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

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON INFORMATION PRIVACY IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR Wednesday, November 22, 2000 9:00 a.m. Douglas Fir Committee Room Parliament Buildings, Victoria

Present: R. Kasper, MLA (Chair); J. Weisbeck MLA (Deputy Chair); P. Calendino, MLA; S. Orcherton, MLA; G. Plant, MLA; K. Whittred, MLA

Unavoidably Absent: G. Clark, MLA ; Hon. G. Janssen, MLA; E. Walsh, MLA; G. Abbott, MLA

1. The Committee was called to order at 9:10 a.m.

2. The Committee reviewed the status of its business and discussed the Ipso Reid research proposal.

3. The Committee agreed that the Chair and the Deputy Chair should discuss the format and substance of the Committee’s report to the House.

4. The Committee agreed to schedule its next meeting in February 2001 to consider its draft report, results of the research proposal and any additional issues.

5. The Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair at 10:19 a.m.

Rick Kasper, MLA Chair

Craig James Clerk of Committees and Clerk Assistant

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE 
ON INFORMATION PRIVACY
IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2000

[ Page 163 ]

The committee met at 9:10 a.m.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay, if we could get started, I'd like to call the committee meeting to order. We have a number of items on our agenda here, some of which I'm assuming we perhaps will not deal with entirely today. The first item is the status of business to date. I'll ask Wynne MacAlpine to just give us an update on the first two items under section 1, status of business. Wynne?

W. MacAlpine: Okay. The last meeting of the committee was September 23, at which time the committee heard from Dr. Richard Rosenberg, Dr. Jochen Moehr and David Loukidelis. A summary of those discussions is on your desks, and they're meant to be put in the information binder under tab 1.

Since that time, Ipsos-Reid has begun the research program that was requested by the committee, and they're starting their focus groups tonight. The report of their initial findings from the focus groups is expected to be completed on November 27. Business interviews with 19 representative businesses are expected to take place November 27 through December 1. They're expected to report their initial findings from the business interviews by December 11.

The second phase of the research program is scheduled to begin in January 2001. That is the quantitative phase of the research, and it will take approximately four weeks from the design of the survey to the preliminary report. The final report, which will combine the findings from the qualitative and the quantitative research, will take approximately one week.

R. Kasper (Chair): Wynne, could I just interrupt? I think some members are having a hard time hearing what you're saying, so that if we could perhaps start over. . . .

G. Plant: What is it that's starting in January 2001? Sorry, Wynne.

W. MacAlpine: That's the second phase of the research, the quantitative phase. And the survey design right through to the initial report will take about four weeks. Then the final report will take about one week to prepare, so sometime in February that should be completed.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. Does anyone have any questions on that aspect?

Carry on, Wynne.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): Sorry. Before, could I. . . ? Have we decided to have two focus groups, then? Is that the idea?

W. MacAlpine: Yeah.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): Okay. Thank you.

W. MacAlpine: Distributed today were some submissions that came in after the submission summaries were prepared. There is one from IMS Health Canada; that's their second submission. They wanted to submit another paper because they've been participating in the Ontario consultations, and they had some new information that they wanted to give to the committee. There's also one from the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Another thing that was handed out were transcripts from the conference New Wave of Privacy Protection in Canada.

There's a copy of Bill 68, which goes behind tab 8 in the binders. That's to replace the one that was there, which is actually the public sector act, not the private sector act. The last thing that was handed out were submission summaries arranged by topic. Those are summaries of the topics that are on the agenda for discussion today.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. Does anyone have any questions relating to the additional information that Wynne has given us in regard to our binders?

Okay. What I was hoping to do, then, is. . . . Wynne, could you give us a report, then, on these proposed Vancouver meetings and the status of that?

W. MacAlpine: The Clerk of Committees office phoned and sent letters to various university departments that would be likely to have an interest in this topic. Most people responded that it was just not a good time of year for students or faculty to participate in anything like a public hearing. So that's where that stands now.

[0915]

C. James: Just for the members' information, Wynne did contact these groups numerous times to see if we could in fact flesh out another Vancouver meeting, but it was just to no avail.

R. Kasper (Chair): Is that all, Wynne, on that?

S. Orcherton: Just a question, really. I'm not sure if you have the answer or not, but you mentioned that Ontario's going through a somewhat similar process. Is that correct?

P. Calendino: They're finished.

S. Orcherton: What was the level of participation in Ontario?

W. MacAlpine: I'm not sure.

S. Orcherton: Are we finding that it was more in Ontario? Or is there. . . ?

W. MacAlpine: I'm not sure what that's been like, but Chris Norman was just raising his hand.

S. Orcherton: I don't know who that is.

P. Calendino: Just a comment on what Steve has just said. I had the opportunity of listening to the privacy commissioner in Ontario making a presentation, and her comments were that she wishes she could speak to thousands of people that would be interested in privacy. Unfortunately, at all the meetings she goes to, there is just a handful of people in the industry, and that's about it. So I don't think they got much

[ Page 164 ]

interest from the general public, other than organizations like IMS and the Insurance Bureau of Canada and the usual -- the Royal Bank, etc.

What I can say, though, is that Ontario is ready with draft legislation, and probably, if it's not introduced in this fall session, they will have the legislation presented to the Legislature in the spring. They hope that it will be passed, according to the privacy commissioner there.

G. Plant: That's Ontario that will have legislation -- if not in the fall, then in the spring?

P. Calendino: Yes, according to the commissioner there.

R. Kasper (Chair): Based on our actions to date -- the correspondence sent out to groups and organizations that we felt may want to participate in some additional meetings in the lower mainland -- and due to the fact of the response that we got, I would strongly recommend that we not in fact conduct any additional public hearings or meetings on the issue in the lower mainland, because if those who have not expressed an interest right now. . . . I think it's going to be relatively hard to get them to come kicking and dragging to a process that we've actually been embarked upon for over a year.

We did have a series of meetings in late January last year in the lower mainland. Those were attended. As you can see by our binders, we have had a fairly extensive group of written submissions from a fairly wide range, and we had some expert witnesses come to our previous meeting. I would strongly recommend that we leave it at that and not embark upon any more public meetings.

But I'm willing to hear from members of the committee if. . . . In light of the fact that there is additional research being done through Ipsos-Reid and that their findings will not be completed until the end of January, maybe we could revisit that issue then. But due to the sort of time line as to what this committee has been charged with doing, I would hope that we could get a report completed and submitted prior to the proroguing of the legislative session. I'll leave it up to members. You may want to think about that or at least bring forward some additional ideas.

[0920]

S. Orcherton: I think we do have to have a report in a timely way, but I'm interested to see what this research is going to be coming forward with. Maybe there's an opportunity to get the Chair and the vice-Chair to do some preliminary work around the framework of what a report would look like. And in early February the committee could review the research component and factor that into the report. We could work on the framework at this point, but there is still some information that will be forthcoming.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): I would agree as well. I think it's important to have a report. I'm more interested in seeing what Ontario's going to do. I'd hate to have to go out there and spend a whole bunch of time and effort reinventing the wheel. We have a great little study going on with Ontario, and we can see what's happening there.

P. Calendino: I don't know what the office is or the deputy minister who deals with privacy in post-ed. . . . Chris -- is that him?

R. Kasper (Chair): Chris Norman from ISTA.

P. Calendino: Yeah, I think it's ISTA; that's right. I think they already have a copy of the draft legislation for Ontario, and I understand they also made some comments. I don't know if they submitted the comments to them. I wonder if Chris can elucidate on that.

R. Kasper (Chair): Well, is it okay with the committee that Chris Norman come and give a brief outline to the committee in regard to what in fact is happening in Ontario?

Chris, do you want to come forward?

C. Norman: We have not seen a copy of their proposed legislation. We have spoken with Ontario officials about some of the potential directions they're going. But as you may know, they circulated a discussion paper in the summer, which I think was probably a fairly good idea of an outline of where, from a public policy standpoint, they're intending to try to go.

One of the things that is interesting in, I think, all the provinces. . . . There was a meeting of the provinces on October 20 in Toronto, which I was fortunate enough to attend. We did do a kind of cross-country check-in or update as to where people are, and I would say that B.C. and Ontario are certainly in the lead of the pack. I think a lot of the others are waiting to see where this committee goes and also where Ontario goes with its legislation.

The one thing that I would bring up by way of context with Ontario is that their situation there is very different than ours. While it will be interesting to see what they in fact table, my understanding is that they're in the middle of some fairly significant discussions around some of the issues. For example, in B.C. we cover most of the health sector already with our public sector act. In Ontario very little of the health sector is covered in their acts. So there's considerable discussion around whether there would be a separate health information bill, because none of it's covered already, which could potentially result in three privacy regimes in that province.

There are also other broader issues around other entities that aren't covered. For example, universities aren't covered in Ontario. Again, there's some discussion there as to where they might get kind of wrapped in under whatever legislative scheme they're putting forward.

The last I understood, they were working toward a fall tabling of this bill. And I have not heard anything in the last couple of weeks that would indicate that they're not going to meet that target. But even if they go to spring, from what I understand, they have every intention of passing this bill in the next session or two. What will be interesting is to see how relevant the comparison is, given the differences in context. I think that will be of considerable interest.

R. Kasper (Chair): Does anyone have any questions for Chris? Okay. Thank you, Chris.

W. MacAlpine: I just wanted to mention that ISTA has distributed its recommendations which were requested during the summer meetings of the committee. That's something just to draw your attention to.

[0925]

[ Page 165 ]

R. Kasper (Chair): Right, okay. They've responded to our request for information. And I'm assuming that because we've just got it today, members would like to go over that information. And then if they have any questions, they could forward them directly to Chris or through the Chair and vice-Chair or the Clerk's office. Is that agreeable? Or did you want. . . ?

G. Plant: I missed that. I apologize. I was thinking about something else.

R. Kasper (Chair): The committee had requested some information from ISTA. We've just received that now. What I'm suggesting, because of the length of what they've brought forward, is that members may want to go over this. And if they have any specific questions of Chris Norman and his office, they could contact him directly, or they could contact Wynne MacAlpine through the Clerk's office.

G. Plant: Thank you. That's helpful.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. So that's agreeable there.

Let's just get back to this issue relating to proposed meetings in Vancouver. I seem to think that there is some consensus -- without closing the door on any future public input or input from specific groups or organizations that we have previously contacted -- that we would wait until the findings from the Ipsos-Reid research, and then we would revisit that issue at the end of January. Is that agreeable?

At least, that's the time frame that Wynne had outlined as to getting the final work -- roughly four weeks, it was.

G. Plant: That's fine. I agree that we ought to be cautious and keep the door open as a matter of theory. But I think we also have to acknowledge that we've worked pretty hard to kick the sleeping dog of the public, and the dog is pretty close to comatose on this issue. We are going to get to a point where we have completed our attempt to receive input, and then we'll have to figure out what to do with it.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. Very good, then.

S. Orcherton: Just to follow up on that, far be it from me ever to characterize the public as a sleeping dog, but I agree that there's a whole variety of issues out in front of the public right now that are garnering far more attention at this point than this issue, albeit this is an important issue. I agree: we leave the door open, and perhaps there will be an opportunity with the report and maybe some press releases from the committee on the report. We'll see what it looks like at the end of the day. Maybe there's an opportunity to engage in a little bit of further discussion, perhaps in the university and the college side, where people are looking at these kinds of questions. Maybe we can do something like that in the new year prior to releasing our final report to the assembly.

P. Calendino: Has the high-tech industry not responded at all to this? They're the ones who will be mostly affected by any legislation -- e-commerce, etc. It's strange that in the American debate, the high-tech industry is in the forefront of the discussions, and here the sleeping dog seems to be part of the high-tech industry as well.

W. MacAlpine: The only high-tech, if you call it that, industry that has responded was Bell Canada, and as with most of the submissions, that's an organization that was participating in the federal consultations as well. Those are mostly the organizations that this committee heard from -- the ones that were already active in this area.

P. Calendino: No dot-coms?

W. MacAlpine: No.

R. Kasper (Chair): Well, you know, I think perhaps the group that encapsulated some private sector -- i.e., dot-com, e-commerce -- interests was the presentation that Kevin Evans made. There were components of the retailers which embraced high-tech companies -- i.e., dot-coms -- that he referenced in his report and his written submission in January. I don't know if people were satisfied with that. There were not specific companies named, but there was an embracing of that. Now, I could be proven wrong, but that's my recollection of what he had presented to the committee last year.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): I would suspect that the high-tech companies are not so much concerned as they are looking at it as an opportunity to develop some security.

P. Calendino: This is not a question of security. Nobody cares about security. It's the privacy, and the debate is totally two separate things. Privacy and security are not the same things, although security may contribute to part of protecting privacy.

[0930]

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): It's part of it.

P. Calendino: But there have been some really huge cases in the U.S., DoubleClick for example -- the question that they didn't protect the privacy of their clients. Litigation is in high gear in the U.S. apparently; that's why I'm saying it's strange that dot-com is not interested in this.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay, how about we leave that, then? And we'll leave the door open, but we have to be cognizant of a time frame as to when the door will be closed. And we would revisit that issue in January.

As far as a time line in reporting to the House, is there consensus that we should strive to get a report prior to the House proroguing or. . . ? You know, we've got to keep that in mind. I think it's incumbent on us to get our job done.

G. Plant: Well, maybe, Mr. Chair, you have a sneak insight into something that I have to admit I'm completely in the dark on. The House could prorogue tomorrow, or it could prorogue on June 28. Come on, tell us: when will it be?

R. Kasper (Chair): Well, look, I have no insight.

G. Plant: Oh darn.

R. Kasper (Chair): I would also admit, I would probably say, that I've never had any insight on those questions.

But I think we have to be kind of mindful that our job is to try to do this as quickly as possible. Based on the information we've received, we could not complete a report until at

[ Page 166 ]

least the end of January, because we will be receiving additional information up to that point. Then that will give us additional basis for whatever work we decide today to embark upon in regard to putting together a base for a report. So that kind of gives you some insight there by the decisions we've made right now -- that we couldn't get a report done until the end of January anyway.

S. Orcherton: Well, I join all those that are in the dark, first of all. Happily, I'm not alone there.

I made a suggestion earlier. I don't know whether we need a motion for that or not or whether the committee can just work away on it. But I thought the best way to proceed in terms of a report would be to have the Chair and vice-Chair sit down and draft out something around a framework of what's been done, being mindful that there's research coming -- factor in the research at the appropriate point when it comes into the report. I think we'll be well positioned to have a report, I would think, available sometime late February or early in March. And it won't be such a huge pressure on any of the members of the committee nor on the Clerk's office to get that done, if we went on a sort of logical, progressional kind of a way.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): Mr. Chair, I'd agree: I think we should try for March 1. And this would obviously be a status or an interim report.

S. Orcherton: Yeah. You just get working on it now.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): Yeah.

R. Kasper (Chair): How about we leave that item? Now, item No. 2, it's under the heading of "Future Meetings -- Ipsos-Reid preliminary findings." When did you anticipate that coming again? You know, as far as the preliminary findings, that was what date?

W. MacAlpine: For the focus groups, that would be November 27. And if you wanted to wait and get the focus group findings and the business interview findings at one time, that would be mid-December.

R. Kasper (Chair): Now, was the idea that this group would actually present those findings to the committee?

W. MacAlpine: They can do that. That's up to the committee to decide whether they want that.

R. Kasper (Chair): What's the wish of the committee? Would they like to receive it in writing? Or would they like Ipsos-Reid to come and make a presentation to the committee?

P. Calendino: Well, I think the two -- you know, in writing for us to be able to follow.

J. Weisbeck (Deputy Chair): Writing, yeah -- writing followed up with an actual verbal presentation.

R. Kasper (Chair): Presentation -- is that agreeable to everybody?

[0935]

Some Voices: Uh-huh.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay, fine. You know, I don't want to put people on the spot right now. But would you want to have a meeting in December to do that? Shaking your heads. . . . [Laughter.]

A Voice: Bad timing.

S. Orcherton: I'm happy to meet if the researchers are ready to make a report and if the committee is available to get together, being mindful of other time commitments. But I don't anticipate that it would necessarily be a full day to hear the report and ask questions of the researchers. I'm certainly available to meet in December or in early January, however it works for the committee.

R. Kasper (Chair): I would then suggest that, through the Clerk's office, we could approach the members with some possible dates. If it does not look like we would have a quorum for a meeting in December because of other commitments people may have, then we would do it at the earliest time frame in January. But I think that more importantly, once the information has been tabulated, we would get a written report.

K. Whittred: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Can you clarify for me? I have down here that the Ipsos-Reid findings were not going to be available until the end of January.

R. Kasper (Chair): No, that's the final. What we'd be talking about is the first phase. Is that correct, Wynne?

W. MacAlpine: Yeah.

R. Kasper (Chair): Could you just repeat exactly what they're going to have available by the end of November, for members?

G. Plant: I'm sorry, Wynne. You've got to do it so I can hear it.

W. MacAlpine: Okay. The initial findings from the two focus groups and the 19 business interviews will be ready for mid-December. Those are the initial findings of the qualitative research.

G. Plant: And what is it that's happening in January?

W. MacAlpine: The quantitative phase will begin. So the survey. . . . The findings from the qualitative research will help to focus the questions for the survey. So you may want to see those findings before the quantitative research is put together.

G. Plant: I'm sorry. Are you suggesting, then, that this committee will have a role to play in designing the quantitative survey? Or is it just that the people who are doing it want some input from us? I mean, they're the experts. I'm not a survey poll question designer.

W. MacAlpine: Well, I can tell you what sort of things they're going to be discussing at the focus groups. Let me just find it.

[ Page 167 ]

G. Plant: I'm happy to hear the answer to that question. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I missed a couple of meetings where some of this process was discussed, and I apologize if what I'm saying sounds like I don't understand what's going on. But it seems to me that there's a firm that's been retained to do qualitative and quantitative opinion survey research. If that is so and they've been retained to do both of those things, I guess I start from the premise of wondering why we would want to hear an interim report when we could actually wait until they've done their entire project. Then they could come back and give us a report that blends both the qualitative and the quantitative research into one set of findings that would be, I think, useful to us.

I'm happy to be told that there is in fact a reason why we need to be involved before the completion of the project. But my starting-out point is: if they're doing some work and they're not done until the end of January, I don't know why we have to do anything about that part of the project until they finish their job.

R. Kasper (Chair): Well, that sounds good to me. I had just brought it forward as an option for members. Members will get the qualitative phase in writing as a mid-report. They can do with it whatever they want. Then, as you have suggested, we would not necessarily meet with them or have a meeting to discuss their findings until the entire project has been completed -- correct?

G. Plant: I'm in the hands of the people who have actually done the contractual negotiations here. I assume that the position is that Ipsos does not want our input as a committee into designing the survey questions.

R. Kasper (Chair): You're correct.

[0940]

G. Plant: Then let them do their work.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay.

G. Plant: Oh. Then let them do their work.

S. Orcherton: I don't have any difficulty with that either, but we seem to be embarking on a somewhat convoluted process this morning. We had a discussion earlier about whether or not we should have a submission on the first phase of the research project in writing and verbally. The decision was taken to do that -- fair enough. Then there was a question about when we would meet to hear the verbal presentation. The government side is happy to meet in December. I heard. . . . We're still happy to do that, if that's of value.

But it seems like we keep revisiting the issue. If we want to wait until the end of the whole thing, that's fine. I was under the impression that there was an agreement to meet with the researchers midway through. That's why we were proceeding on that basis. We seem to be going around a bit in circles.

G. Plant: I don't want to go around in circles or discuss what we agreed three minutes ago or ten minutes ago. I want to know what people want to do. I've told you what I think -- knowing everything that I know now -- is a more sensible way to proceed. I'm open to hearing other ideas. I'm not being categorical about this. It occurred to me, having thought about it a bit more, that if we are getting these people to go out and do a part 1 and a part 2 -- and really, from their perspective, they're not completely finished until they've done part 1 and part 2 -- why not wait till they've done part 1 and part 2? But if there's another perspective on that, I'm happy to hear it.

R. Kasper (Chair): Based on what I've heard, when the qualitative phase has been completed and there's something in writing, my suggestion is that it be circulated to the members and that the Chair and vice-Chair could perhaps go over that.

S. Orcherton: If there's some value, we could get back together.

R. Kasper (Chair): If there's some value, and if we deem it necessary to have a presentation or to have a meeting to discuss the first phase as a group, then we'll put our heads together to make that happen. So do the committee members trust the judgment of the Chair and the vice-Chair to actually reach that stage?

S. Orcherton: Unequivocally.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay, very good, then. So how about we leave it at that? Okay, we'll leave it at that.

Item 3. Wynne, based on some of the discussion that happened earlier on in our meeting, it was suggested that the Chair and the vice-Chair actually get together and, as a subcommittee of this committee, put together a basis for a report. Now, my question to you is in regard to the review of submissions sections, which deal with the regulatory options, the question of delay or expedite certain areas, self-regulation, legislation, options -- none, harmonize, specific to B.C. and human rights-based. Do all these items fit within that category of what could be a framework for a report?

W. MacAlpine: Yeah. I think that if you don't see it as necessary as reviewing the submissions on each of those topics separately, then a framework report could be put together that includes some background information as well. Then that could be reviewed by the committee.

R. Kasper (Chair): Well, you know, the reason why I bring it up in that context is that there is a heck of a lot of information here. It's my hope that members could take the time to go through the information. The Chair and vice-Chair could sit down with the research and go over this document in detail. And if there are members who feel that there is something missing or have a suggestion as to how we should package a preliminary report with the additional information that we know is going to be forthcoming, then I don't see any necessity in us going through all of these other items on the agenda. That's my opinion. We could get pretty bogged down -- unless there's something that the members feel they want to give direction to the Chair and vice-Chair as to what we should or should not be focusing on. And I sense that Geoff would like to say something.

[0945]

G. Plant: Everything I say is subject to the caveat that until we get the results of this research project that we've

[ Page 168 ]

commissioned, we're -- I think -- ahead of ourselves in even thinking that we can get much clarity on where we're going to end up. Otherwise, why are we bothering. . . ? I mean, if we think we have the answer now, why are we spending tax dollars on the focus group and the survey work?

Here's the thing that occurs to me, having now been on a couple of legislative committees which made relatively modest recommendations, none of which have as yet been taken up by the government. We ought to be thoughtful about what our mandate is. I'm thinking in part of trying to spare you and the Deputy Chair the task of sitting down and grappling -- even beginning to grapple -- with a range of issues that might, after some consideration by this committee, be considered to be outside the scope of our mandate. Or at least they might be; I mean, we don't know the outcome of that.

That's my first thought -- that we should identify. . . . I do think that the Chair and the Deputy Chair, with help from the research staff, could probably identify a list of the issues that we could then bring back to this committee not perhaps for the purpose of achieving final resolution on them but at least for the primary or initial purpose of thinking about whether we're really going to be able to grapple with those issues.

A specific example is the security-versus-privacy issue, which has already been briefly discussed today. And yet when we pore through a lot of the stuff that's come in, we're going to find that people are talking about security. So we may need to think about being clear about whether it is or is not part of our mandate. I'm not prejudging the outcome of that, but. . . .

So I just wonder whether, as a next stage in this process after we get the results of the survey work, we could have the Chair and the Deputy Chair identify some of the issues that need to be brought forward with respect to our mandate and then have a discussion at the committee level that might focus the later discussion, so that we can make sure we know what it is we want to spend time really thinking about and what it is we think we may not need to spend time thinking about.

I'm concerned that if we as a committee empower the Chair and the Deputy Chair now to go out and draft a framework report -- speaking only for myself -- I may see draft chapters written on subjects where my own view would be that we don't need to express an opinion on that. That would be a whole lot of wasted effort. So that's what's on my mind on that subject.

S. Orcherton: Not that I'm disagreeing with anything that's been said, but here we go again, repeating earlier discussions in the meeting. I mean, all I want to see done is that at the end of this committee's work we have a good report that's taken into consideration all of the issues that we've been charged to look at, presentable and ready to present to the Legislative Assembly. We had a discussion earlier about how best to proceed, given the time frames that we're looking at.

The suggestion was that some preliminary work be done around a framework around a report, factoring in the research components of that at the particular moment. My assumption -- and I don't know whether this occurred -- is that the Chair had similar conversations with the Deputy Chair as he did with me around this issue and suggested that that might be a good way to proceed and a good utilization of time over the next few months. We had a discussion earlier about that, and it seemed like everybody was in agreement. Now we're back revisiting that issue.

I'm not fussy about how we proceed on it. I just want to see us use the time to the best advantage, so that, as I said, at the end of the day we have a good report that's available. If the other members want to wait until all the information is available before any work is done by the committee in terms of a report, I'm fine with that. I thought that there was some agreement that we utilize our time in a productive way and get things on track, moving ahead slowly, waiting for the rest of the information.

G. Plant: We're not actually negotiating a collective agreement here, Steve. We're having a general discussion about where we're going. As far as I'm concerned, we haven't agreed on anything until we've agreed on everything. So let's not worry about. . . . Let's figure out what we want to do. What you're talking about as a framework -- if that's an identification of the issues for discussion, then we're not disagreeing. What I don't want to have is a draft report on a whole bunch of topics that, at the end of the day, we're going to have difficulty incorporating responsibly into our work.

[0950]

S. Orcherton: Yeah. If I can interject, as my friend across the way did a moment ago, and explain that I'm not trying to negotiate a collective agreement, all I'm trying to negotiate is some progress for the committee. I think that's what we're all here trying to do.

So to sort of move away to get a little less confrontational on this issue, I think the Chair had it right when he talked about the review of submissions, the regulatory options and so on that are laid out in our agenda items. I think there is some value in doing some work around those kinds of issues to build a framework for the report. That's my view. If other members take a different view and want to wait till all the information is available, fair enough. My interest is to see that we get a good report that encompasses all that the committee has discussed and move it along to the Legislature, as we're charged to do.

R. Kasper (Chair): Wynne, would you like to ask the question you asked of me? It relates to your work. I'll turn it over to you now.

W. MacAlpine: In terms of making a framework report, it would be helpful if our office knew what level of detail that should be at. A lot of the submissions, because they're from organizations that participated in discussions on the federal legislation, are quite detailed. They make recommendations on how B.C. should differ from the federal legislation. They get into things like the powers of a commissioner or whether or not there should be a commissioner to oversee any legislation that's passed. I'm wondering what level of detail that framework should reach.

K. Whittred: I guess there's been some discussion around the table about what each of us would like to see, so I will just put my two cents' worth in. I think what I would like to see at this juncture is, number one, to let the research group complete their research. Following that, which would be early February, I think the committee should meet and go over what we have at that particular time.

In the interim, if the Chair and the vice-Chair wish to work on what would be the look of a draft agreement, I would

[ Page 169 ]

have no objection to that, following up on what Wynne said. My own impression is that this would not be a detailed report. It would be a summative kind of report, simply stating that the committee had this mandate, the committee has met with these many people, the committee has done X, Y and Z, and the committee has identified these issues arising out of the submissions. I would not perceive detail beyond that kind of report.

R. Kasper (Chair): In short, for the Chair and the vice-Chair in the research to encapsulate, based on the mandate of the committee, the submissions that we have received to date, which basically is. . . . What Wynne needs is: what level of detail do we want? You know, do we highlight submissions that are relevant to what we're charged with dealing with? Or do we go beyond that?

My suggestion is that we go with what our terms of reference are, bearing in mind that the terms of reference for the committee deal with two points: the protection of personal information in private sector transactions and the impact of electronic documents on privacy and freedom of information for British Columbians, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to consider reports referred to the committee by the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. So bearing in mind what the mandate is and the submissions we've received to date, which are two inches thick, we don't want to submit a report that's two inches thick. I think we've got consensus there.

So in order to move the project along without making a final determination as to what our recommendations are, the Chair and the vice-Chair, with the staff, will put together a framework for a report based on the written submissions we've received to date. Now, is that agreeable? You know, I. . . .

S. Orcherton: It is for us. Do the best we can do with what we've got, then move along.

[0955]

R. Kasper (Chair): Katherine, is that agreeable? You know, it's something that at least the committee can chew over and work with. There may be something, based on the written submissions that we've got here, that the three of us may not pick up on. So that's why I think it's incumbent on other members to go through this, and I know it can be fairly tedious and laborious. There might be something there that you might want to see highlighted in the work we're doing.

What I'm trying to do is save time. I think we've got a two-month period where some activity can occur. And then the latter part of the work that we're going to be receiving can also be applied to a document, and that's a basis for discussion around recommendations. Do you follow my train of thought? Is that agreeable? At least it's going to keep us going. I don't want to see this: we meet here today, we stop, and then everything else stops like a buck watch. We've got to keep the flow happening. So are there any other comments on that?

Then can I accept that, by general consensus of the committee, the Chair and the vice-Chair will work with the research to go over the submissions and to highlight the more relevant aspects of the submissions we've received, in relation to the terms of reference that this committee is operating under? That will establish a framework. And then when we meet at a later date, we will have some additional information for the committee to in fact deal with. Is that agreeable?

A Voice: Yep.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay, well, then that's what we're going to do, and it's agreed by consensus.

Based on that, are there any items in section 3 that deal with the review of submissions? I talked about the issues of delay or expedite, self-regulation, legislation -- none, harmonized, etc. -- and the scope of application, which deals with the credit reporting sector, the health sector, the employee information issues, information technologies. Is there anything there that members feel is missing, that we should in fact include in this framework?

P. Calendino: Perhaps if you explain how wide or how far information technologies go. . . . What's implied in there? Is that e-commerce technologies?

R. Kasper (Chair): Wynne, did you want to just touch on that?

P. Calendino: The last item.

W. MacAlpine: Information technologies is a topic that came out of the submissions. Most of those deal with the fact that the legislation or whatever sort of regulatory option the committee recommends shouldn't focus solely on information technologies. That was one point that was raised. Other points were simply to acknowledge that information technologies have made privacy a greater concern than it was in the past. So they're pretty general under this topic.

The ones where it gets quite specific are things like oversight, and that's where people have some more specific recommendations. Also, the financial information topic was something where there was quite a lot of detail in terms of the recommendations made by witnesses. But information technologies was quite a broad topic.

There was also mention made of just keeping in mind that when you're talking about security of information and electronic information, that's not the same as privacy. It's just a component that can help to maintain privacy, but it's not the same thing. So that was mentioned. And the need. . . .

[1000]

P. Calendino: I just want to clarify that things like Amazon.com, e-Bay, etc., would be encompassed under this term "information technologies."

W. MacAlpine: Yeah, in the framework, the background to that issue would include things like that.

S. Orcherton: I'm sure it could be factored into the headings that we have here, but it's not clear for me where it would fit -- that is, issues such as those related under the Retail Council of Canada, in their submission, where they talked about balancing the business and consumer interests. I think that's an important component, but I'm not sure where it would fit in. Maybe you could help me with that.

[ Page 170 ]

W. MacAlpine: Well, these headings don't represent all of the subjects that the submissions and the other information raised. These were just some of the broader issues that I thought it would be useful to start with, and then maybe in later discussions go down to some more narrow topics. But the balance between business and consumer interests is under "Scope of Application," in terms of the papers that were handed out today. So the topical summary called "Scope of Application" would include that part.

S. Orcherton: I just think that's an important component, and I don't think it should necessarily be a subpiece. I think there should be some real discussion about that, because there are a lot of businesses that currently rely on trading information. And if there were legislation or initiatives in that regard, it could have a profound impact on those businesses as well as consumers that are very concerned about that aspect. So I think it's an important component. That's my comment, while you're looking at the report and putting together the framework.

P. Calendino: I'm going to put up one. I'm not sure whether it would fall within a narrow scope or not, but it's surveillance technologies. Now, we know that you have the CIA and FBI and the RCMP and photo radar, which are considered invasion of privacy anyway. But the panopticon is on street corners, in school yards and coming now to workplaces as well. I wonder whether we have a role in discussing that or not. It's being discussed more and more in the U.S.A., and I'm sure it will come over into the debate in Canada as well.

K. Whittred: I'm just wondering if we aren't getting a little bit beyond our mandate in some of the things that are being discussed. Our mandate is, I believe, to look at that area of the private sector that is not covered by federal legislation. I mean, that is the purpose of this committee. And I think some of the other things that have been brought up, while they're very important, don't really fall within the purview of what we're trying to do here. I would. . . .

P. Calendino: I put it up for debate, and I'm not sure that the federal legislation covers surveillance technologies. I wonder if Chris can explain that, or anyone else in here. I don't think it goes into that. We have recent cases of employers that want to put video cameras in the lunchroom. To me, that's an invasion of privacy.

R. Kasper (Chair): Wynne, did you want to add something?

W. MacAlpine: Yeah, I was just going to say that the structure of the framework that I was thinking of would include a summary of the context which, under information technologies, would include surveillance in the workplace and in public places. I would make sure that it focused on provincial areas of responsibility. So that would all be in background information, whether or not it was raised in the submissions, if you'd like that.

[1005]

G. Plant: To put some of this discussion in a context that I can relate to, anyway, there is a difference between asking questions around the use of technology as surveillance tools for watching what employees do when they're wandering around their workplaces, and asking questions about the appropriateness of the use of surveillance technology in the context of police investigation of criminal activity. At least as a starting point I would be inclined to think that the first topic is, generally speaking, within our mandate, because it relates to privacy rights in the private sector and the question about whether or not we're going to propose or recommend that we extend those rights to the employee-employer relationship, whereas the second issue is an issue about criminal law, which I would think is beyond our mandate. That's how I see that.

P. Calendino: I have a problem with what you're saying, but there's a debate in that as well.

R. Kasper (Chair): Chris Norman, did you want to add something? I know from your interest in this, if you could come to the table and give us your views. . . .

C. Norman: Based on my experience over even the last six months, there is a significant public interest in a general direction. For example, yesterday I attended a meeting of the Credit Grantors Association of Vancouver -- 150 people there asking a number of us to speak about privacy in the private sector. There's a keen level of interest in this. I think what the public is trying to get a sense of is general directions. What they're trying to get a sense of is where B.C. is going on the broad issues.

For the committee's use, one of the things we tried to do in the ISTA recommendations is -- not just respond in the same point that you asked us to provide -- help you isolate out some of what we thought were some of the broad issues, also based on our discussions with other provinces. So when you look at those recommendations, you'll see, for example, that we've tried to identify, based on. . . . Again, this was confirmed at the Toronto meeting a few weeks ago, that provinces are grappling with essentially the same subset of issues. It's the issue of scope, the issue of whether to have province-specific legislation or let the federal legislation kind of go over you. Privacy principles -- what principles will you have imbedded into any legislation that you do, presupposing you go in that direction? The question of fees: are fees an issue? Do you charge for fees or not charge for fees? And oversight. Those tend to be the consistent sort of four or five big issues that come up, the first being whether you're going to do anything or not. I think the public. . . . At least, my experience with the public is that they, at this point, are looking for direction as to what kind of direction is being set in relation to these broad principles, and that in a sense it's kind of a question of levels.

If the government decides to go forward with legislation, it indicates that these are areas that will be of interest or concern or that have to be addressed. Then it's an issue, to some extent, of legislative development, when you start a more detailed legislative discussion with people like the credit grantors and others who have certain views on some of the specifics of the legislation. Like, what kind of audit powers might there be? What kind of investigative opportunities would they have? What kind of abilities do they have to share information with people that are trying to collect a debt?

[ Page 171 ]

Those are a detailed level of issue that you're probably going to get into in legislative development. If I could offer. . . . It is ostensibly within the mandate. Whether the committee wants to get into that level of discussion previous to any legislative development -- again, presupposing any legislative development occurs -- is a question that perhaps would make the committee's job easier, if you consider looking at those five broad principles, five broad strategic directions. In my experience -- and I'll just offer this personally -- of the contacts that we seem to be having these days with the public, those seem to be the kind of broad areas. And their wish is get to some strategic direction out of government.

[1010]

So please consider the input that we've tried to do in the recommendations, because I think what we tried to do was to distill context, kind of give some idea of where things seem to be and hopefully offer a bit of guidance in the sense of where people seem to be going on those particular issues.

R. Kasper (Chair): Does anyone have questions for Chris? Does anyone have any further ideas?

G. Plant: Well, let's be clear that. . . . At least, let me try to see if I understood what we were just told, not to put too many words into his mouth. I think we were told that ISTA's suggestion is that the four or five topics that Mr. Norman identified are the organizing questions for us to grapple with, and that that might be a better list of basic questions than the points made in item 3. I think the fact is that the points made in item 3 are subsumed within the other five. But the five are kind of deeper, more general questions. What I want to be sure we do is that we cover them all.

But I have to say that at the moment I think this ISTA list may be a more helpful way to get to the more relevant questions than some of the ways in which these particular other issues are put. We're going to get to all those issues. But the way ISTA has organized these things appeals to me as a better organizing principle than, say, looking at agenda item 3. I know that agenda item 3 wasn't written for that purpose; it was written for a different purpose.

R. Kasper (Chair): That's correct. Wynne, did you want to. . . ?

W. MacAlpine: Yeah. That was the point I wanted to make: agenda item 3 was meant to identify two broad issues that could be discussed today. It's not all of the issues that we're proposing to put in a framework; there are more. This was simply meant as something that was a manageable discussion for today. I'd be happy to follow ISTA's framework or outline for a framework report.

R. Kasper (Chair): Okay. That's something that John and I can work on.

P. Calendino: I think Geoff is correct in interpreting what he did. And that would make a framework for recommendation. Whether we want to go with legislation or not, that could be a general framework, maybe, for draft legislation as well. But within that framework, then you have to look at what areas you want to cover. That's the general framework that Chris has outlined, I think. But then we have to look at areas that the province may have to cover that the federal government may not cover, or whether we just don't want to cover anything else and just go along with the federal government.

These are items here that are for discussion. I brought up the surveillance technology because I've heard it discussed in a number of places, and it's also the concern of a good part of our society. We have some companies on strike right now because of one of those items that I mentioned. But that shouldn't be the overriding rationale of. . . . I put it out for debate to see whether that would fall within our mandate, and if it doesn't, then we'll just leave it out.

[1015]

G. Plant: I agree with Pietro, in that we have to look at these issues. But we've been told by a whole bunch of people who come before us, including the ISTA people who live their lives with this problem, including, I'm pretty sure, the information and privacy commissioner. . . . A whole lot of experts say: "Don't get wrapped up in the mystique of technology. We're talking about privacy rights."

Our objective is to identify principles that are -- I believe the expression is -- "technology-neutral." The examples of video cameras in employee washrooms or taking pictures of people on picket lines or whatever -- these are examples of ways in which, from most people's perspectives, our privacy can be invaded by technology. But I think the question for us is: what does it mean? Do we care about privacy in British Columbia? Do we think that there's a role for the Legislature to regulate or legislate privacy rights in the private sector?

We know -- we've certainly been educated up to our eyeballs, now -- about all the clever ways in which technology can change our lives. I mean, just yesterday the government announced it's buying a new camera that's going to be able to take infrared pictures of the whole lower mainland when it's flying around on the front of a helicopter. I mean, the potential for privacy intrusion there is mind-boggling. But I don't think this is a committee that's going to come to the decision about whether or not the RCMP should have infrared cameras on the ends of helicopters.

This is a committee that's going to talk about whether or not the Legislature has a role to regulate privacy rights in the employer-employee relationship, in the way that is often talked about. I really make that point with some enthusiasm, if you will, because I believe it is important that we not get distracted down too many of these marvellous little side roads of the many intricacies of safe harbour agreements and black boxes on internet service providers in the United Kingdom and all this good stuff.

What is it that we think the people of British Columbia need or should have from this Legislature as a set of rules or a regulatory mechanism or whatever that affects privacy as it is affected in the private sector in this province? I think that's the issue, broadly speaking, that we're supposed to be grappling with.

R. Kasper (Chair): That was well said. I don't think we're going to accomplish any more here today. That's my findings or conclusions based on. . . .

[ Page 172 ]

P. Calendino: I think we've accomplished quite a bit. I think Geoff has laid out a plan.

R. Kasper (Chair): Well, we have. But I don't think we're going to necessarily accomplish any more today. Does anyone have anything else that they would like to add to give the Chair and vice-Chair and the research additional direction? If not, I think. . . . Yes, Steve?

S. Orcherton: I see you're going to adjourn. But if there is a meeting in December, we'd appreciate as much advance notice on that as possible.

P. Calendino: Some notice -- not after the first week.

S. Orcherton: My sense is we're probably not going to meet until January, but if there is one in December, sooner rather than later would be helpful.

R. Kasper (Chair): I would agree. And then when we get the written information from Ipsos-Reid, that will be forthcoming to all members. I would request that members try to go through the binders, because perhaps there are some items that have been addressed by people who have given us a written submission that have touched on the subject areas that have been mentioned here this morning. So keeping that in mind, I'll ask for a motion to adjourn.

The committee adjourned at 10:19 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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