OGGO Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, May 27, 2003

1555

The Chair (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.))

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

The Chair

Mr. Julien Delisle (Executive Director, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada)

The Chair

Mr. Julien Delisle

The Chair

Mr. Julien Delisle

The Chair

Mr. Julien Delisle

The Chair

Mr. Julien Delisle

1600

1605

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Ken Epp

1610

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Julien Delisle

The Chair

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

1615

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Mr. Julien Delisle

The Chair

1620

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Julien Delisle

1625

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Julien Delisle

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot)

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

1630

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. Julien Delisle

The Chair

1635

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. John Bryden

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Julien Delisle

1640

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Julien Delisle

The Chair

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Mr. Julien Delisle

1645

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

1650

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. John Bryden

1655

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. John Bryden

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

1700

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Julien Delisle

The Chair

Mr. Julien Delisle

1705

The Chair

Mr. Julien Delisle

The Chair

Mr. Julien Delisle

The Chair

Mr. Julien Delisle

The Chair

Mr. Julien Delisle

The Chair

Mr. Julien Delisle

The Chair

Mr. Julien Delisle

The Chair

Mr. Julien Delisle

The Chair

1710

Mr. Julien Delisle

The Chair

Mr. Julien Delisle

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Julien Delisle

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

NUMBER 045

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, May 27, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1555)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)): Let's come to order. This is meeting 45 of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. We're here to consider the main estimates of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

Before we begin I want to flag one thing for the information of members. We have called a meeting for tomorrow to go through the exercise of passing the various estimates — the votes we have to pass. We have no other business before us, other than simply the calling and passage of those votes. If there is consensus, we can do that today at the conclusion of this meeting.

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): No.

The Chair: Perhaps, Mr. Perron, we can have a conversation on that before the end of the meeting. It would just save us time. I don't think there's a big deal there, but I'll talk to you about that.

It will only go ahead if there is consent to do it. It's just to save us some operational time. But I'll give you time to talk to Robert.

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Okay.

The Chair: Today we are hearing from Mr. Julien Delisle.

I have to apologize. I've broken two pairs of glasses, so I'm wearing glasses that are circa 1985 and I cannot see very well.

Mr. Julien Delisle (Executive Director, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada): Neither can I.

The Chair: I can sort of make you out and I have a sense of your gender, but that's about it.

Mr. Delisle, you are the executive director in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

The commissioner is not here today. Is he in town?

Mr. Julien Delisle: The commissioner has a very busy schedule and he had meetings lined up before he was aware of the call to this committee. He couldn't get out of those meetings, so he asked me to represent the office.

The Chair: All right. I'm sure you'll do that quite capably. But is he in town right now?

Mr. Julien Delisle: Yes, I believe he is.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

There are a couple of ways to proceed. We can simply begin with questions members might have, or you may care to provide us with a bit of an overview of the office.

Mr. Julien Delisle: I'm at your mercy, Mr. Chairman. It's totally up to you. I do have remarks.

The Chair: We'll begin with your remarks, and then we'll move to questions as soon as you've completed.

Mr. Julien Delisle: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

[Translation]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

[English]

I'm pleased to be here on estimates, plans, and priorities, and to answer any of your questions. In 2003-04, the office will undertake all its standard operational activities, such as investigations and audits under federal privacy laws, communications and public education, and research into privacy issues.

The changes in the operating environment will place new demands on our resources. Tension between privacy and security measures, a dramatic expansion of the scope of our mandate, the government's plan to build privacy into new systems and programs, and a greatly increased awareness of privacy issues among the public will increase demands on the office's resources.

Privacy has always needed to be balanced by the need for security. Since the September 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S., however, balance has given way to assault, with highly privacy-invasive security initiatives on both sides of our common border with the United States. Canadians expect the commissioner and his office to take a leadership role in the debate over these initiatives, to bring privacy issues to the table, raise awareness of the issues, negotiate with the government, and encourage organizations to rethink their approach.

The commissioner has achieved a very satisfactory resolution of the issues around the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency's advanced passenger name-record database. He will continue to urge the government to address measures, such as the warrant provisions of Bill C-17, the lawful access proposals for monitoring of electronic communications, efforts to introduce a national identification card, and the RCMP's video surveillance of public streets.

A much more positive factor affecting the work of the office is the expansion of the scope of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, which will come into force in 2004. The act currently applies to federal works, businesses, and undertakings such as airlines, banking, broadcasting, interprovincial transportation, and telecommunications, as well as all organizations that disclose personal information outside a province or outside the country for consideration.

On January 1, 2004, the act will extend to every organization that collects, uses, or discloses personal information in the course of a commercial activity within a province, except where a substantially similar provincial law applies. At this time, it appears that few provinces will have a substantially similar law by January 2004. As a result, the office will likely take on the bulk of the responsibility for overseeing privacy rights in the private sector. It will be imperative for the office to raise awareness of rights and obligations under the new law, and prepare for an anticipated increase in complaints and inquiries.

The privacy impact assessment policy adopted by the government requires that privacy considerations be built into government projects at the onset. Canada is the first country in the world to make privacy impact assessments — PIAs — mandatory for all federal departments and agencies. As welcome as this is, it has implications for the work of the office, since the policy requires us to review all PIAs and offer comments to departments and agencies at an early stage.

Finally, public awareness of privacy issues is at an all-time high, but this does not relieve the office of its communications and public education responsibilities. In fact, the opposite is quite true. Since the commissioner's appointment, hits to the office's website have increased tenfold. Media coverage of privacy issues has more than doubled, and we receive a minimum of 100 media requests per month. Public inquiries to the office have also increased dramatically. The office must have the capacity to handle this increased demand.

º (1600)

[Translation]

These factors, which have led to a sudden increase in the obligations and responsibilities of the commissioner's office, have presented a challenge to our ability to meet the expectations of Canadian organizations and citizens.

Of course, there will be no respite as regards the ongoing responsibilities of the commissioner's office with respect to privacy. We will continue to promote the implementation of fair information practices in public and private sector organizations, and to investigate complaints and carry out audits under the federal privacy legislation.

We will continue to make people aware of privacy issues by organizing conferences for the commissioner and officials, and by distributing publications to inform individuals and organizations of their rights under the act.

The commissioner's office will keep its proactive media relations program by taking part in meetings with editorial boards and by contributing articles to various publications. It will also look at the ways of reaching people and companies at the grassroots level through articles in community newspapers.

We will continue to improve our website by posting on it press releases, speeches, fact sheets and summaries of the findings of the commissioner under the act.

We also reply regularly to thousands of inquiries that we receive by e-mail, telephone and regular mail. This activity is growing as people become more aware of the work the office does.

The Office of the Commissioner will continue to establish links and develop a network with sectorial organizations covered under the new legislation and to help them ensure that their members understand the impact of the act.

Finally, the commissioner's office will support these public awareness activities and will ensure that the commissioner, senior officials and staff members are kept up to date on important privacy issues and trends, by tracking and analyzing the media coverage on privacy issues, while carrying out detailed analyses and research projects.

All of this work is designed to defend a fundamental human right — the right to privacy — which is under threat more than ever. The way Canadians respond to this challenge will determine the type of society we will leave to our children and grandchildren.

As a result of the tireless efforts of the Office of the Commissioner to defend the right to privacy and to work energetically to promote this value and its importance, and as a result of its careful monitoring of federal privacy legislation, the office will ensure that Canadians will be able to meet this challenge.

º (1605)

[English]

I'll be pleased to answer any of your questions.

[Translation]

I will be pleased to answer your questions.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much.

Thanks for your presentation. Right off I want to ask you a question on your education component--the work you do to inform Canadians about their rights and the rules under which they can operate. How do you do that? How do you inform people?

Mr. Julien Delisle: We do it through a very vigorous communications approach, which is to try as much as possible to get the good word about privacy out to Canadians. We rely very heavily on our website, which I believe is one of the best websites in this city. Any Canadian who wants information about our office and privacy generally can go to that website.

The commissioner and all of his senior staff accept, where possible, all speaking engagements from coast to coast to coast, again so we can troop the colours everywhere in Canada in both official languages. So we speak to Canadians. Whenever we have a chance to engage Canadians on the privacy question, we do so. So that's essentially how we carry that out.

Mr. Ken Epp: Do you enter into any advertising contracts?

Mr. Julien Delisle: We don't do advertising.

Mr. Ken Epp: It's all done in-house?

Mr. Julien Delisle: Yes. Because we felt it was our responsibility, in the first two years of the operation under the PIPED Act we did have media campaigns.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. I have a question on the history of expenditures in your department. If you look back over the last two or three years, you really spiked in expenditures for information protection in 2001-02. Why was that? It went from about $3.8 million up to $8.8 million. You planned on $3.8 million, but the actual was $8.8 million. Then you planned for $3.8 million again the next year.

º (1610)

Mr. Julien Delisle: There's a very simple explanation for that. I was the one responsible for doing that, so I can give you a very clear answer. With the coming into force of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act in January 2001, through 1999 and 2000 we went through an resource exercise with Treasury Board to allow us to acquire the resources necessary to take on our mandate under this new law.

We worked with Treasury Board and consultants and established a budget. You can see that one year we went from $3 million and spiked up to approximately $9.5 million. That was as a result of new funding obtained from Treasury Board for administration of that act.

Mr. Ken Epp: I have a sort of general question. I don't know if you can answer it.

I work quite late in my office, just as a matter of practice. Every once in awhile, while I'm working there, suddenly I can hear my hard drive on my computer just go wacky. It just goes chug, chug, chug, chug. They're obviously downloading information from my computer as a backup. We understand that information services does this.

Instantly, everything on my computer goes into somebody else's domain. I consider it a violation of my privacy that they can just check into my computer and take the information away. Sure they say they don't use it, but how do I know they don't?

Mr. Julien Delisle: As much as I would enjoy being helpful, I'm an abject Luddite. I still write letters and memos on pieces of paper with a pencil and a pen. I'm really the wrong guy to ask about computer downloads.

When your computer is working like that, unless you're plugged into a local area network...even then, when your hard drive is crunching like that information is not necessarily being read or downloaded. I have a stand-alone unit at home and it does the same thing. It's just the computer cycling through the hard drive.

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes, there are some programs that do that. But I'm really concerned because I know they can do it here and they do it here. I know that because not long ago we had a lapse in our system and they restored it. As far as I know, nobody came into my office and I don't remember ever signing anything. They restored my information, and that was great.

Mr. Julien Delisle: All I can tell you is that with respect to the government and our activities, there are some very solid Treasury Board policies in place. All government agencies have policies on the management of data. The office has never really dealt with that on a complaint basis, and we've never audited that. So I really don't have an answer.

Mr. Ken Epp: On your planned expenditures, though, do you study that in the different government departments?

You mentioned earlier that you were increasingly involved in protection of privacy in the private sector. I'm just wondering whether there are any guidelines or rules in your education...that you're going out to the people and saying, “You have the right to not have your information taken off your computer if you so choose”. Are there such rules?

Mr. Julien Delisle: Of course, if a person believes that somebody is getting inappropriate access to their personal data on a computer they have a right to complain, and we'll entertain the complaint. So I urge anybody who has that problem to come to us and we'll help them.

Privacy is a huge issue, as most of you know, and with the resources we have we can't possibly deal with everything. We have maybe eight or nine auditors, and we're going to be asked to deal with the whole commercial world with them. If you could give me 800 auditors I could probably do a better job.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Epp.

[Translation]

Do you have any questions, Mr. Perron?

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, Mr. Delisle.

In your presentation, you mentioned that beginning on January 1, 2004, you would be covering all the provinces, except those that have legislation similar to the Canadian act. We know that Quebec has such an act at the moment, but you implied that other provinces might have similar legislation as well.

º (1615)

Mr. Julien Delisle: I can tell you that Quebec clearly has legislation in place at the moment. The commissioner has stated publicly that the Quebec legislation meets the requirements of the new act. It should therefore be considered by the federal cabinet as a similar or equivalent piece of legislation.

Some bills have been studied in other provinces. We have seen two such bills already — one in Alberta, and another in British Columbia. It remains to be seen whether these bills, once they're passed into law, will meet the requirements. No decision has been made on that as yet.

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: In other words, there are only three such provinces : Quebec, and the two provinces that are studying bills.

Mr. Julien Delisle: The commissioner has stated clearly that if passed, the two bills before the legislatures of these provinces would not be considered equivalent to the federal legislation. So there could be a jurisdictional problem.

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: I would like to come back to your comparisons of annual expenditures. I am having trouble understanding the figures for the private sector. For 2001-2002, your forecast expenditures were $3.8 million, your forecast expenditures for the private sector were $5.9 million and your forecast expenditures for corporate management were $1.3 million. When I look at the actual expenditures, you are not even in the ball park, because the figure was $8.8 million, with only $600,000 for the private sector.

It does not seem reasonable that there should be such a large discrepancy between the forecast expenditures and the actual expenditures.

Mr. Julien Delisle: The basic problem is that it is very difficult to separate the two. We sought an amount of $5 million to enable the office to carry out its new mandate under the new legislation. Consequently, these amounts have been added to the budget of the commissioner's office and there is no doubt that the expenditures were combined. So we do have a commissioner and his administrative staff. There is also myself, and I was formerly the executive director, but only for the public sector. Now, however, I am responsible for both the public and private sectors. The same goes for the directors. So the entire infrastructure of the commissioner's office remained much the same.

As to our operating costs, we definitely added some employees to conduct audits and investigations specifically for the private sector. It is therefore very difficult to break down the budgets, but I can tell you that these amounts are spent reasonably, in keeping with the needs of the office.

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: I would like to pursue this a little further. The figures seem fairly reasonable for 2002-2003, but you have no estimate of expenditures for the private sector for 2004-2005.

Mr. Julien Delisle: That is easy to explain. As I mentioned earlier, with Treasury Board approval and in consultation with consultants, we sought a specific amount in order to carry out the new mandate under Bill C-6. The funding we received was for three fiscal years after that period of time; we will have to go back to Treasury Board with a study on the needs of the organization for the years following April 1, 2004. That is why there is no budget forecast for the period beginning April 1, 2004. That is because we are in the process of adjusting our budgets with Treasury Board. We are doing that at the moment, and I hope that by the summer or fall at the latest, we will have a budget for 2004, and the following years, as a result of the study we are doing at the moment. So this is merely an accounting matter; it is not a real issue. We will have a reasonable budget so that the commissioner can continue his work in the private sector.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

º (1620)

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Thank you.

Mr. Delisle, the privacy office came into effect in 1983. Your budget is currently about $11 million. Let's say, for argument's sake, close to $100 million has been spent by Canada since the mandate started on the Privacy Commissioner.

How do we convince Canadians that the $100 million has some benefit or value?

Mr. Julien Delisle: I'd have to go back and tabulate all the complaints, but I can tell you I've been the executive director since 1991 and I've been with the office since 1985. Throughout that period we must have dealt with maybe 20,000 to 25,000 complaints. I would say that 40% to 50% of them have been well-founded, where we gave Canadians who complained to us satisfaction. We fixed the problems they came to us with. So we've certainly given Canadians great service on that.

We've done other things like audits. For example, we looked at what the Superintendent of Bankruptcy was doing years ago, which was essentially selling information about people who were bankrupt to individuals, but companies like Equifax and TransUnion were getting it for free.

We were able to work with the Superintendent of Bankruptcy to develop a system that was far more equitable, in terms of what was in the private sector. So we've done all kinds of things...the Great-West shredding file that was made public by the commissioner's last annual report. I can go on for an hour if you want.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I appreciate that. This seems to me to be a matter of mandate. The mandate of the Privacy Commissioner is to resolve problems and oversee compliance with the legislation. But your plans and priorities include “encouraging compliance”, “safeguarding the right”, and “increasing public awareness”. They just don't seem to be consistent with what the Privacy Commissioner's office was set up to do in the first place — resolve issues.

It's a law. The law is that you have a right to know that information, and the law shall be applied. It seems you've created a role much broader than was ever anticipated.

Mr. Julien Delisle: In terms of the mandate, it's clear that the commissioner has a responsibility to investigate complaints and do audits under the Privacy Act, which he has been doing since 1983.

Of course, as an ombudsman, within that mandate he also has the responsibility to encourage compliance. So if we can go into a department as the result of a complaint and encourage people to do the right thing, in my view that will prevent further complaints and further problems.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I really have a problem. This “encouraging compliance” is such a broad concept to me, and maybe we'll have to just think about it.

On my final question, is there any reason why the Privacy Commissioner's office and the Access to Information office should not be combined to provide a little bit of synergy, and utilize that expertise of investigation and advocacy? They seem to have the same kinds of roles. One is on privacy and the other is on access issues, but they seem to be pretty well the same beast to me. Is there any reason why we shouldn't combine them?

Mr. Julien Delisle: First of all, they're two completely separate issues.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Yes, but the functionality is not different.

Mr. Julien Delisle: If you let me answer I can give you an answer. The functionality is quite different. The only intersection between the two is the notion of access to records. If you want to file a request under the Access to Information Act to get information about government, it's an administrative right. It's for the purposes of public accountability and transparency.

The Privacy Act doesn't deal with that at all. It deals with your right as a citizen to manage your own information. I spend 95% of my time —

º (1625)

Mr. Paul Szabo: Maybe I didn't express my question clearly enough, but I understand.

Mr. Julien Delisle: I'm trying to explain to you, based on your question, that there are no synergies.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Encourage compliance — do they both do that?

Mr. Julien Delisle: No, because there is no compliance program under the Access to Information Act.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Really?

Mr. Julien Delisle: There's no audit function. There is no responsibility for the Information Commissioner with respect to management of information generally. He deals with the right of access to government data.

The Privacy Commissioner's function is far different. He doesn't only deal with the person's right of access; he also deals with the responsibility of agencies, organizations, and now companies, to manage personal information. In other words, he deals with how they collect it, how they use it, how they disclose it, and how they destroy it. That's a far different mandate from that of the Information Commissioner.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Sir, those are individual tasks, but in terms of the expertise and the resources, etc., there is.... In fact, the Privacy Commissioner appeared before an ad hoc committee of Parliament, and was much more positive about the prospect of combining the offices.

Mr. Julien Delisle: The Privacy Commissioner? Which one?

Mr. Paul Szabo: The former one.

Mr. Julien Delisle: Which former one was it? I served them all, and I was probably at all of those committee hearings. I don't remember...other than John Grace, who supported it at the time. He was access commissioner.

Mr. Paul Szabo: That's a privacy commissioner. It's an anecdotal comment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Julien Delisle: He said that when he was access commissioner.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot): Can I ask a fundamental question first? Why is Mr. Radwanski not here? Is he not in town?

Mr. Julien Delisle: As I explained earlier — I don't know if you were here, Mr. Bryden — it's simply because the commissioner has a very busy schedule. He had scheduled a series of meetings, and because of the late notice to appear he was not able to get out of those meetings.

Mr. John Bryden: I make the observation, Mr. Chairman, that there isn't a higher duty of the Privacy Commissioner, as an officer of Parliament, than to appear before this committee, particularly when we're discussing estimates.

Mr. Julien Delisle: I saw the call letter from the committee, which clearly stated the commissioner or a representative could appear, and I think that's what I am.

Mr. John Bryden: I see. All right.

Can I ask you, in looking through this material, why the Privacy Office needs a media analyst?

Mr. Julien Delisle: Media has always been an important function for any officer of Parliament or any government department. I don't know of any government department or agency that doesn't have a media liaison person.

Mr. John Bryden: You have a new media officer, you have a communications officer, and you have a communications manager. What are these people doing? What's their role? Is it to promote privacy? I don't understand the function, in the context.

Mr. Julien Delisle: As I indicated earlier, we believe the communications function is critical in informing Canadians and organizations about their rights and responsibilities. That clearly devolves from the commissioner's mandate, especially under the PIPED Act specifically and the Privacy Act generally, to ensure that people understand their rights and responsibilities. That's clearly part of any kind of public education function.

Mr. John Bryden: So do you proactively promote privacy? Do you send out communiqués and develop lists of people who you wish to get on side on the privacy issues?

Mr. Julien Delisle: No. On my understanding of the way we do business, first of all we deal with most of those issues through our website, so we encourage people to go to our website.

We have put together some publications, such as a guide for citizens and a guide for employers, which we send to anybody who calls and asks us for information. We have a very solid inquiries function. We get tens of thousands of calls, where we field questions far and wide from people who are interested in privacy — and from citizens.

Mr. John Bryden: The Information Commissioner has a website as well, and he doesn't have the people you have.

Mr. Julien Delisle: I don't think he has a formal public education mandate, like the commissioner does.

Mr. John Bryden: It's in the legislation that you're going out to do this.

Can I get a sense from you then how much you spend on communications?

Mr. Julien Delisle: I could undertake to do that and get you a complete accounting at a later date, but I don't have those exact figures before me.

Mr. John Bryden: I would like the figures on what you spend on proactive communications and analysis; and I would actually like a graph, if you will, of the spending of the Privacy Commissioner's office from 1983 to 2003, so we can plot for ourselves what the education component, as you call it, is actually costing us.

Do you feel that your education component is more important than informing members of Parliament what the Privacy Commissioner is doing?

º (1630)

Mr. Julien Delisle: If you look at our mission statement, informing members of Parliament is one of the commissioner's missions. He's an officer of Parliament and fundamentally believes he should do that. He's done it on many occasions, and has had sessions specifically for parliamentarians.

Mr. John Bryden: Is it a higher priority than...?

Mr. Julien Delisle: It is absolutely a priority for our office.

Mr. John Bryden: Not a priority; a priority doesn't mean anything. Is it the highest priority?

Mr. Julien Delisle: To me, whether it's high priority or low priority they're all priorities.

Mr. John Bryden: If I may say so, sir, a priority without the adjective can be at any level at all. I won't be equated, as a member of Parliament, with a low priority.

The question is very specific. In your view — I know it should be the Privacy Commissioner who's answering this — is serving members of Parliament your highest priority, as an office?

Mr. Julien Delisle: It's a very high priority, like informing Canadians is a high priority; like informing businesses is a high priority. It's all high priority for us.

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chair, it's very clear that the witness is not agreeing that an officer of Parliament's primary —

Mr. Julien Delisle: Mr. Bryden, you've asked me for my opinion and I've given it to you.

Mr. John Bryden: Yes. Well, I think we have to get the opinion of the Privacy Commissioner. You're certainly right there.

Mr. Julien Delisle: I'm certain he'd be pleased to give it to you.

Mr. John Bryden: Can I go further? On the release of the annual report in January, I take it your communications service sent out press releases and informed various Canadians that the commissioner's report was coming out.

Mr. Julien Delisle: We make press releases. We give media advisories. Of course, we do.

Mr. John Bryden: Did you inform members of Parliament at the same time?

Mr. Julien Delisle: I believe we did.

Mr. John Bryden: Did you though?

Mr. Julien Delisle: I believe we did. I could confirm that.

Mr. John Bryden: Would you confirm it, please?

Mr. Julien Delisle: As far as I know, I think we did.

Mr. John Bryden: I would like to have a list of the letter, fax, and e-mail addresses that were actually used in the week of January 27-31 to communicate to individuals and organizations a summary of what was in the commissioner's report. I know you did issue such summaries at that time.

Mr. Julien Delisle: We can report back to this committee as to exactly how we made it known that the annual report was coming and how it was given out.

Mr. John Bryden: No. The question, just to be very precise, is not how you made it known. I'd like the list.

Mr. Julien Delisle: I don't know if any such list exists. That's what I'm telling you.

Mr. John Bryden: Can you find out and tell us?

Mr. Julien Delisle: Well, I can find out. That's what I said. I will find out exactly how we made it known that the annual report was coming out and how it was given out. We'll do that.

Mr. John Bryden: So just to pursue the thought — and I'll leave it, Mr. Chair--it is very significant and important for us to know the priority that parliamentarians were given in the release of the information pertaining to the commissioner's annual report. I would like to know whether or not the communication — because you have all these communications people — went out to the media before or at the same time as it went to parliamentarians, or if indeed it did go to parliamentarians that particular week.

It's very important, because you have indicated that the priority of parliamentarians is seen to be rather equal to the priorities of other people that the Privacy Commissioner might serve. So in order to get an idea of exactly the level of priority you give MPs, perhaps you could supply us with that information.

Mr. Julien Delisle: Certainly.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

Just before I move on, I think I should just raise a couple of issues.

Mr. Delisle, I appreciate the fact you're here in the role you play in the office and you're answering for someone who has chosen not to be here. It is passing strange to me, however, because we were informed he would not be in town, as opposed to being in town and not wishing to come.

Mr. Julien Delisle: Mr. Chair, I can honestly say I don't know anything about the details.

The Chair: Yes, I understand that, and I don't hold you to account for that, of course.

Mr. Bryden, if you have concerns about some of this, perhaps you could raise them tomorrow, as we deal with the votes on this, and in the report we might prepare on this.

º (1635)

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you.

The Chair: I'm going to go to Madam Ablonczy.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's been some years since I've had the privilege of being on a committee you've chaired. I think it was before the last election, so it's good to be here.

I see the pit bull opposite. I tell you, I could pick up some points from Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: No, not at all.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I can tell I've been too gentle with witnesses in the committees I've sat on.

I have a question for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. I know that the Privacy Commissioner is one of three independent watchdogs on the operations of government and industry. There's the Auditor General, the Information Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner —

Mr. Julien Delisle: There's the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Human Rights Commissioner as well.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Right. So you're kind of a select group. We appreciate the work that is done by individuals who have independent oversight. We know, particularly because of the mushrooming of new technologies and new technological advances, that the protection of privacy and personal information is becoming much more difficult.

I remember sitting in this very room when we had a witness on the social insurance numbers. I think Mr. Alcock and I were both there. We were going to investigate an actual SIN number to see what information we would get out of it, and someone was prepared to give their number.

But the expert witnesses wouldn't let us do that. They said that as soon as you put a search out with the actual number, it could be plucked out of the system and used for criminal purposes, so we shouldn't go there. So that was kind of interesting. That was in about 1998, and I imagine things have become even more technologically advanced than that.

From your point of view, what are the major issues that we as parliamentarians need to be aware of when it comes to the need to protect privacy? What are the things you'd like to tell us — just the priorities you think we should bear in mind there?

Mr. Julien Delisle: With due deference to Mr. Bryden, I think the foremost issue is public education — informing people of their rights, and informing businesses of their responsibilities. I think we have to keep hammering away at that. That's our biggest issue.

There's no real point in investigating something time and time again when it's the same issue. Hopefully you can get some action and you can get some things changed. By doing that you're going to best protect the privacy interests of Canadians. To me that's the most important issue.

Of course, there's always funding. We could do an awful lot more with more money. We could have more auditors and do more things. Of course, the intrusiveness of technology, as you pointed out, is an important factor. But as much as technology can be intrusive, what's important are the principles.

We should never lose sight of the principle that you have the right to control information about yourself. You and only you have the right to make decisions about your personal data. We have to keep making sure Canadians understand that; make sure Canadians understand that's a core value in our society; and keep protecting that.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: With the concerns about national security that have arisen since 9/11, what have you been advising people in your education programs about the proper balance between the right to be anonymous, the right to have personal information protected, and the right of the public to be protected from security threats?

Mr. Julien Delisle: The commissioner has been very clear in all of his public pronouncements that he does not stand in the way of, nor is he against, any kind of measure that will protect the security of Canadians. He has never objected to any measure.

His objections have to do with the notion that using the threat of terrorism to put in place security measures, government organizations grab for a little bit more. They ask for new powers they otherwise wouldn't have received. So the commissioner has been very vigilant in making sure that while the anti-terrorism security agenda is met, our fundamental right to privacy is not at the same time offered up on the altar of public interest.

I think that's where we're coming from. We tell people, “Look, we're not against security. We're not against protecting you. Be vigilant, but at the same time you don't have to sell your privacy rights to the devil either”.

º (1640)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Is there any particular issue about which you get more inquiries than any others? I'm just interested to know what the bulk of your work is, or whether it is spread out over a number of issues.

Mr. Julien Delisle: It's spread out over a number of issues, but I think SIN, for example, is still a huge issue. It has always been one, in the more than 15 years I've been in the privacy business. It has never gone away. We always get a lot of inquiries about the SIN.

As a matter of fact, I think three privacy commissioners in a row have urged the government to legislate measures on the SIN, and there still hasn't been any legislation. SIN continues to be something we're asked about constantly.

The issue of national ID cards comes up time and time again. People are worried about that and ask us about that. We have a lot of inquiries from people worried about credit issues. So we talk to Canadians an awful lot about credit.

Those are three issues among many others. Of course, people are concerned about their medical files. We deal with Canadians on that, and the list goes on.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Okay. Thank you very much. Good luck in what you do for Canadians. I think it is important.

Mr. Julien Delisle: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Ablonczy.

Monsieur Perron.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Mr. Delisle, you mentioned several times in your statement that you were very proud of your website. If I understood you correctly, you said that this is your main information tool.

Mr. Julien Delisle: Well, it is one of our main tools.

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: For my personal edification, what percentage of Canadian households, private companies, industries and institutions are on the Internet?

Mr. Julien Delisle: I cannot give you an exact answer; I really do not know. The last figure I remember reading was roughly 40 per cent.

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: The figure I saw was 30 per cent.

That means that your main information tool, or one of them, allows you to reach approximately 30 per cent of the population at most. I am sorry, but I have never seen any advertisements in newspapers or elsewhere.

Mr. Julien Delisle: There have been advertisements in newspapers and on radio as well, but that is very expensive. So we cannot do that regularly with the budgets we have. It is true that Canada is one of the most Internet-connected societies in the world. So the website does allow us to reach quite a large percentage of the population. So it is important. We can hardly not use the Internet to make our services known. I know of no organization that does not have a website to provide people with information. It is one way of providing a tremendous amount of information at a very low cost.

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: I come back to my question. I am sorry, but it is unfair to low or middle-income people. If you were to go to the homes of poor families living any region — Ottawa, Montreal or Toronto — you would be able to count on your fingers the number of them who have access to the Internet.

Mr. Julien Delisle: We also have a reception service at the commissioner's office available from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. to allow all Canadians to speak to someone in the office during normal working hours. So, when people from Vancouver call us at 5 a.m., B.C. time, there is always someone at the office to take their call. Moreover, this is not just a reception service, there is always an officer available to speak to people who call us. We also offer a 1-800 number so it costs people absolutely nothing to telephone us. We also have a mail service, and so on.

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: I will check your 1-800 line. I will call you to see how you operate.

Mr. Julien Delisle: You may do so. You will find the number in the blue pages of the telephone book.

º (1645)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Perron.

Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll try to be gentler this time.

Let me ask you sort of a fundamental question. Who sets policy in the Privacy Commissioner's office, the Privacy Commissioner or you?

Mr. Julien Delisle: The Privacy Commissioner has ultimate authority for all policy positions.

Mr. John Bryden: I want to ask you a question that follows up on other questions. You said you believe the privacy officer should have a strong advocacy role. I believe that is what exists right now. Is that a fair characterization?

Mr. Julien Delisle: I didn't use the words “strong advocacy role”.

Mr. John Bryden: Would you? All right then, let's say “strong communications role”. But public education usually involves advocacy. Are you saying there's no advocacy in the communications activities of the privacy office?

Mr. Julien Delisle: We try to educate Canadians as best we can with the resources we have about their rights under the Privacy Act and the PIPED Act. We also try to educate organizations and businesses about their responsibilities under those statutes.

Our operations staff don't advocate on the side of a complainant or a respondent. Our responsibility is to ensure that legal rights under the act are respected and responsibilities are met. That's where we stand firm. We stand behind the act.

Mr. John Bryden: I don't understand why you need a media analyst then, because a media analyst is there surely to evaluate —

Mr. Julien Delisle: Mr. Bryden, again as I put it, I don't know of any organization or government that doesn't have a media person.

Mr. John Bryden: What about the Information Commissioner?

Mr. Julien Delisle: I believe they have a media person.

Mr. John Bryden: But you have four media people, as near as I can determine.

Mr. Julien Delisle: But we don't have four media people. We have people who are involved in communications, which is one of our main vehicles for delivering a public education mandate.

As a matter of fact, in my experience as a senior public servant I think we have a pretty mean communications function. I would rather we had far more than we do.

Mr. John Bryden: Let me come back to the point I was originally going to make. In trying to determine the policy of the Privacy Commissioner on whether or not the communications strategy is intended to be advocacy or not, surely the Privacy Commissioner should be answering that question and not you.

Mr. Julien Delisle: That's fair. You can put the question to him at any time.

Mr. John Bryden: Have you communicated with the Privacy Commissioner? Are you presumably trying to represent policy views the Privacy Commissioner has communicated to you, or are you just answering as best you can about your perception of the department?

Mr. Julien Delisle: I'm not sure I understand the sense of your question.

Mr. John Bryden: I'm trying to find out whether or not you are actually reflecting.... We're at a terrible disadvantage because we're asking questions about the philosophy behind the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. A new Privacy Commissioner has come in, just as we've had a new Information Commissioner. I find myself in this terrible box where I'm asking, with great respect to you as a senior functionary, to express the philosophy of the commissioner. I have to say, Mr. Chairman, it's very difficult.

I'm trying to grasp how you can respond with such assurance that whatever the communication strategy is, it's not advocacy. Is this something the Privacy Commissioner has established as the policy: “We're not going to advocate”? How do you come to this statement?

Mr. Julien Delisle: All I said was that the word “advocacy” is a word you used. I've tried to express to you as best I could that I'm here to answer your question forthrightly, which is what I'm doing. I explained our view to you that we're here to educate Canadians.

º (1650)

Mr. John Bryden: Yes, but “education” covers all kinds of sins. I've been around a long time, and I certainly know that “advocacy” and “education” are often used as synonymous terms, within both government and non-governmental organizations. You know that as well as I do.

Let me try to be really precise then. In any of your communications strategies where you communicate with the public — that might not be the media — do you try to encourage them to support the privacy positions taken by the Privacy Commissioner in any of the situations he might find himself in, for example, the anti-terrorism legislation, or some of the strong positions he took in his annual report? Do you actually encourage people to get on side with the Privacy Commissioner in your communications?

Mr. Julien Delisle: I'm not sure I can answer that question. I've never looked at what we've put out publicly in our communiqués, or any material we've made public, in that light.

Mr. John Bryden: Why don't you supply us with the communiqués you sent out in that particular week?

Mr. Julien Delisle: They're all available on our website, Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: Are they though?

Mr. Julien Delisle: Absolutely.

Mr. John Bryden: Are you suggesting to me that with the media releases and the communications, nothing goes out to the public that isn't on your website?

Mr. Julien Delisle: It depends how you define “stuff going out to the public”. I go out and speak to groups when I'm invited to do so, and I presume that's communicating to the public. But some of my speeches are up on the website, not all of them. The commissioner's are there.

Mr. John Bryden: I'm not talking about you, with due respect; I'm talking about the Privacy Commissioner's communiqués to the public to educate them. Now the question is simply this: is he sending out communiqués that may or may not be on his website — let's suppose they're not on his website, or maybe they only get on his website eventually — that actually ask people to be proactively on his side with the positions he's taken on contentious issues like the anti-terrorism bill?

Mr. Julien Delisle: I think it's inherent in the process that if the commissioner takes a view and makes it know publicly, he hopes people will agree with him.

Mr. John Bryden: So he is advocating. Thank you.

Mr. Julien Delisle: That's your definition, not mine.

The Chair: Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I really think we need the Privacy Commissioner here. I'm grilling the wrong person. I wish the Privacy Commissioner had the courtesy to come here rather than send somebody else.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bryden. You will have an opportunity to raise that in a business meeting.

Madam Ablonczy.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I'm just trying to understand Mr. Bryden's concern, because often John and I agree — I hope that's not on the record. I just want to understand this.

If we have the Privacy Commissioner, the Auditor General, the Information Commissioner, or whatever, and that person's mandate is to have oversight in certain operations, if that person has concerns and issues that he or she perceives to be important, why is it a problem for them to try to communicate them? Isn't that exactly what they're supposed to do?

Mr. John Bryden: The question becomes whether an officer of Parliament should be communicating his concerns to Parliament, as opposed to the public Parliament first and then the public, certainly.

The issue here is if the Privacy Commissioner is advocating for privacy, then the Information Commissioner will have to do exactly the same thing, because you have advocates on two sides of an issue. So the suggestion that the Privacy Commissioner may be advocating for a point of view while legislation is in the House suggests that he may be trying to use public opinion to put pressure on Parliament to take a position.

In my view, an officer of Parliament has a fundamental responsibility to communicate his concerns first and foremost to Parliament. I don't believe an officer of Parliament has an advocacy role — education, yes, because I absolutely agree with making sure people know where to go for information, like a website. But I'm afraid — and this is reflected in communications I've received from constituents — that proactive communications have been going out to people who have political positions, who are in partisan politics, and who have been encouraged to take a stand and be supportive of the issues raised by the Privacy Commissioner on legislation before the House.

It's up to this committee to decide, ultimately, but I'm not sure if this is the proper role for an officer of Parliament. Really, the Privacy Commissioner and the Information Commissioner ought to be answering this question. We could have the two of them here, for that matter. But I'm trying to understand better whether somebody is out there trying to manipulate public opinion in order to pressure Parliament to go one way or another on legislation; or whether somebody is reporting their concerns primarily to Parliament, so Parliament can deal with them in the open forum and the public gets them from that open forum.

º (1655)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Maybe I could just comment on that. I think it is an important point.

It seems to me the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has a great deal of expertise in this area. It's clearly an important area because we've put an independent oversight person or office in that area. So why couldn't that person make his or her expertise available to the public on key public issues?

Mr. John Bryden: I agree with your statement. This is why the issue of the kind of education is so important. If an annual report is released, or a press report on it, and it goes equally to MPs, the media, and whomever else, that's a fair thing to do. However, if the Privacy Commissioner — and only he can answer this, and I'm frustrated because I'm pursuing a line of questioning that the witness cannot actually respond to — is taking an advocacy role and trying to influence the debate in Parliament on legislation before the House, that is the debate this committee must have.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: If I can just make one other point, for example, the Information Commissioner put out a report in 1997 that began: “Mayday, mayday”. Clearly he had very strong opinions about what was happening in Parliament and government. Correct? So for what it's worth — my two cents' worth — we want to be pretty careful about trying to muzzle or stifle the expression of opinion by an expert like the Information Commissioner. Calling it advocacy doesn't change the fact that we're saying, “You can't comment on important information before the House that will strongly affect the privacy rights of Canadians”.

To me, that's precisely the job the Information Commissioner should be doing, so I would not castigate the office for that.

Mr. John Bryden: No. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I will end —

The Chair: Mr. Delisle and I are both enjoying this.

Mr. John Bryden: Yes, okay, it's an education for the witness. I'm a very strong believer in bluntness in reports from the Privacy Commissioner and the Information Commissioner, and neither officer of Parliament has been hesitant to do that.

My concern revolves solely around the concept that one of these officers of Parliament needs a communications service to promote that report — or any other position of the Privacy Commissioner, for that matter — separately from what would normally be available to the officer of Parliament in fulfilling his duty, which is to produce an annual report.

You do not have the phenomenon with the Information Commissioner of this proactive desire to get media attention on various issues; it simply doesn't exist. I think Mr. Szabo raised a very important point that if the Privacy Commissioner feels that this type of information — education, shall we say — this communications structure is so necessary, surely the Information Commissioner, who fulfills exactly an equally important role as Privacy in the openness of information, should be doing the same thing.

That leads us to the consideration that maybe the two roles should be merged, so they jointly access this type of distribution of information, and there is a consistent policy that applies to all offices of Parliament, instead of having one embark on one procedure and the other on another one. We haven't even had the Chief Electoral Officer here. We could try him as well. He could also promote in the same way we're dealing with here. So these are issues.

But I come back to my final point. I regret that I've been so forceful in my questioning, because this is the wrong witness. The Privacy Commissioner should be here to explain himself.

» (1700)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bryden, for summing up so eloquently. Thank you, Mr. Delisle, for your input on this particular round of questions.

Mrs. Ablonczy, there have been two matters of privilege regarding the Privacy Commissioner in the House: one from the right honourable leader of the Conservative Party, and I believe one from Mr. Bryden. Was there a third one on this issue? It's not whether you inform or not, and it's not whether you're blunt or not; it's whether you inform Parliament first. The quality of the studies that are undertaken prior to forming an opinion is a second question.

We'll ask some questions about that in a minute.

Mr. Forseth, do you wish to ask a question?

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Yes. I think we'll try to bring Mr. Delisle back into the conversation.

Our researcher suggested a wording of a question I'm particularly interested in. Can you indicate how the public awareness budget — we're talking about public awareness here, public education — is allocated among major component activities, such as advertising, speaking engagements and conferences, publications, media relations, website development, liaison with stakeholder groups, and environmental monitoring? On what basis do you prioritize these activities and allocate funds?

Mr. Julien Delisle: I think we dealt with that earlier. I don't have the answers to that now. I've agreed to provide that breakdown to the committee.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I'll give you the wording of that so your office can respond to the committee comprehensively, because I think that would be very helpful, when you have time to really gather the data and respond. That's certainly my concern.

So a commitment has been made. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: Several times you referred to your website. How do we find it?

Mr. Julien Delisle: It's www.privcom.gc.ca.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. That's it.

The Chair: Perhaps I could ask a couple of questions before we wrap up this session. They go back a bit to the debate that has taken place here.

You mentioned, in response to one of the questions, a concern that was raised by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in the last annual report about the possibility of using an identity card. Can you describe to me the sort of investigation that took place prior to that appearing in the annual report — the sort of investigative work you do that leads up to the annual report?

Mr. Julien Delisle: I'm not sure I understand your question, Mr. Alcock.

The Chair: In his opening statements on the annual report, the commissioner made a series of comments about the immigration minister's musing about an identity card. Your office, as you mentioned, has expertise in staffing. Can you describe to us, as you're building that report, the kind of investigation you do to establish the evidentiary underpinnings to the statements you make in the report?

Mr. Julien Delisle: On questions like that, I wouldn't use the word “investigation”. Investigations for us mean investigating formal complaints under the act, and I don't believe we received formal complaints on the identity card issue.

Mr. Radwanski, like all other privacy commissioners in the past, of course must keep abreast of things in order to inform Canadians and parliamentarians about issues of importance to them. As previous commissioners have done with respect to the SIN, for example, the issue of national ID cards has been floating around for decades. All privacy commissioners in the past have addressed it; so has Mr. Radwanski.

On the way we usually approach that, when we see things in the media or are made aware of issues by government agencies and departments — and by individual Canadians and organizations at times — we have to do some work. We ask our research people to look into the issue and develop a position. On that basis, in discussions with his senior people, the commissioner takes a position on ID cards.

As you know, the great fear about ID cards is they can be used to track people. I don't think Canadians have ever had the appetite to have ID cards that they'd be required to pull out of their wallets anytime law enforcement people asked them for them. At least that's our sense, and it's always been my own personal sense. I think Mr. Radwanski's comments on Canadians' appetite for ID cards is very pointed and very apropos.

» (1705)

The Chair: In his annual report, though, the commissioner made some very specific statements about the proposal of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and very specific statements about what the proposal was. You made a general statement about the research that would have been undertaken. Would that have been done in this case?

Mr. Julien Delisle: My understanding is that we always look at these issues in turn. I can't tell you specifically about that one because I wasn't particularly involved with it. But on our general practice in the office, whenever there is a question in the public domain that is significant — like whether or not the government is contemplating issuing an ID card — I think the commissioner would be remiss if he didn't look at it and inform Canadians about how he felt.

The Chair: I absolutely agree. I think that's quite an appropriate use of his annual report, if that's what has occurred. If the government proposes to do something, the commissioner is certainly entitled to look at the proposal and offer his opinion to Parliament — not to the government — on that.

Mr. Julien Delisle: That's the general practice. What occurred specifically with respect to the ID card case, I can't tell you.

The Chair: I guess my problem with it is there were very definitive statements made about the policy or the proposal of the minister. To the best of my knowledge, there was nothing other than some musings by the minister, yet those musings became a series of sort of statements of fact — it's going to be this, it's going to be that. I assume there is some work that I'm unaware of that maybe your office uncovered.

Mr. Julien Delisle: No. Frankly, my understanding of that issue is similar to yours. The minister was musing about an ID card and whether or not we should have a debate.

A national ID card is a critical issue for a privacy commissioner, and that's why the commissioner engaged.

The Chair: Again, I think there should be a national debate, and I think it would be an interesting debate. What I'm concerned about goes to the heart of the concerns of Mr. Bryden, and Mr. Clark earlier. Is quality work being done underlying those positions that are taken, as opposed to just responding to what appeared on the front page of the paper? Is the officer of Parliament acting as an officer of Parliament and undertaking a proper investigation before reports are made to Parliament?

You assume when you read those reports that they're fact-based.

Mr. Julien Delisle: I absolutely —

The Chair: Just let me finish. I understand you were not--

Mr. Julien Delisle: I've described the process we had in the office. We do that all the time.

The Chair: Exactly. I understand you were not personally involved in that particular —

Mr. Julien Delisle: The ID card...but in terms of our general practice, we do research, we do conduct investigations, and we do provide reports and memorandums to the commission.

The Chair: Right. Then could I ask you to forward to the committee the research work that was undertaken on that section of the commissioner's report? Just provide us with the research that was done that led to the Privacy Commissioner making the statements he did.

I'd like to know the contacts he had in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, who he talked to, and what documentation he was provided with that led him to take that position.

Mr. Julien Delisle: I'm not sure there's any documentation that we received from the department. I'll certainly undertake to look at what we did.

The Chair: Perhaps you could undertake to put that together, because I think the office is an extremely important one, and it's critically important it maintain a sense of credibility, both in Parliament and in the public. To do that, I assume it is doing quality work before it starts to publish those things. So I would be very interested in that.

I have a second question for you. Corporate services were combined with the Information Commissioner. Were they always combined until just recently?

» (1710)

Mr. Julien Delisle: Yes.

The Chair: So there was a decision in the last year to separate them?

Mr. Julien Delisle: The issue is not as simple as that. It started off with a submission we made to the Treasury Board on our mandate under the PIPED Act. Prior to that Treasury Board decision, we had a single vote for corporate services, Access, and Privacy. But as a result of the important new mandate the commissioner received in the commercial world, it was felt it was necessary to separate our administration and finances. We received a decision from the Treasury Board that said, “You get a separate vote”. We were given instructions at that time by Treasury Board to manage our administrative services in a way that best suited our needs.

It was clear, in a period when the office was more than doubling in size and we needed staffing on an urgent basis to meet our requirements, that the existing corporate service arrangement with the Access office was simply not conducive to efficient management of our program. On that basis, we decided to take the resources that were given to us by Treasury Board and manage them in accordance with what we believed our needs were. That's why it led to the decision we should go our separate ways. We were essentially managing things separately anyway.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: I'm still grappling with these issues.

In your view--and it has to be your view--does the Privacy Commissioner seek public support for positions he has taken on privacy issues? He takes positions that to some degree are interpretive. It's his view — and it's a very important view because he is the Privacy Commissioner — but does he seek public support for these views when they are being debated before Parliament?

Mr. Julien Delisle: The commissioner's approach is to be the champion of the privacy issue. As an officer of Parliament, he believes that's what he should do. Whether it's popular or not, he takes the position he believes is critically important in fighting for the rights of Canadians.

I don't think the issue of public support is really relevant to him. He wants to take a position that supports privacy.

Mr. John Bryden: You can be a champion of all kinds of issues without soliciting support for your position. Maybe I'm going to be forever frustrated on this, but is he out there seeking public support for the positions he's taken on the privacy issues of the day? That's the real question. Particularly on contentious issues that are before Parliament, is he seeking public support?

Mr. Julien Delisle: I can tell you categorically, because I have debated issues with the commissioner since he's been in office, the only thing that crosses his mind in coming to a landing on any of these issues is to come to a decision or a position that he believes is critical in supporting the fundamental right to privacy of Canadians — period, end of story. His thinking begins and ends with supporting the issue of privacy.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

Madam Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): No, that's fine.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Delisle, I appreciate the fact you were here today. You have adequately represented your office. I'm sorry you got put in this position. I think it is incumbent upon an officer of Parliament to be here to defend his estimates, so we'll deal with that matter as a separate one. But as far your time and energy in your presentation here, I thank you. I think it was of a quality that serves us all well.

Members, given that there was no consensus on dealing with the votes, we will meet in room 371 West Block at 3:30 tomorrow afternoon to deal with our various estimates votes. There will be no witnesses. It will be simply calling the various votes.

We're adjourned.