85 ]

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. Can anybody think of anybody else we'd like to add?

E. Walsh: For input? Did you say the B.C. Fed?

R. Kasper (Chair): Yes.

E. Walsh: Okay. I couldn't remember; it was so long.

S. Orcherton: You had credit unions on the list. Were banks on the list as well?

R. Kasper (Chair): We have credit unions.

W. MacAlpine: Banks are covered by the federal legislation.

R. Kasper (Chair): By federal. So credit unions are not covered.

S. Orcherton: What about charity organizations?

R. Kasper (Chair): I can't think of a name of an association. Wynne?

W. MacAlpine: We could just identify some larger. . . .

R. Kasper (Chair): Charities.

W. MacAlpine: Charity.

G. Clark: What about direct-mail marketers?

S. Orcherton: Yeah, that's good.

G. Clark: Those are the people who use this information.

A Voice: Yeah, like ad-mail.

G. Clark: Or advertising agencies generally that. . . .

W. MacAlpine: We did hear from those people.

R. Kasper (Chair): There was a marketing council -- Canadian Marketing?

W. MacAlpine: The Professional Marketing Research Society. Those are people who maintain databases, and the direct marketers use their databases.

G. Clark: Right. So maybe that's fine, then. We've already heard from them, have we?

W. MacAlpine: Yeah.

R. Kasper (Chair): They don't really like. . . .

G. Clark: That's what I mean. I'm really just trying to get a balance, so we hear from people who want unfettered access to this information and who really don't want stronger protection of privacy.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): Do we want a representative from each sector? For example, you've got chartered accountants. But what about certified general accountants? I mean, do we want to have everyone speak or have a chance to submit? Or do we just want a representative from different sectors? For example, as well, the dentists aren't represented here. You've got medical doctors out. The chiropractors aren't represented -- all that sort of thing. For some of the health professions, you have got one but not a bunch of the other ones. Now, is that by choice?

G. Clark: I think we should cast the net broadly. I mean, most of them won't respond, I think -- to be fair. But we should probably invite the dentists. If they don't want to, that's fine.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): Yeah, we can invite them all. We could probably expand this list just by looking at categories: health; all the health professionals; the various. . . .

G. Clark: I think we should -- really as broad as we can -- make sure everybody has the opportunity to have input, even if they don't. . . .

[1600]

G. Clark: Sure.

R. Kasper (Chair): Does that make sense?

P. Calendino: Have you got credit institutions there or loan institutions?

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): Yeah, they are -- B.C. credit unions. But you're right -- all the other ones.

A Voice: Trust companies, banks. . . .

R. Kasper (Chair): A credit organization already made a presentation to the committee.

A Voice: Which one?

R. Kasper (Chair): It was Equifax.

W. MacAlpine: Not the credit unions, though.

R. Kasper (Chair): No, not the credit unions. But Equifax, I think it was. . .

[ Page 86 ]

R. Kasper (Chair): . . .made a presentation in January.

W. MacAlpine: I was kind of hoping that this would allow members, who have a lot of community contacts, to send in some additional organizations.

E. Walsh: Did we have media on there too? They really give a. . . . They came forward last time.

G. Clark: Largely, the corporations that own the media would be more interested.

R. Kasper (Chair): Media.

S. Orcherton: I'm wondering, as well, about the companies that are hired by credit unions and banks and trust companies, and all that, to do credit checks. Would that be covered under the credit union piece?

P. Calendino: That's Equifax.

S. Orcherton: That's Equifax? Is that what that's called? Okay.

R. Kasper (Chair): Yeah. It's a different name.

S. Orcherton: They've got tons of information on people.

E. Walsh: That's it.

S. Orcherton: I know that from firsthand experience. They know everything about you.

P. Calendino: They know a lot more than that.

R. Kasper (Chair): So is it agreeable, then? If we can have a motion to have the Chair and Deputy Chair put together a letter, this letter would be sent out to the organizations currently submitted and any other organizations that staff and members would like to see added to the list. Could I have a motion to that effect?

Motion approved.

R. Kasper (Chair): Now we're going to go back to the report. Wynne, what we did was jump around. Do you have copies of this? Were they coming?

W. MacAlpine: They're coming up now.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. Could you waltz us through? I gave a brief overview on page 1. If you could waltz us through, starting with advertisement, public hearings and this discussion paper, Internet, mailing list -- just a brief overview. Then we'd get a sense of what we will decide to do as far as any further structured meetings, workshops or whatever -- okay?

W. MacAlpine: Okay. At the last meeting it was decided by the committee that more public consultation was needed. So I was looking at different consultation methods, because having done the usual -- the placement of an ad in the daily newspapers and holding public hearings -- it wasn't very effective this time, maybe because of the dates being around Christmas. That could have been part of it.

There has been a report by the Australian Parliament looking at the same issue: how to attract larger numbers and more diverse witnesses, rather than the usual interest group witnesses that are often following legislative committees. I've mentioned some of the findings out of that report. It dealt with two issues that would be of interest, probably, to the committees in B.C.

The first is advertising. That report found that a formal ad in daily newspapers was probably part of the problem with not attracting a wide range of people to the public hearings or submission process. They recommended that innovative and experimental methods be used to improve the rate of response. Those things included advertising through the Internet, placing links to the committee's web site on organizations' home pages. In this case, maybe on the information and privacy commissioner's home page and those of some of the privacy organizations -- something like that. . . .

[1605]

E. Walsh: I find it hard to believe that somebody seeing a crest wouldn't find that interesting.

W. MacAlpine: Then they looked at public hearings. That was another issue that this Australian Parliament research paper raised. They actually conducted research into witnesses' perceptions of the public hearing process. Their public hearing process is very similar to ours. It's formal, it's recorded, and it's basically a one-way information session where the witness is speaking to the committee. When they did research, they found that people preferred round-table seminar and workshop sessions. They were less intimidating and more effective at exchanging views. The participants liked being able to exchange views with other participants and with the panel.

The next section goes through different methods of public consultation that were put together from looking at various sources in the library and other places. A discussion paper, which is what ISTA has provided to the committee. . . . There's also a fact sheet, which you can send out with a questionnaire or post on the Internet with a questionnaire. Community displays or local events -- the Agriculture Committee did do something like this back in September. They went to the UBCM convention and set up a booth so that local government representatives could come and see that they

[ Page 87 ]

The next section goes through some of the different types of consultation methods that the committee could use in addition to the public hearing process that the committee has used: group discussion, invited witnesses, advisory group, site visits and questionnaires.

G. Clark: I think that's a great summary of some of the more innovative things we could do. The only other thing I would add is some polling. One of the challenges here is that it is interest group-driven. Let's say that we did a paper that suggested fairly strict privacy regulation. Well, the people who would be motivated to come out would be people who'd be opposed to that. They might even have a commercial reason to be opposed to it. There's nothing wrong with that at all, of course. But they could hire people and prepare significant briefs, etc., whereas the average person just doesn't have the time. Nor do they have that kind of vested interest, at least commercial interest, in such an undertaking.

So maybe when we get a little further along, it might be a good idea to test public opinion -- not necessarily in a very elaborate way. Maybe it will help guide our. . . . If there are some concerns that are obvious out there in the public, then it might help the committee to craft legislation to meet that.

[1610]

In a committee like this we tend to get a bit unbalanced in terms of the input we're receiving. Polling and focus groups, I think, would be very interesting -- if not for the whole committee, then maybe just the Chair and the Deputy Chair or a subcommittee or something.

W. MacAlpine: The Agriculture Committee did do some focus groups, actually. It was for the very same reason -- trying to get the general opinion -- and it was quite interesting. It was quite a different perspective than we had been getting through the written submissions.

G. Clark: Through the interest groups and the people with vested interests -- that's right.

W. MacAlpine: Yeah.

G. Clark: I think we should add that.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): What kind of poll are you suggesting? Is it going to be phone-out type of poll or a . . . ?

G. Clark: I was thinking of two things. What the pollsters do in the focus groups is collect a random sample of ten people -- you know, random in terms of their age and demographics, etc. -- and then watch from behind a one-way mirror, really. They would probe their feelings and concerns or lack of concern from various perspectives on the information and the lack of privacy or privacy issues around their personal information. I think it would be interesting. If you had a good pollster or facilitator for that group armed with information from the committee -- or perhaps, more practically, the Chair and Deputy Chair -- you could really elicit from them the fears and concerns they have.

They might, for example, say no: "No, I don't really have any problems." You might find they're not all that unhappy. Or you might find, if you scratch the surface, real concern, particularly about the Internet and some of the new technologies and information that's coming about. It just might help us focus a bit more on the public interest rather than regulating the private interests, which in government we too often end up doing -- listening to people who have an axe to grind or who are paid to present them. Even though that's legitimate, we do that. It's sometimes nice to get real people out there and see where they're at. They won't come to a parliamentary committee meeting; they're not motivated to come.

I think a broader poll, though not involving focus groups. . . . You might want to do focus groups and see where people are at. If you want to, you might do a broader poll, which would be a phone poll -- statistically proven. The important point with a poll would have to be that the questions themselves would have to be done not by a pollster so much as done by people in this room in terms of what we want, if there were any areas that we were worried about. I'd be worried that we may have some definitive recommendations and that we may want to test them with the public before we rush headlong into them, you know. That's all.

R. Kasper (Chair): I was going to say that when this committee was referred the discussion paper from ISTA and the former Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, there were examples in that document of polling done by the federal government, and there were examples of polling done by. . . . I think it was through ISTA, but that was dated information. It has a date to it, so it may have represented a snapshot in early 1999 but not necessarily now.

Perhaps the Chair and Deputy Chair could embark on that and make some overtures to ISTA to see what they have done, if there's any recent information, and also to pursue the focus group discussion process. An example was given by what's occurred with the agriculture committee. So it's been dealt with by one group. Perhaps John and I can investigate that and bring something forward for our next meeting, go on a little fact-finding mission here -- no travel but just find out. . . . Let's look at some costs. Let's see if there's an opportunity to piggyback, to get some more up-to-date polling and, thirdly, to investigate the issue relating to a focus group discussion for people who do not have a vested interest. I think that reflects on members' comments from our April 10 meeting. Everybody wanted to see a wider range of input to make sure that we're on the right track, whatever track that may be.

[1615]

[ Page 88 ]

R. Kasper (Chair): The Deputy Chair -- and work with the Clerk's office.

G. Clark: The only reason I'm saying that is that. . . .

R. Kasper (Chair): I want to work with Wynne.

G. Clark: I don't know if you need it, but if you want to move things along, I'd be happy to move a motion to empower you to start the process -- not to engage it, necessarily, but to go through a kind of RFP proposal. It wouldn't have to be particularly formal. You could just give the terms of the mandate of the committee and say to five or six of the polling companies: "Here, make a proposal for research."

Do you need an authorization, or can you just do it?

R. Kasper (Chair): I just want to get an answer from the Clerk's office. How did the Agriculture Committee embark upon focus groups? How did they do it -- just so I get a rough idea of how we could follow suit?

C. James: The issue of the focus groups arose out of the employment of a consultant. The consultant ended up being retained on the basis of solicitation for an expert in the area of agrifood policy. It was proposed initially by the consultant, I think, that focus groups would be a good vehicle to gauge the public's reaction to the issue of an agrifood policy for British Columbia. In the past we haven't really gone the route of RFPs for consultants or polling, only because time never seems to be on the side of committees in getting to the end of their work. But in this case, the way it's been framed by Mr. Clark, I think there would be some benefit. Certainly we could pursue that.

R. Kasper (Chair): So is there agreement?

G. Clark: Yeah, sure. All that means is that you're going to get a bunch of proposals, which you can then reject if you want, but we might get some interesting. . . .

R. Kasper (Chair): So would you make your motion?

G. Clark: Okay. I move to empower the Chair and the Deputy Chair to solicit any market research companies to ask them to submit proposals for research that we might do on the information germane to this committee to assist us in our deliberations.

R. Kasper (Chair): Just before it's seconded, would you be including in that the previous discussion relating to gathering information from a broad base of the public, and would that include focus groups?

G. Clark: Yes, I agree. So what I think you'd do, Rick -- not to belabour this -- is that you'd go to the Angus Reid polling company and say: "Here are our terms of reference. We're interested in focus groups and possibly polling or market research. How would you do it? What would you recommend? What would the budget be?" In other words, fairly open-ended: "Make a proposal to us."

You might do it with Marktrend, McIntyre and Mustel, Angus Reid. I'd leave it up to you guys to do what you want. You might do it with some people. . . . For example, there used to be a woman who worked for Gordon Campbell, with work for the GVRD. Her name's Judith. . . .

[1620]

G. Clark: You know what I mean? She might be someone who's a consultant in that field. So you might go to her.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): Judy Kirk.

G. Clark: Judy Kirk, sorry. You might go to Geoff Meggs, who used to work for me, for example, and who's now got Points West Consulting, and say. . . . They're people who work with polling companies, you know. Make them pitch us for work. You might get some interesting ideas. You might put two or three together. You might. . . .

R. Kasper (Chair): What about this Internet, Web-based thing?

G. Clark: That was just an idea. But I think we just leave it flexible for the Chair and the Deputy Chair to put out there. I think the biggest worry for government is always that if you're not doing a formal RFP, then you want to make sure that you canvass it reasonably broadly, so you're insulated from any criticism that you're being selective in whom we choose. That's all.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none, I call the question.

Motion approved.

R. Kasper (Chair): Wynne, we've got one other item here. It says "Web-based questionnaire," as part of this package. Is that on the second-to-last page? It's a sample planning matrix. Or is that different?

W. MacAlpine: It's the page before the list of organizations.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay.

W. MacAlpine: This was just one possibility that Craig and I discussed, that we could do quite quickly. We've got the web site; we've got the discussion paper. It would just be a matter of writing a questionnaire and having the web site

[ Page 89 ]

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. All right. Any discussion on this? Anybody have any ideas?

G. Clark: I don't know if you get bang for the buck, but it would be a great idea to advertise our web site a little -- at least in a more significant way -- so people can access the discussion paper. Even if we have a counter on the web site, at least we'd know how many people were looking at it. If we had even a fairly simple questionnaire, we'd get a sense of anybody who wished to respond. It's not going to be scientific or anything, but it still would be kind of helpful, you know.

C. James: I think one of the more useful components to this would be linkages to other agencies. For instance, more people would probably contact us or the freedom-of-information commissioner and then as a consequence see that there's a special committee, then link to it. All of a sudden, up pops this very short questionnaire which they can fill out and e-mail to us.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): I guess my concern is: is there a consistency in all of this? You start asking particular questions, say, on the Web, and then you've got a polling station or a polling something doing something else. You get all these answers, but there's nothing consistent about it. Somehow or other, we've got to start somewhere and then possibly expand into some other avenues.

R. Kasper (Chair): Well, I think, John, you raise a good point, because when you and I are going to be approaching firms. . .

G. Clark: Why don't you ask them to design the questionnaire too?

R. Kasper (Chair): . . .we could raise this issue as far as an Internet questionnaire.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): I think it's a really excellent idea.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. So we'll leave that.

"Meetings with officials in other jurisdictions." Now, Wynne, you had submitted something. There were some notices of meetings.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): There are two of them actually, Rick. There's one of them in Washington and one of them at Harvard.

G. Clark: Is there a committee in Hawaii somewhere?

E. Walsh: Australia.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): Only if it could be in about October, November.

R. Kasper (Chair): John, could you look after this part of the meeting? I'll just be a sec -- okay? Carry on.

[J. Weisbeck in the chair.]

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): Yeah, we were given a couple. One of them was a symposium announcement at the University of Washington on May 20-23.

[1625]

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): The University of Washington in Seattle on May 20-23.

S. Orcherton: When's Victoria Day?

P. Calendino: The 21st or 22nd.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair: Yes, that's probably not a great one; that's the long weekend. There's also another one May 31 to June 2 at Harvard University.

G. Clark: This one looks quite interesting, actually -- Harvard.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): That's May 31 to June 2. Now, you had commented that there were some other ones that you had.

W. MacAlpine: There were some other ones; they didn't seem to be quite as relevant. In terms of visiting other jurisdictions, we just wanted to get a sense of whether that was something the committee wants to do.

C. James: As most members are probably aware, this is becoming an increasingly hot topic in the United States, and various state legislatures are embroiled in legislation in dealing with the matter. I know that California, Texas, Florida and some of the eastern seaboard states are in the throes of debating this issue. It's fairly controversial in the sense that this is why the legislation has been brought forward: because of public expectation. So there are a number of jurisdictions that, if members were interested in them, we could certainly arrange for members or the entire committee or subcommittee to visit and meet with each of these officials. I think we could put together a fairly substantive program. It's just a question of the timing.

G. Clark: Personally, I don't think the committee as a whole should travel to Texas. But if we could send a member to Texas, a member to California and a member to Washington State or something, that might be really desirable. In other words, I think it's a good idea to do it; I don't personally think we all need to go. I don't know how people's times are. I'm interested in the Harvard one.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): My concern would be that I just don't want to reinvent the wheel. If there is information out there and people in our jurisdictions that are doing this, then we should try to tap into that.

G. Clark: Yeah -- good point.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): These are great to go to, but I'd sooner go to someone that's doing it rather than a general symposium.

[ Page 90 ]

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

R. Kasper (Chair): It makes sense. Is there a consensus around this?

G. Clark: My suggestion is that we ask Craig or a researcher to prepare a potential itinerary or a list of sites where they're actually doing it, as John said, and where there's really a debate taking place right now. If there are four or five sites, then maybe the Chair could be empowered to canvass the committee and see if anybody's interested in going. The House is sitting; it's a difficult time. We may have to do some informal pairing, a member of both parties going, which is fair enough. It's probably advantageous in any event. So I'd like to authorize the committee. I think that in some cases, given that summer is coming up, we should try to move fairly quickly. A quick trip down to California need not be more than a couple of days or three days maybe. But we probably want to do that before the end of June.

E. Walsh: By doing that, too, you'd get back information more varied. I think it's a great idea.

C. James: There's the other prospect, too. If perchance the parliamentary calendar did make itself known and the House did rise by mid-June, there's nothing wrong. . . . A lot of Houses in the States sit well into July, as well, and you could take an entire week and just visit. It may be more cost-effective to do a whole batch of them rather than just sort of a hit-or-miss.

G. Clark: True. You'll work on it.

C. James: So we'll have a look and make a couple of options available to the members.

G. Clark: I think that we should authorize -- whether it's necessary or not, I don't know -- members of the committee to attend the two conferences that I mentioned, if they want to or if time and circumstances allow, maybe at the Chair's discretion. In our case, speaking for the government's side, the Whip may not allow any of us to go, frankly. It may be the same for the Liberal side; I'm not sure. But if the Whip says, "Okay, we've got this date; somebody can go in the first week in June," or something, then I don't think we have to come back to this committee meeting. Rick, the Chair, can just give the high sign if somebody wants to go, in consultation with the Deputy Chair, maybe. Is that okay?

[1630]

W. MacAlpine: I want to find out how you'd like me to order these things. Would it be more useful if we heard from maybe some expert witnesses first on various types of privacy regulations before deciding where to go, because it varies, especially in the States, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction? It might be more useful to decide where you want to go on the basis of the form of regulation that you're beginning to look at, or more than one form that. . . .

R. Kasper (Chair): With the discussion that the committee has just had, I think that the Clerk's office has a sense of what the committee has heard to date. But we know that you're capable of doing some research, bearing in mind that there will be federal legislation which would cover the province in three years. In one particularly area, health, it will be four years. We know what framework there is right now in Canada. I guess the task that the committee's charged with is: are we going to recommend legislation similar, regulation similar or do nothing until the three years kick in? I think you've got a sense of what we have to look at. I would rely on your judgment in the Clerk's office to gather whatever information you think we may need.

What do we have here?

C. James: A motion authorizing members to attend other conferences.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. There is a motion, if you could just read that out.

G. Clark: Resolved that members of the committee be authorized to attend conferences relating to the work of the committee.

R. Kasper (Chair): Can I have a motion to that effect?

Motion approved.

R. Kasper (Chair): We've done 1, 2, 3, 4 -- everything but these audiotapes. Wynne, are these tapes available for members?

W. MacAlpine: Yes.

R. Kasper (Chair): So if members are interested in hearing the conference from March 9 and 10, they would contact you.

W. MacAlpine: Uh-huh. I have the agenda as well.

S. Orcherton: How long are these tapes?

W. MacAlpine: They're in hour-long segments, and I have the agenda, so you can choose the speakers that you want to hear.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): Do you have one copy of each section? Or do you have to select. . . ?

W. MacAlpine: Yes, one copy, but we can make other copies.

R. Kasper (Chair): So we have a little library.

S. Orcherton: So you can go and ask for one tape, and there's a list of topics.

W. MacAlpine: Yes.

R. Kasper (Chair): If members are interested, contact Wynne.

P. Calendino: Does that mean that people who have insomnia should go right away?

[ Page 91 ]

P. Calendino: People who have insomnia. . . .

R. Kasper (Chair): Under "Any other business," I received this letter last week from the British Columbia branch of the Canadian Bar Association, and I've distributed it. It's pretty much self-explanatory. I note the highlight: "We urge the special legislative committee to provide either draft legislation or a more detailed and thorough discussion paper that would help to frame the debate for British Columbians." I'll make reference to the other part of the letter where they are supportive of the committee working in this direction. I thought I'd bring that to the members' attention.

Is there any other business?

S. Orcherton: To go back to what we were talking about before in terms of who we should be talking to in different organizations and stuff, three other thoughts came to my mind. Maybe we've already done some of this work, but I'll raise them again, in any event. One was UBCM, around municipal governments.

[1635]

P. Calendino: They're public.

R. Kasper (Chair): They're public, but there may be some private information.

S. Orcherton: They hold a lot of private information in their domain.

The other is the Real Estate Association and its access to public and private records. The third is notaries. If we're talking to the bar and those kinds of things, we should probably talk to the notaries as well.

R. Kasper (Chair): They have a tendency to be left off.

S. Orcherton: Not by this committee.

R. Kasper (Chair): No, but they do have a tendency to be left off.

Is there any other business? Hearing none, could I have a motion to adjourn?

The committee adjourned at 4:36 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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