OGGO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, September 22, 2003

¹

1535

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

º

1615

Mr. Robert Marleau (Interim Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada)

º

1620

º

1625

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Robert Marleau

º

1630

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ)

Mr. Robert Marleau

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

º

1635

Mr. Robert Marleau

The Chair

The Right Honourable Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC)

Mr. Robert Marleau

Right Hon. Joe Clark

º

1640

Mr. Robert Marleau

Right Hon. Joe Clark

Mr. Robert Marleau

Right Hon. Joe Clark

Mr. Robert Marleau

Right Hon. Joe Clark

Mr. Robert Marleau

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

º

1645

Mr. Robert Marleau

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Robert Marleau

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Robert Marleau

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Robert Marleau

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Robert Marleau

The Chair

º

1650

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.)

Mr. Robert Marleau

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Robert Marleau

º

1655

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

»

1700

Mr. Robert Marleau

The Chair

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

Mr. Robert Marleau

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Robert Marleau

Mr. Carman Baggaley (Acting Director, Strategic Research and Analysis Division, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada)

»

1705

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Carman Baggaley

The Chair

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.)

Mr. Robert Marleau

»

1710

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.)

Mr. Robert Marleau

The Chair

»

1715

Right Hon. Joe Clark

The Chair

Mr. Robert Marleau

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

»

1720

Mr. Robert Marleau

Right Hon. Joe Clark

»

1725

Mr. Robert Marleau

Right Hon. Joe Clark

Mr. Robert Marleau

The Chair

Mr. Robert Marleau

Mr. Carman Baggaley

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

»

1730

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Robert Marleau

The Chair

»

1735

Mr. Robert Marleau

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

---

NUMBER 057

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Monday, September 22, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)): Welcome, all, to meeting 57 of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

    We are here today to hear from the privacy commissioner on his annual report, which was tabled last week, I believe. We have before us the privacy commissioner, Mr. Robert Marleau, who is here to speak about the report but has also indicated to me that he would be willing to take questions on the office and issues that may be of interest to committee members. I would caution committee members to perhaps be tempered in any questions that relate to issues that may be considered by the subcommittee on potential contempts. We should leave those items to that subcommittee and deal with other matters.

    So, Mr. Marleau, I will leave it to you to introduce your companion and to make whatever opening remarks you choose to make.

º  (1615)  

    Mr. Robert Marleau (Interim Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate the early opportunity to appear before this committee to discuss the office's annual report for 2002-03.

    With me today are Mr. Carman Baggaley, who is our director of strategic research in the analysis branch, Mr. Gerald Neary, who is the director general of the Investigations and Inquiries Branch, and Ms. Hedy Kirkby, the acting general counsel, in case you get into an area of specific questioning for which all my homework has failed to produce a response from me.

    The annual report covers the period ending March 2003. As you well know, I was appointed privacy commissioner in July. In my foreword to the report I have noted this apparent anomaly, and I'm reporting on work for which I cannot take any credit. I cannot even really speak to the substance of the report, at least those parts that deal with specific complaints and incidents under the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. These reflect the findings and conclusions of my predecessor. My colleague Mr. Neary particularly, from inquiries and investigations, is at your disposal to answer any questions you may have concerning these matters.

[Translation]

    Having said that, I want to stress that I do take a measure of pride and satisfaction in this report, because it is the product of talented and dedicated individuals with whom I am pleased to associate.

    I was appointed to this position on an interim basis, to lead the Office through the process of rebuilding itself and restoring its credibility. My main priorities since taking up my duties have been bringing some order and stability to the Office and repairing its relationship with Parliament.

    The latter includes making myself available to Parliament in what I consider to be the appropriate role for this Office, namely providing advice on critical privacy issues and drawing Parliament's attention to the privacy implications of legislative and regulatory initiatives.

    For example, last Thursday, I appeared before the House Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to comment on the question of whether Canadians need a national identity card.

[English]

    As for rebuilding the office, I'm encouraged that the employees remain committed to and enthusiastic about the goal of protecting privacy. Once we know the results of the audits of the Public Service Commission and the Auditor General, we will proceed to implement their recommendations. That will help to give the staff the proper structure and support they need in their jobs.

    Another priority has been gearing up for the full implementation of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act as of January 1, 2004. As of that date the act will apply to all commercial activity in Canada, except where substantially similar provincial legislation has been enacted. And notably, at this point in time only the Province of Quebec has enacted similar legislation. As noted in this annual report, in 2002 we received 300 complaints under the act, compared to slightly more than 100 in 2001. Complaints are increasing, and as the coverage of the act extends and also, we suspect, as more people become aware of their rights under the legislation, the major expansion of the act's application in 2004 will likely lead to a proportionate increase in our complaint caseload.

    Although my appointment is only for six months, I don't see myself just as a caretaker. We have a number of challenging policy issues in front of us. Last Thursday, as I mentioned, I appeared before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to discuss Minister Coderre's proposal for a national ID card. I'm not here today to give you a repeat performance, but I will simply mention that I advised the committee that in our view, the marginal benefits of a national ID card and the social cost they would entail simply do not justify the huge financial investment. In this debate I want to stress that I am not an antagonist of the minister, but rather a protagonist of Canadian privacy rights. I have brought copies of my submission in case any members are interested.

    We're also continuing to look at the very critical issue of video surveillance. This is something that raises a number of concerns from a privacy perspective, but I am prepared to listen to people who believe there's a role for video surveillance. In fact, I've spoken with Commissioner Zaccardelli of the RCMP about this, and we've agreed to work together to see how, in specific situations where video surveillance may be justified, the privacy impacts can be minimized. The commissioner and I will each ask one of our assistant commissioners to form a task force and to report on the matter before Christmas.

º  (1620)  

[Translation]

    My Office has also been invited by the Chair of the Commission d'accès à l'information du Québec to attend later this month, as registered observers, her public consultations on video surveillance in Montreal and Quebec City. I don't think we need to conduct the same exercise twice in an effort to gauge the public's position on this matter. If Quebec's commissioner wants to share her expertise with us, then I think our Office will benefit from the experience. After all, the same taxpayers are footing the bill.

    An important development in the last year that is mentioned in the report was the introduction of the Treasury Board's new policy on privacy impact assessments.

[English]

Here I'm talking about, in our lingo, PIAs. A privacy impact assessment is an assessment of how and how much a program or activity affects the privacy of individuals. The Treasury Board's new policy makes PIA a condition of funding for all new, substantially redesigned, or electronically driven programs and services that collect, use, or disclose personal information. This means government institutions will have to look at privacy rights from the outset, from the moment they begin planning a new program. Questions of whether a program or project has a negative effect on privacy will be asked before any privacy violation occurs. This is a sensible approach, since privacy, once violated, can't be given back.

    This policy is welcome, and I have commended the government for it in the report. But I would like to take this opportunity to point out that it is still just that, a policy. I would like to see it made more robust and permanent, so that it is not dependent on the goodwill of the Treasury Board. If and when Parliament looks to amending the Privacy Act, something that is arguably long overdue since the act has not been significantly amended since it was passed 20 years ago, I would recommend that Parliament, and maybe this committee first, consider giving PIAs the force of law.

º  (1625)  

[Translation]

    I am hopeful that this annual report, and our appearance here today, mark a first step toward regaining the confidence of Parliament and our stakeholders, including of course all those who look to our Office for the protection of their privacy rights.

    At this point, I would be pleased to answer to the best of my ability any questions that you may have.

    Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marleau.

    Let's start with a five-minute round each. Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): I just have two opportunities for you to respond. Are the general office operations back to normal? Second, the video surveillance issue related to Kelowna was of great concern to the local municipality. I understand it caused local resources to be spent in the neighbourhood of $200,000 to $300,000. The community was certainly in support of a surveillance camera in that situation. If I can summarize the results of that whole contest, it brought disrespect and disrepute to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner as to how that was handled, as well as maybe the academic issues relating to it.

    Maybe you can comment on those two things.

    The Chair: Mr. Marleau.

    Mr. Robert Marleau: Thank you, Mr. Forseth.

    The situation in the office I would qualify as being as normal as it can be under the circumstances, where we're still working with two sets of auditors in finalizing a report. It has been a very difficult summer for the staff. Their collaboration with both offices has been admirable. I must also commend the two audit teams, from the PSC and the AG, for their sensitivity in approaching this very difficult file. We all await the report of the AG being tabled in Parliament on September 30. There'll be a good road map there for normalcy to return very quickly. I'm quite confident that once we have and can share with the staff a direction in which we will go, normalcy should return very quickly.

    On the issue of the cameras in Kelowna, you may recall that in my first week in office I issued a public statement that we were withdrawing from that case, which was being considered for appeal at a higher level. I did so after taking legal advice in the office. I felt that the office was going to be in court not on the issue of cameras but on an issue of procedure. It may seem a little strange that a proceduralist like me wouldn't take an interest in procedure, but I didn't really feel that it was good value for money for the taxpayer to take this to another level without having any commentary from the court on the issue of cameras. There are other ways, I believe, of handling this one.

    I've opened lines of communications with the Commissioner of the RCMP, so much so that he has submitted to us some guidelines that they would be using in the meantime. He gave me advance notice of the camera being put back in operation last week. I had several days notice on that, so that if we had a difficulty with it, we could have engaged in some dialogue. We have agreed that he will name an assistant commissioner and I will name an assistant commissioner as a task force to review the issue. We may not agree on everything. We've already agreed that we both have responsibilities that may not be negotiable, but we will agree on some things. The public and this committee will know what it is we disagree on. We'll disagree on matters of principle and on matters that we can explain.

    Technology is pervasive in our society. Cameras are not going to disappear. My office is more concerned about what cameras capture, what's done with that information, who it's shared with, what disclosures provide, what information is provided to those who are captured, with or without their consent. It's what you do with information that's important, not the technology you use.

º  (1630)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    As you can well imagine, I won't have time to ask every single question on my mind today. Therefore, I'll begin with one that is timely indeed, one that was raised this afternoon during Question Period. One important section of your report focuses on medical information. Privacy is such an important consideration that the particular case I want to discuss with you brings to mind the relationship you talk about rebuilding with Canadians and Quebeckers.

    The question raised this afternoon concerned an incident involving the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency that was brought to our attention. A person who wishes to remain anonymous was found in possession of forty-nine separate files. I wish to put a question to you today in your capacity of commissioner, despite the fact that yours in an acting appointment. Today, we heard back from the Minister of Revenue who claimed that the incident occurred because of a mechanical error and that such things happen. However, today's newspapers reported how this individual in fact disclosed information concerning income, tax credits for persons with disabilities, child and family tax credits, and so forth. Some files contained information on changes in civil status or post-bankruptcy statements. As you can well understand, a considerable amount of information is circulating, whether about persons with disabilities or people's medical files. I note on pages 27 and 28 of your report that you give your Office a passing grade.

    This issue is so explosive that attempts are being made to sweep it under the carpet. I'm asking you today, as Commissioner and as a responsible office, to demonstrate to the public that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada takes its job seriously. Do you not agree that your Office should call for an investigation into this incident to find out why this happened, instead of accepting the explanation that the problem was due solely to a technical glitch? We're talking here about 49 files, not just about a misdirected letter. The whole matter is far more serious than that. One person saw 49 files containing personal information about other citizens. Imagine what could happen if this information fell into the wrong hands? I'd like to hear your views on this matter.

    Mr. Robert Marleau: I can tell you that when an incident of this nature comes to our attention - and we only learned about it this morning from the media, just as you did -- we don't wait for a complaint to be filed. We've already opened a case file and one of our officials has already contacted the department in an effort to get to the facts. By law, our Office also has the power to launch reviews and if we have reason to do so, we won't hesitate to exercise this authority.

    This incident is deeply regrettable. I can't say what the outcome of our discussions with the department will be, but as I said, once personal information of a private nature has been disclosed to another party, you can't go back and erase that information from people's minds, or change people's opinion of a person, for better or for worse. It's deeply regrettable. We've already contacted the department . Is an investigation in the offing? Maybe, but then again, maybe not, not if we find the explanations reasonable and satisfactory, and not if we can live with them. We have the power to review departmental procedures, and this is certainly one case that we would scrutinize very closely indeed.

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: My other question concerns the number of investigations that have been concluded. According to the report, a total of 1,673 investigations were conducted in 2001-2002, whereas the number doubled in 2002-2003 to 3,483 investigations. Should we understand this to mean that the Office did such amazing work that people decided to place their trust in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner? Or, should we take this to mean that more breaches of privacy occurred? Either the Office did a stellar job, or conversely, it performed so poorly that people lacked the information they required and the government jumped on the opportunity to introduce draft legislation like bills C-36 or C-17.

º  (1635)  

    Mr. Robert Marleau: Regarding the number of investigations conducted under the Privacy Act, the figure of 3,000 quoted is somewhat high. As you will note on page 49, 2,247 requests were filed in Quebec. As I recall, many similar complaints were filed about an incident at Dorval airport. Therefore, the figures are somewhat inflated. In fact, the number of investigations has increased by one third since last year. We've gone from 1,213 to 1,642, considering that the 2,000 complaints concerning Dorval airport were actually one single complaint.

    As you can see, when a person files a complaint with the Office, a separate case file is opened and the case is handled separately. One main complaint was filed concerning Dorval Airport. Having said this, the fact is that the number of complaints has increased by one third.

[English]

    The Chair: I may have to quote Marleau and Montpetit at you, you know.

    Voices: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: Mr. Clark.

    The Right Honourable Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Thank you very much.

    Your report indicates that the previous commissioner had raised some concerns with respect to...substantially similar to PIPEDA legislation in Alberta and B.C. Do you share those concerns? You indicate that you're monitoring progress and maintaining a dialogue. What does that mean? Is there an active attempt made to bring the legislation into conformity with or to consider amendments to PIPEDA?

    Mr. Robert Marleau: For the moment, we're certainly not considering amendments to PIPEDA. There wouldn't be enough time to amend the statute before the January 1, 2004, coming into force. It would require a legislative amendment. But the dialogue is open with both Alberta and B.C. I've talked with both information and privacy commissioners there.

    I have a meeting scheduled next week with officials from Alberta to discuss their legislation, and my proposed legislation, and my predecessor's views. I share some, and I have concerns about other parts. I think we can probably find some common ground.

    We must remember that both the Alberta bill and the B.C. bill are just that, bills. They're resuming the legislative process this fall, and they could be substantially amended through that process. I'm hoping that through the dialogue we might find some fairly common ground and achieve agreement that the legislation will meet our tests.

    Right Hon. Joe Clark: Some questions from ignorance here. Your report says government institutions under PIA have to look at privacy rights from the outset, “from the moment they begin planning a new program”. I presume the Privacy Act applies to Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, does it?

º  (1640)  

    Mr. Robert Marleau: Health Canada for sure, and as for the CIHR, I'm advised that it does as well.

    Right Hon. Joe Clark: Well, what interests me is this reference here: “from the moment they begin planning a new program”. Obviously genetic research allows more to be learned about genetic composition, not only of individuals but also of close relatives or others who might share genetic characteristics. The access of insurance companies, for example, to that information is a highly problematic issue.

    Is it covered at all by privacy legislation as it exists? Does the PIA provision impose upon agencies of the Government of Canada that might fund this research any obligation to look at privacy right from the outset, from the minute they begin planning a new program, or is this a dark area in which there is no policy?

    Mr. Robert Marleau: I think probably the issue of funding third-party research is not captured, but my understanding of the PIA policy is that it is to apply to specific programs where the government is considering redoing a program, redesigning a database, integrating databases, or introducing new programs in that sense. So I don't think it quite reaches to funding of particular activities in government agencies as such.

    Right Hon. Joe Clark: Does it apply to arm's length foundations to the same degree as it applies to crown corporations or to departments?

    Mr. Robert Marleau: As my colleague here says, it's a mixture. It applies to all government departments and reaches several agencies. With regard to crown corporations, I think I'd have to look at the list and make sure. I don't believe it applies to Canada Post, for instance.

    Right Hon. Joe Clark: Okay.

    You made reference to the fact that in Alberta your equivalent office is the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. You will know that your colleague, the information commissioner, in a speech in the chairman's home city, suggested that in the future the two Canadian commissioners, both privacy and information, should be melded, should be brought together. Is that a matter on which you have advice for the committee?

    Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes, sir, it's a matter on which I have advice. I had kind of hoped that question would come up. I wrote a letter to your chairman about it, because I knew there were discussions about it.

    In fairness to my colleague on the upper floor, just above me, we've had cordial discussions about that. Indeed, he even gave me a draft of the very speech he was going to deliver. So it's not an issue of two peacocks in the room, if I can put it that way.

    As well, because my tenure is for six months and I hold no personal ambition in continuing--indeed, I hold ambition to the other side of that debate--I feel I can speak very frankly about this.

    There are two issues at play here. The very first one is the PIPED Act, which is coming into force January 1, 2004. It will apply to the private sector, from mom-and-pop video shops to Radio Shack to a series of commercial activities that may not be aware yet, unfortunately, that we're doing our best to try to reach out. We've lost a little time, but we will, and in all of those provinces that do not have a similar statute.

    So it will apply to a large part of Canada in a field of commercial activity that is not quite ready for that, I would argue. What the office is going to need is a commissioner who has an attitude of ombudsmanship and mediation and arbitration to try to get business to understand that privacy best practices is good business.

    The chair is signaling me, so before I'm called to order, I'll save the second point for another answer.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marleau, I appreciate your attention to the timeliness of this, although I do think we'd be interested in a detailed answer to the question Mr. Clark raises about the application to those agencies that may be part of what we would call the “soft” public service.

    Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Let me start by saying, Mr. Marleau, how very pleased I think most of us on the committee were that you agreed to take this project, even for an interim period of time. The feedback we're getting from that office is that the morale is dramatically better. People are kind of relieved to have the office under the direction and control of you and your management style.

    Since mine is the fourth party in opposition, all the good questions, or many of the things I wanted to raise, are gone. However, coming back to the Kelowna video camera court case, there are some specific questions I'd like to ask.

    I notice that some of the increase in your budget, or the supplementary increase of $773,000 above and beyond the original budget, was partly due to increased legal costs. But we have in-house legal counsel. How much extra did this court case in Kelowna cost, and why did we go outside and hire Morris Manning if we had in-house legal counsel? And how much did we directly give to Morris Manning above and beyond...? I believe that is the name of the lawyer who was handling that particular case.

    Can you answer some of those specific questions?

º  (1645)  

    Mr. Robert Marleau: On one of those questions, Mr. Chairman, it's common practice in our office, as it is in many other offices, to retain outside legal counsel when engaging in matters before the courts. We have in-house legal counsel who interact with them, but to actually take a case before the bench we retain outside legal counsel.

    Why Morris Manning specifically? I think you probably have to ask my predecessor that particular question. I have no knowledge of why Morris Manning.

    In terms of costs, my information is that it cost approximately $250,000 to take the case as far as it was taken. To put it in perspective, that's double all of the other cases we have in the office under PIPEDA that we have to take to Federal Court, maybe 25 to 30 cases at a time, which are ongoing.

    Mr. Pat Martin: So you're saying that the $250,000 billed toward the Kelowna case is more than double all your other activity combined?

    Mr. Robert Marleau: That's correct, sir.

    Mr. Pat Martin: How much of that $250,000 would have gone directly in billings to Morris Manning?

    Mr. Robert Marleau: I would have to report back to the committee on the details of that, but there are--

    Mr. Pat Martin: Outside counsel was the bulk of that cost, though, is that safe to say?

    Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes, sir.

    Mr. Pat Martin: That's interesting.

    If I have a moment left, I'd like to also explore some of the idea that the offices of the information and privacy commissioners were linked--not structurally, but physically linked. You shared an office. I guess there was an economy of scale achieved by doing things jointly. It seems your predecessor insisted they be separated as much as possible. None but a single auditor, I believe, remains.

    In the time you've been there, or perhaps other people speaking for you, do you see an advantage to being at least physically linked, if not structurally linked, under one individual?

    Mr. Robert Marleau: I'd see the advantage, in an ideal world, of all offices of Parliament being in the same building, sharing common services, except maybe for legal services because of the nature of their own statutes. I think you could achieve some substantial savings of scale if you had that kind of configuration. The space we now occupy is very awkward for the natural delivery of those services. The information commissioner is on the twenty-second floor, and we're on three, four, and five.

    Oddly enough, I agree with my predecessor that the time had come for some form of independent support. The main reasons I agree on that--they're probably not the same reasons he had--is that PIPEDA, in its application on January 1, is going to be the most significant extension of legislation that will touch just about every commercial operation across the country. We have an A-base submission that's going to Treasury Board this fall for increased resources related to PIPEDA.

    PIAs are also another great dimension that will make real demand on the office, and we need resources for that.

    So the office is evolving on the one side, on the Privacy Act side, under PIAs, into a more proactive, pre-emptive role with government departments. On the other side is a much larger and supportive role to both business and complainants in the managing of personal information. I think that now, with the evolution of privacy issues in Canada, post-September 11, security issues, and technology that is outreaching our grasp, it more than warrants having a privacy commissioner with a stand-alone operation.

    I would support the integration of all parliamentary officers for central support services, however.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I have a series of questioners still on the list, including Mr. Cullen, Mr. Szabo, Mr. Bryden, Madame Bennett, and Ms. Sgro. However, before I go to them--and you will understand, Mr. Marleau, the value of quorum--I'd like to take just one minute here.

    Members, you will recall there was an item that we had not completed pending information from the Alliance on the second subcommittee. The motion has been put to establish the second subcommittee, under the chairmanship of Madame Folco and Mr. Martin, to look into the matters arising around the question of whistle-blowing.

    WIthout debate--

º  (1650)  

    Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): So moved.

    (Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

    The Chair: Thank you very much. We're back in the meeting.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Marleau, for your patience.

    Mr. Cullen.

    Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Marleau. I don't know if congratulations are in order, but certainly thanks, I think, on behalf of many and/or all Canadians for taking on this challenging and important assignment.

    I have a number of questions. We won't get to them all, but I just wanted to finish off, in my own mind, the question of a possible merger of information and privacy. Is that something that functionally...? I mean, forget about the bread-and-butter or rum-and-ration issues. Is that something that conceptually you think is a good idea?

    Mr. Robert Marleau: I thought I'd answered already that I think the time has come to consolidate the issue of separate offices under separate individuals, that we need a privacy commissioner in Canada because of reasons I've outlined.

    There are also some other issues you have to think about if you're going to integrate them under one commissioner. I'm of the view that access to information ought to apply to my office--with certain limitations, if you like, as we'd protect the files of individuals and certainly protect the privacy of individuals--and to some degree should apply to the access to information commissioner himself in terms of administrative duties. So there may be some structural problems--for instance, if you have a complaint, who you inquire to--and there may need to be a third-party set-up that deals with that.

    Particularly if access to information is going to be extended to my office, then I have a greater problem with the access to information commissioner becoming the commissioner for both. There is a creative tension between the issues of access and privacy, and I think that creative tension is better served if you have two individuals who are committed to the integrity of each one, acknowledging that there is a tension between the two.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, that helps.

    My next question was going to be about potential conflicts and I think you've answered that.

    I'd like to come back to the video surveillance cameras, because I do recall very particularly your changing the decision in terms of the appeal court. I was in Kelowna at the time, actually, and that went down very well. I had wondered if it was a change in policy, but I think you've clarified that today. It wasn't so much a change in policy as that you felt it wasn't going to be good taxpayer value to pursue essentially a procedural issue. The substantive question about surveillance cameras is still on the table and you're having some discussions with the RCMP and perhaps others.

    The reason I raise it today is that in my riding of Etobicoke North we've had a lot of violent crime. We had almost an OK Corral-type shootout not too long ago. There has been a huge outcry in Jamestown Crescent in my riding for the video surveillance cameras. It has divided the community there to some extent. Some are saying it would be an invasion of privacy. Others are saying that it's absolutely, desperately needed because we've had 10 drug-related murders in the last while.

    You mentioned that there are parameters you think you can work on and reach some agreement on. Some people—and I haven't looked into this in any detail, so perhaps you could shed some light—are saying that maybe you could use digital technology or maybe there are times when the cameras would normally be off unless there was a complaint. I guess these are some of the questions you'll be looking at. I'm certainly interested in it and I know my community would be. Can you shed a little more light on that in terms of the process, the timing?

    Mr. Robert Marleau: In terms of the process of the timing, I'm hoping to have some kind of public statement, maybe back to this committee, before Christmas in terms of how the RCMP and my office can come to some kind of modus vivendi on cameras.

    The report makes it clear that we continue to have some serious concerns about video surveillance. However, I acknowledge that they're there. Having a position against cameras will not resolve the issue of privacy matters related thereto. But have we looked at other measures? I'm in communication with Ann Cavoukian, the information and privacy commissioner in Ontario, who has issued guidelines and has had discussions with metro police as well as with the information and privacy commissioner in Alberta, who has had interaction with the City of Edmonton. We're trying to get all of this to come to some kind of analysis. The provincial commissioners are more than happy to work together for a change and try to find some common position. We have to understand where the RCMP is coming from as well. They have a security mandate and a law and order mandate and also they give advice to other security forces across the country. If we can manage to at least get some things settled, we can have a larger impact.

    When it comes to a specific camera and a specific location, I think one of the first questions you have to ask is whether there are other alternatives possible, and sometimes there are—an extra policeman on the beat. It may not be as cost-effective, but it is another alternative. We would like to know that other alternatives, possibly all other alternatives, were considered and were a bad fit for one reason or another. That is the kind of dialogue we would have.

º  (1655)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marleau and Mr. Cullen.

    I'm on to Mr. Szabo, please.

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

    Mr. Marleau, I'd also like to add my thank you to you for stepping forward, on short notice I understand, to serve the people of Canada. I think it's a very significant role that you play and I think we're very grateful that you were prepared to step into that important challenge.

    Your report on page 19 deals with the issue of complaint investigations closed, and it's striking to note that the number of complaints closed in the last year reported on, compared to the prior year, in fact was more than double. The preponderance of those have to do with complaints related to the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency with regard to whether or not information they received on customs cards could be used by Human Resources Development Canada to deal with allegations of fraudulently receiving employment insurance benefits. You also report in there that the Supreme Court has ruled on it. In fact, it has ruled that the disclosure of that information was permissible, based on the Privacy Act and the Customs Act and consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It does raise a question about whether we have moved a significant step in terms of the availability of information between government departments.

    We did have the situation where the United States required airline manifests to be filed for airlines destined to the United States. I know there was some concern there and I think there are related informational requirements or disclosures that are available or possible in the event that they were linked to terrorism-type activities. I suspect this is going to be with us forever. It's an ongoing caution that we obviously have to take.

    I'm also aware that the minister of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency has made representations that the information being provided under the terrorism disclosures or others could not be used to initiate investigations or create cases, but rather would be used to support ongoing investigations or allegations that were triggered elsewhere in the system. All of a sudden this gets a little bit more complicated. We're not sure who started it or who may have precipitated things.

    My question then to you would be this. As a consequence of these developments, whether it be as a consequence of September 11 or with regard to this particular case with EI fraud work, has your office in fact realigned itself to this new thinking, because it is in fact a change to the privacy rights that your office had been protecting all these years? I ask it in the context of what are we doing in terms of the public education side to disclose this evolution in the balancing of privacy rights with other priorities of Canadians.

»  (1700)  

    Mr. Robert Marleau: If I may just correct the record, Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for his compliments, but stepping forward is something of an overstatement in my case. I did step, but stepping forward was more an invitation.

    I suppose, to answer your question, we could really write a thesis to a large degree about what has happened in Canadian society and the world as a whole post-September, 2001. As to my office aligning or realigning, there are some real issues. I think you were alluding to lawful access at one point and certain pieces of legislation my predecessor took some very strong views on. The office continues to have real concerns, but I think the same reality has hit OPC that has hit most institutions and Canadians about the post-September 11 context.

    That being said, we would not want, in an advocacy sense, to diminish the effectiveness of security forces, be they police or other, in their work in relation to that larger issue. But when you start talking about integration of databases, sharing of that information, and its potential disclosure--Mr. Lanctôt raised the matter of income taxes--that's where I think we have a strong role. That's where I believe the privacy impact assessment policy....

    With regard to CCRA, we had a very successful exchange on the frequent air traveller database that you can volunteer for and bill on who crosses the border. We did a PIA on that, and they've accepted, I think, 100% of our recommendations. So there's a context where I could say, yes, to a large degree, our office has aligned with the larger change in society. We can't deny it's there.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marleau.

    Mr. Szabo, the question consumed almost all the time available, so I would offer advice to other members that they shorten their questions to maximize the time for a response. Thank you, Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Bryden.

    Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): In the short time you've been privacy commissioner, have you had a chance to examine the question of the cross-border sharing of privacy information, particularly with the United States?

    Mr. Robert Marleau: The short answer is, no, I haven't had a chance to examine that, but if there's a specific issue you would like us to look into--

    Mr. John Bryden: There is an area of concern. We have the marijuana bill before the House, and one of the reasons for that bill is that young people who get convicted on a minor possession charge are having difficulty getting into the United States. One way of curing the problem is to make these minor offences not offences under the Criminal Code, but it raises the issue in my mind that these minor offences appear to be shared by our police authorities with the Americans. I wonder if, to your knowledge, there's any control or any standard. Do we have any oversight on what kind of information is being given to the Americans, or the British for that matter?

    Mr. Robert Marleau: Could I ask my colleague Carman Baggaley to answer that question?

    Mr. Carman Baggaley (Acting Director, Strategic Research and Analysis Division, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada): Over the last several months we spent a great deal of time looking at the various information-sharing agreements that are in place, particularly with American law enforcement agencies. In some cases there is now a legislative basis for some of that sharing. For example, the relatively recent amendments to the Customs Act that were passed, I believe, last year allowed some of that information sharing with other customs and immigration officials. So to a certain extent our hands have been somewhat tied by the existence of agreements that are in place between the two countries, or multilateral agreements, and in some cases by specific legislative authority. As soon as legislation is passed, of course, that's one of the grounds under the Privacy Act by which information can be disclosed without consent.

    So we've been looking at them, but there's a limit to how far we can dig.

»  (1705)  

    Mr. John Bryden: Let me just elaborate a little. Do we know, for example, whether or not we're sharing with the Americans information on people being charged with minor offences, as opposed to people being arrested? If you're arrested in Canada, does that appear in a computer bank in the United States? Finally, if you get an absolute discharge, is the previous information cleared from a computer bank in the United States? I've had three instances in my riding where young people have been stopped at the border, or even older people, on offences that are very old and very minor, and they have been told they'd better not return to the United States or they'd be arrested.

    Mr. Carman Baggaley: I'm aware of someone who had exactly the same experience.

    Specifically with respect to that question, I can't give you an answer, but we can get back to you on the difference between relatively minor offences and the extent to which that information is shared and under what agreement.

    The Chair: Thank you. When you do get back, if you could get back through the chair, all members will have an opportunity to benefit from that.

    Madame Bennett.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): We too feel that your appointment was usefully therapeutic, and we thank you for taking this on.

    Privacy is an evolving issue, and I guess what we found through the Romanow commission is that if you lock up 40 Canadians and let them deliberate on something like privacy, they understand that there are some trade-offs in respect of getting excellent health care, sharing information, all those things. I was interested in the ways in which your office keeps up with the trend. Right after 9/11 we did a town hall meeting on national identity cards, and two-thirds were in favour, one-third against. It's reversed by now. People who'd ever lived in a country with one hated it. People who had never lived in a county with one were, it seemed to the others, naive about it. How do we keep in touch with citizens' views on this? I've been pretty impressed with the Law Commission and Nathalie DesRosier's approach with citizen engagement as to what is a crime.

    I'm just wondering how you stay in touch with the views of Canadians on what you're doing. Further, I think it's a bit ironic, but with your predecessor, the privacy community was concerned that when he went to international meetings, he didn't stay and listen to what was going on in other jurisdictions. So I'd like to know how you stay up to date with what's happening in other jurisdictions. Is there a sort of privacy community such that you feel you know what the best practices around the world are, so that we in Canada stay in the forefront of the right thing to do on this really important issue?

    Mr. Robert Marleau: Thank you for your compliment, Ms. Bennett.

    How do we stay in touch with Canadians? They stay in touch with us. We get a tremendous amount of e-mail--you wouldn't believe the e-mail we got over the Radwanski affair. They turn to us on all kinds of issues of privacy that go beyond the scope of our statute as well. So in that way we get some sense.... We have not held, to my knowledge, any extensive public consultations. We will have to do some under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act with education and getting feedback in the coming two years.

    We stay on top of the other issues through our strategic and research branch, which my colleague here heads. We're looking at issues right now, the national ID card, of course, but the whole question of personal identifiers, the biometrics debate, tracking technologies, radio frequencies, identity theft, which is becoming a big issue, and something Mr. Clark alluded to, the whole question of genetic privacy. We try to monitor what is being said and written by academics out there as well as other groups.

    Internationally, there is an association of information, privacy, and data commissioners, as they're called in some countries. The meeting was in Australia just a couple of weeks ago. I didn't attend. of course; I couldn't go. Actually, I would have been there this week, and I didn't think the committee would be very happy if I were in Australia this week. We were represented, however, I did send someone from our office, who will report back, and I can assure you she stayed for the entire meeting. We were also to host that conference in Canada next year, but because of the circumstances and the finances, I decided to cancel that conference. It has caused the international community a little bit of concern in finding an alternative, but Poland has stepped forward and will pick it up. We will host it before the end of the decade, I would imagine.

    I get e-mail from international colleagues every day. I got feedback on this conference through the whole week. Every day I talk to at least one of the provincial privacy commissioners about one issue or another. I was talking to Ann Cavoukian in Toronto today about the video camera thing. So it's a question of staying in touch with the professional community, but we will have to do better outreach to Canadian citizens to see what their views and needs are.

»  (1710)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marleau.

    Madame Sgro.

    Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): I've already congratulated and thanked you privately, so I don't have to do it publicly.

    I'm very interested in your report on the national ID card. For someone who has only been in your position for a short period of time, I think it is pretty remarkable for you to have taken the steps you have on this issue. You could have avoided the issue. I sense that this is very well done; you have certainly raised some very important issues in here.

    Were you asked to respond to this issue, or is it something that your office felt was important to do?

    Mr. Robert Marleau: I have two points on that. As I said in my opening remarks, I felt that I shouldn't be just a caretaker commissioner. I could have looked just at the management crisis and dealt with it, but I felt there were two ongoing issues that couldn't wait until a new commissioner were in place—maybe in the winter—and were comfortable with the issues. The first was the current debate on the ID card, and I also think we need to address fairly quickly the issue of video surveillance. I couldn't just pull out of court and then say nothing. So I owe to the staff the substance of that report.

    My contribution to that report was in its strategic positioning in raising those questions, rather than engaging in a debate with the minister that he's wrong and I'm right, and that sort of thing. The minister has not put forward a proposal as such, and so I decided it was best to raise questions that would not just engage the minister but also engage Canadians. If Canadians read those questions and try to answer them for themselves, they'll be better informed in the debate and will come to their own conclusions, which I think will be pretty close to the conclusion we've drawn.

    I can only say to you that in the context of that particular issue, I also wanted to make a point that Parliament would hear my views first. I was called all summer long by the media to come forward to give interviews and to give our point of view on the privacy issue and the ID card. Here I must thank the media; once they got the message that I would speak to the committee first and only then give public interviews, they backed off and waited for my presentation to Mr. Fontana's committee.

    So my contribution to that was strategic positioning for Canadians, the media, and Parliament, and to raise those questions for debate.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We have time for a brief second round. Before we enter it, the chairman has two questions.

    I understand, Mr. Marleau, from—

»  (1715)  

    Right Hon. Joe Clark: Out of order.

    The Chair: Out of order?Any objection will not be entertained, Mr. Clark.

    Mr. Marleau, I understand from an earlier conversation with you that your appointment runs to December 31, and that you have served notice to the government that you are neither seeking nor will you accept any extension beyond that time.

    As you know, this committee indicated in its report that we will be calling before this committee the candidate the government proposes to replace you with. I am making an assumption that you are offering advice to the government on the kind of individual you feel might be suited to the position—not the person, but the kind of qualifications and qualities. I suspect that information would also be of interest to this committee as we go through the process. So we may want to ask you to return to speak to us specifically on that.

    I'll put my second question together with the first, because you've spoken about this several times. It concerns the striking, creative tension you've talked about between access and privacy. Classically, the privacy mantra has been, don't collect any more information than you have to; don't retain any information that you don't have to; and don't share anything that you retain. If you want to maximize privacy protection, then you're in a strong advocacy position there. On the other hand, there are advances in technology offering us opportunities to achieve faster and better services to citizens, more personal services to citizens, more efficient and effective services, and to expand transparency and, through that, accountability.

    So we have two kinds of competing values. I agree with your comments about technology and that we get caught up at times in the flash and excitement of the technology and lose sight of what we're really trying to do. I thought your presentation was exceptionally well done. But I'd like you to try to square that circle a little bit, because citizens have value propositions on both sides.

    Mr. Robert Marleau: If I squared the circle, I would put technology as the circle and privacy as the square around it. In my testimony before the citizenship and immigration committee, I think I said that I see privacy as a box around technology.

    Technology is with us. It has value propositions, to use your vocabulary, but these have to be in concert with the issues of privacy. I don't think they're incompatible. I don't believe for a moment that anyone who invents a new technology to raise efficiencies sets out to deliberately breach privacy, nor do I believe a minister in introducing a new program sets out deliberately to breach privacy. I think they have to act in concert.

    As technologies are embedded in programs—which is what we're talking about, including service delivery programs and entitlement programs—they have to be embedded in the larger context of privacy rights and privacy risks. Sometimes you will diminish privacy rights against a certain amount of risk. I think that Canadians, by and large—and certainly in the security field—are willing to accept that. They have a sense of community. In that sense, I think it has to be achieved as a balance. My recommendation is that if the Privacy Act were reinforced in the public sector field to require a privacy impact assessment or PIA, we'd go a long way in that debate.

    The Chair: We perhaps need a transparency impact assessment also.

    An hon. member: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: Now we have time for a brief second round.

    Mr. Lanctôt has served notice that he wishes to ask a question, Mr. Clark.

    We will attempt to accommodate members in the time available, Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I'd also like to focus on the issue of video surveillance. You said that it was “mainly” your advisers who recommended that you not appeal the ruling on a procedural matter. Everyone knows that this is much more serious than just a procedural problem. It cannot be easy to come to a decision of this nature, particularly when it's clear a decision of this magnitude is not likely to be appealed.

    How did this all come about, and what led to your receiving this advice? We know the facts, but the Office of the Commissioner nonetheless “agreed” with the position taken. What led to this about-face? Remember, it's important for the Office to rebuild trust. I see this as a complete about-face, especially given the relationship that existed between the Commissioner and the government. Don't you think the decision was made somewhat hastily? It's always possible to withdraw an appeal. Given that you are only serving on an acting basis, how can you make such an important decision? Why wasn't this decision deferred until a permanent commissioner was sworn in?

»  (1720)  

    Mr. Robert Marleau: All I can tell you, Mr. Lanctôt, is that I received the same legal advice as my predecessor. I can't tell you why he chose to do what he did and I am not questioning his reasons. I sought a legal opinion and I assessed the situation, fully cognizant of the radical shift in position and the implications of this decision. I felt it was better to come to a decision early on in my brief mandate rather than wait to the last minute, since the appeal process can be delayed. I acted for two reasons: to signal that a change had taken place, that things were different and that the conduct of the Office would, in part in the decision process, entail the same financial risks as borne by the taxpayer.

    Unlike some people, I don't believe in winning at all costs. It was my feeling that by initiating a dialogue with the RCMP and by weighing the pros and cons of video surveillance, we could move this issue forward in a far more practical, pragmatic fashion than by taking a chance of winning, or losing, in court. In my opinion, the Office should not be in court unless an intrinsic part of its mandate, for example, its jurisdiction, is at issue. It could find itself defending a principle and come out on the losing end. When the Office loses in court, not only is the taxpayer's investment lost, the question is decided once and for all. As I see it, this issue is now wide open. It won't be decided once and for all by the courts and both our Office as well as the proponents of video surveillance now have a certain amount of room to manoeuvre.

[English]

    Right Hon. Joe Clark: I have a couple of requests first, and I don't want encyclopedic responses to this, but I would be interested in having a general indication of which provisions of the Privacy Act or the PIPED legislation do not apply to arm's length foundations or to crown corporations. I'm looking for significant variances, not every detail. And I would be interested in receiving a brief note on the work you're doing on genetic privacy, if you could make that available.

    I note on page 44 you have a table of the origin of completed investigations. There is a very surprising statistic. When you add in the Quebec portion of the National Capital Region, more than half of the completed investigations have to do with Quebec. Why? Also in that chart neither Nunavut nor Northwest Territories had a completed investigation. Does that mean there needs to be better advertising of the Privacy Act in Innu or in other aboriginal languages, or is there some other explanation? And finally, to smuggle it in, you used an interesting phrase when you were talking about provincial and federal commissioners working together. You said “for a change”. I wonder if the atmosphere is contentious or if there is a fairly high degree of cooperation with your colleague commissioners and the colleague commissioners of the information commissioner.

»  (1725)  

    Mr. Robert Marleau: On the latter part of your question, Mr. Clark, I can say that I have nothing but admiration for and the best of relationships with all of the commissioners I've spoken to. We exchange e-mail, conversations on the telephone, invitations. I've had, dare I say, one for lunch. And all I can report back to you is that they are relieved and feel a sense of a need being filled that wasn't there before.

    Right Hon. Joe Clark: My question really was about the federal-provincial dimension to this. Is this an area where there is federal-provincial cooperation?

    Mr. Robert Marleau: This is an area, sir, where there's going to have to be federal-provincial cooperation. The Quebec information commissioner and I have already talked about how in the next coming months we're going to have to have some kind of memorandum of understanding between the two of us on how we're going to apply PIPEDA and how it's going to apply in Quebec, because while we may have the best of intentions of cooperating, it could be a third party and a complaint that draws us into a constitutional debate or issue. Unless we have this discussion as to where the grey zones may be and where les embûches might be.... We need to have that kind of cooperation. I foresee that with every province that adopts a similar piece of legislation. I think we would have to have solid federal-provincial cooperation.

    On your question.... Sorry, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Are you answering the question relative to the high number of requests in Quebec?

    Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes.

    Can I just get a quick correction from Carman? I mentioned the Dorval Airport, but in fact it was a large number of complaints related to...what was it?

    Mr. Carman Baggaley: It was with reference to using information about travellers to determine whether or not they're available for work for the purposes of employment insurance.

    There was a particular interest group in Quebec that publicized the issue, and therefore we received a large number of complaints from Quebec. And as the commissioner mentioned, each of those complainants was given their own file. It was really one issue with a large number of separate complainants.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I note that the time is upon us, but we're not going to see the clock for a few minutes, because I can't see it, frankly. It's back there.

    Mr. Martin has indicated he has a short question, and so have Mr. Cullen and Mr. Szabo. May I suggest that the three members each pose their questions, and perhaps Mr. Marleau could take note and then respond to all their questions at the conclusion.

    Mr. Martin, do you wish to pose your question?

    Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, if you don't mind. I'll be as brief as I can.

    My question is more of a intergovernmental relations type of question. When it was learned that 300,000 senior citizens were eligible for the guaranteed income supplement and the government knew who they were because of their income taxes, we were told that it would be a breach of their privacy if Revenue Canada told HRDC that these people were poor enough and should have their GIS. So the act was used in that way. But then if a person is on EI and sneaks across the border and goes shopping for an afternoon and comes back, the customs agents phone EI and tell them, did you know that somebody who is collecting EI left the country and shouldn't have—in other words, breaching their right to privacy.

    Has this come up, and do you see it as a contradiction that when privacy rights are in your benefit they can't be shared, but when they're against your interests, they're readily shared? Has the question come up in terms of a complaint, and do you see that as a problem intergovernmentally?

    The Chair: That's a short, easy one, Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Pat Martin: I saved it for the end. Maybe I'll write a letter.

    The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Marleau, on page 35 of your report, there's a disclosure that there were 32 reviews of incidents of mismanagement of personal information. There are examples such as loss of computers or computer files. Could you comment on whether or not this is a significant number relative to historical occurrence? Is this significant enough that we have raised it with the Auditor General for consideration or for review in terms of the practices of protecting information?

»  (1730)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Cullen.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Marleau, I don't mean to put you on the spot with this question and I appreciate that it's not an exact science. Have you been there long enough to make an assessment of what kind of participation the privacy commissioner should engage in with respect to speaking engagements, international travel? I guess it's obvious and you know that there was a discomfort in the committee about the extent of the speaking engagements and international travel by the former privacy commissioner.

    What is the benefit? Clearly you have to exchange information and you have to network, but in many cases this didn't happen previously. What is the value to the Canadian taxpayer of a Canadian privacy commissioner speaking at these types of engagements? Could you comment generally about what you've learned to date?

    The Chair: Mr. Marleau, the floor is yours. We're at three succinct answers to three succinct questions.

    Mr. Robert Marleau: All right. To Mr. Martin's question, I think we'd have to pursue that one in terms of some legislative authority for Customs to exchange versus two departments talking to each other. I'm not so sure we can answer today. We can certainly endeavour to come back and give you a view on it as to what provisions of the act were invoked and in the other case what piece of legislation allows Customs to exchange that information.

    On Mr. Szabo's question regarding the computer issue, as I recall reading that particular case, I wouldn't call it a substantive breach. It's an average thing. There were a bunch of computers, I think, made available for disposal, for resale, and it was found that certain information was still on them. It hadn't been dealt with properly. I'm not going to put it in the same category as what Mr. Lanctôt has just raised, but it's one of those things that just happened. We investigated, we looked into it. To our satisfaction it was corrected. It's not the kind of thing that's likely to be repeated as a chronic situation in a government department. It's important. It's not to be minimized in terms of the risks everywhere, but I wouldn't qualify that as an example we would use for other situations.

    To Mr. Cullen, in terms of the speaking engagements by the privacy commissioner and/or his staff, I have to tell you that I was amazed by the amount of requests that we got and that I'm still getting. Now some of that is due to expectations that may have been raised before I got there as well.

    My approach to that has been to assess each and every one of them against some return. In other words, going to a western province to meet with a group such as the Canadian Club for lunch, where there may be only 30 people, seems to me not a great value for money returned. We're looking at trying to hit conferences and seminars, particularly in the light of PIPEDA, that would have from 150 to 300 or 400 participants. I'm trying to even raise the level as high as possible so that if we invest by sending people out to these conferences, including myself, we reach the largest number of people.

    In terms of international travel, the international meeting of the information, privacy, and data commissioners is a key one. That's why I sent someone this year as well and would likely send one every year, but for the whole conference and to bring back a report and substantive issues and establish contacts that are going to be useful to us.

    We've reduced the information commissioner's budget-- that is, my personal office--tremendously this year in terms of what was left, and we will do the minimum that is required. We are already getting complaints from what I would call our constituency that we're not doing enough.

    So we're going to look at that whole thing in the context of a new program, which I'm going to call education services. Rather than a speaker's bureau, it's going to be education services. Each one of these ventures should have either education going out or education coming in.

    The Chair: If I may, Mr. Marleau, end by simply saying two things, on behalf of all members of the committee I'd like to thank you for the work you've done to date. I know it ruined your golf game this summer. You put in a lot of time at short notice, and I think it shows.

    The committee members were anxious to have you back before us to talk about your report so we could get back to the business of privacy protection. I appreciate your willingness to come here so quickly, and through you, I'd like to thank all of the staff and congratulate them for the work they do.

»  (1735)  

    Mr. Robert Marleau: What I will say to that is “Hear, hear!”

    The Chair: We are adjourned until next Wednesday at 3:30.