OGGO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, November 4, 2003

¹

1540

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

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

The Chair

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

The Chair

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

¹

1550

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Leon Benoit

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

Mr. Leon Benoit

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Leon Benoit

¹

1555

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Leon Benoit

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Leon Benoit

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

º

1600

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

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

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. John Bryden

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. John Bryden

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. John Bryden

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

º

1605

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

º

1610

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

º

1615

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

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

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

º

1620

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

º

1625

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

The Chair

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

º

1630

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

º

1635

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

º

1640

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Paul Szabo

º

1645

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

The Chair

º

1650

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

The Chair

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

º

1655

The Chair

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

The Chair

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

The Chair

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier)

»

1700

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Ms. Francine Lalonde

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Ms. Francine Lalonde

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

»

1705

Ms. Francine Lalonde

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Ms. Francine Lalonde

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Ms. Francine Lalonde

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Ms. Francine Lalonde

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Leon Benoit

»

1710

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Leon Benoit

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

»

1715

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Leon Benoit

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

The Chair

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

»

1720

Mr. Leon Benoit

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Leon Benoit

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

The Chair

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

The Chair

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

---

NUMBER 069

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, November 4, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1540)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)): We are going to come to order, please.

    This is meeting 69 of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. We are meeting today, pursuant to Standing Order 111.1(1), to examine the proposed appointment of Jennifer Stoddart to the position of Privacy Commissioner, which was referred to the committee on October 29.

    Welcome.

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart (As Individual): Thank you.

    The Chair: I don't think I have much to tell you about the process around places like this. You have more than a little experience. Would you care to make an opening statement before we turn to questioning by the members?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: I could, or I could answer your questions directly, whichever you.... I might have some experience, but my recent experience hasn't been here. Should I move over in front of this microphone--would that be better for you?

    The Chair: You're okay.

    Do you have any opening remarks to make?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: I could make a few remarks for a few minutes, informally.

    The Chair: Please.

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Then you could ask me questions. I'd be pleased to answer.

    Thank you very much for inviting me here today, Mr. Chair, distinguished members. I am very honoured to have been the object of this recommendation for the position of Privacy Commissioner of Canada, a position of great responsibility, a position that requires great trust from Parliament, to whom the Privacy Commissioner reports directly, and of course from the Canadian people.

    I have some familiarity with the kinds of responsibilities of a Privacy Commissioner. The Canadian Privacy Commissioner of course carries out the duties in the Privacy Act and in the last three years has accumulated significantly more serious responsibilities in playing a role in the new Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, of which the last phase is going into force on January 1. Doubtless we'll come back to that in the questions.

    The issues of privacy in Canada are, as you all know, sensitive issues. They're important issues from many points of view. They're issues that seek to reconcile our personal and our group needs for privacy. I say group needs, because various groups in society may have different ideas of privacy, different viewpoints on what privacy is, and on the other hand there are our social needs as citizens of Canada.

    I'll give you some examples of what I think are crucial issues in privacy now: health issues; issues of accessibility to information held by the government—research information, general information, technological information, and so on; information the government holds on us as citizens through the programs it administers and the information it collects in that way.

    Increasingly, there is the private sector's use of information in a highly charged commercial context in which information more than ever has a monetary value in our new information economy, so the coming into force of the new PIPEDA law then will play an important role in regulating this. This is one of the challenges that faces Canada as one of the western democracies that has chosen to regulate the circulation of private personal information in a commercial context quite directly, while staying competitive within the western economies.

[Translation]

    All of this is of course occurring in a context where Canada is facing serious security issues, both internally and externally, and the need to control its borders in the face of real or potential threats. It is also a context where Canada is experiencing a significant increase in its health costs and where the circulation of health information can play an important role in the setting of costs, whether it be the costs of providing services, research or product marketing. Nor can we disregard the personal training component in the general context, and the increased importance of electronic commerce,

[English]

and technological innovations that almost every month are bringing us new gadgets, which may have an impact on our privacy, such as in the last few months cellphones that simultaneously take pictures of you; the increasingly frequent use of global positioning devices; biometrics.... Minister Coderre had a conference on his proposed identity card, and we talked about the use of biometrics in that context.

    As a candidate who has had the honour of having had her name put forward to you, I'll simply remind you, and we can go into this later, that I have been a professional civil servant for twenty years, so I'm reasonably familiar with the rules and practices and codes of ethics of civil services, including five years of working for the federal government. I have training in law—I'm a member of the Quebec Bar—and social sciences. And you'll see as a continuum through those studies a focus on human rights of different kinds, which I continue in my interest in access to information and privacy and other examples of human rights and rights that are consecrated, albeit indirectly, in the Canadian constitutional charter.

    And finally, in the years that I've been a civil servant, I've always been in administration positions, so I think I've seen a fair variety of administrative challenges. I believe in transparency in one's role as a civil servant. One is there performing an important task for the people, and therefore one has to be, in my view, completely transparent in everything one is doing in managing taxpayers' money.

[Translation]

    If you were to endorse this recommendation and I were accepted for the position, my priorities would be, first of all to restore confidence in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada which has undergone such turmoil over the past six months. I think that I could best describe my action by saying that I would follow the traces of Mr. Marleau who has started to implement the recommendations of the Auditor General's report as well as those of the Public Service Commission.

[English]

    I would definitely continue collaborating with the Auditor General and with the Public Service Commission in restoring the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to the status it should have as an agency and as an office of someone who's reporting directly to Parliament. This would include going through the very difficult actions of bringing things back to normal, including following on any disciplinary and restitution actions on one hand, and on the other hand, making sure that proper staffing, ethical, and budgetary procedures are in place with the necessary standard reporting requirements that are there.

    I'd like to say that it seems to me very clear, as a matter of public law, that because one is an officer of Parliament or because one's position of professional responsibility is privacy does not mean that one has any exemption or any special treatment under the rules and laws of the Public Service, of Treasury Board, or in one's relationship to the Parliament of Canada. I think that's very clear. It has always been very clear to me, and I can't imagine that one would take another position.

    Mr. Marleau has been joined by two associate commissioners, assistant commissioners. They are both very competent in their fields, and I know that they are there to help make the transition toward a more appropriate office and professional setting.

    The second thing, and a priority that is following very closely on the heels of the first, is the coming into force of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, PIPEDA, an act that is very ambitious, very far-seeing, and which will take great skill in applying great information initiatives in order to bring these values to all Canadians. I think it's a law that can be enforced by the adherence of Canadians and Canadian businesses to the practices that are set out there. So that will take a very intensive information campaign over the next few months, if not years, in order to make this dramatic change in handling of personal information in certain areas.

[Translation]

    Lastly, an important part of the role of the Privacy Commissioner is to continue to follow government action, in addition to investigating complaints. In view of the situation, a privacy commissioner must keep watch over the actions of the government, at all levels of government in democratic countries. The growth of data banks is a particular phenomenon that has occurred as an effect of technology itself. There's also the challenge of government online, something that definitely does provide significant services to Canadians but that should not be used as a pretext to gather information that is not necessary or to set up a network for the surveillance of citizens. There's the question of identity cards, a subject on which I expressed an opinion as President of the Quebec Access to Information Commission. This is an issue that will be occupying us for several years, in view of what is taking place elsewhere with respect to the flow of populations and security, for example. I think it is an issue that will require thorough examination.

    Lastly, another matter that I could mention,

[English]

and I'll end with that, is the question of video surveillance. Again, technology brings us a new challenge in terms of privacy rights, and this is another question the Canadian government will have to continue to look at and see whether it wants to, for example, legislate in the area of the use of video surveillance both publicly and privately.

    So that is perhaps an overview of what I see as some of the priorities, some of my concerns, some of the values that I would bring if you should choose to go forward with my name.

¹  (1550)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    We'll start with Mr. Benoit.

    Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    Welcome, Ms. Stoddart. I'm very pleased to see you here.

    I must say, on reading your c.v., you clearly come here with a lot of qualifications for this job. I do, however, just want to set the stage a little bit for these questions.

    You know, no doubt, what has happened to the past appointment, and I don't want you to comment on that. But as a result of that and because the appointment process, even though the Privacy Commissioner is an officer of Parliament, really didn't involve in any significant way any committee of Parliament or really parliamentarians other than the House leaders for the various parties, and that even done in a rushed way and in a way where they really had no opportunity to recommend any appointments, with that background you could maybe understand that this committee, I think, will be quite careful that the recommendation we make in fact is based on the best information we can get.

    In getting the information, I think I'll be asking some questions I'm not particularly comfortable asking, quite honestly, but I feel that I have to on behalf of Canadians, to help disclose to them your background and to make it quite apparent that should you be appointed, it's because you're qualified for and quite capable of doing the job. Certainly as a member of the official opposition I do feel a great responsibility in either approving or not approving your appointment.

    So I did just want to set the stage a little bit. I'll get right into the questions now, and I think we'll have probably quite a few questions.

    I'll start with a broad question, maybe some of the toughest questions you'll actually face today, in a way. I just want to ask you, to start off, is there any issue that you can think of that, discovered in the future, could bring embarrassment to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Any issue...?

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Is there any issue or anything in your background that could, if discovered later, bring some kind of embarrassment to the job and position of the Privacy Commissioner?

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): If you didn't pay your taxes....

    Mr. Leon Benoit: I'll get into that, thank you.

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: No, nothing that is in my life or any phase of my life do I think I have to be reticent about. I'll say, though, that I, like all Canadians, have a personal life, and I guess what you're looking at here are my professional qualifications and the qualities I would bring to a job.

    Would I enjoy it if people started to look into my personal life? No, but I don't think my personal life is what I bring to this job. I think it's my professional skills, my professional responsibility, and like all of us, my personal life is not something brought to the job unless something in that personal life has a bearing.

    To answer your question, then, I don't think there is anything in my personal life that has a bearing on what I do; therefore I would not expect to be embarrassed by something that would come out.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you.

    As a member of Parliament, being under public scrutiny, I certainly understand your concern about digging into your private life, and I won't do that unless you feel there's something in your private life that could, at a later date, cause a problem.

    For example, you don't have any unpaid tax bill, other than maybe a very short-term one such as we all have from time to time?

¹  (1555)  

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Not that I know of. My husband, who's off on a business trip and has the responsibility, is supposed to have paid the municipal taxes. I hope they're paid, and the school board taxes. But as far as I know, I don't have any taxes owing. But again I'll say with great deference, I worked in the area of human rights, in which we looked at responsibilities and qualities for jobs, and again, that doesn't seem to me to bring a direct bearing on what a privacy commissioner does. But as far as I know, for the record and certainly to make things clearer, I'm not in any major arrears on anything.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay.

    In terms of your background, there are three positions I want to talk about. There's nothing wrong with you having served in these positions; I want to make that clear up front.

    In the first one, you served as director of research for the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. In the second one, you served as director of research and policy for the Canadian Human Rights Commission. And in the third, you were director of investigation for the Youth and Human Rights Commission in Quebec. And actually, there's a fourth: you were named “Woman of Distinction” for the public services category of the YMCA in Montreal. I think these bring good qualities to your background.

    I just want to ask you this question, though: Do you feel that because of your background dealing with so-called women's issues there's any possibility that this appointment may have been an affirmative-action type of appointment? Again, I just want this clarified, and we can move on.

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: No, I don't think I am here at this particular job today because I am a woman. I have been doing a similar job for three years by vote of the Quebec National Assembly.

    Perhaps it's not clear from my c.v. Perhaps I could lay your mind to rest. Since I joined the Canadian Human Rights Commission, in 1985, I guess it was, and for the last 15 years, human rights commissions have looked at a whole variety of the human spectrum. That's what makes them such a fascinating place to work. They can look at issues for women and issues for visible minorities. There are all kinds of minorities: linguistic minorities, handicapped people.... In fact, usually the second largest, or even now the largest grounds of complaints to human rights commissions across the country are by handicapped people.

    So in fact I've been working with many, many different issues in the areas of human rights in the last 15 years.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Very good.

    I just want to ask you, because you brought it up in your comments, about the issue of cellphones that simultaneously take pictures. I want you to tell me what the privacy concern there might be--just to give a little bit of background.

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: I've never actually seen one. I've read about them. But certainly the privacy concern is that you're being photographed without knowing it, without your permission, of course, in a position in which you were not expecting to be photographed, so that it's even more intrusive.

    When the gentleman was in the room, we all knew he was here. His camera went click, click, and flash, flash, so we didn't scratch our heads, or whatever, because he was here.

    If somebody is pretending to talk on the phone but you're being photographed out the side, you may not think you're observed, so then there's the cause for much intrusion and potential embarrassment to you.

    The Chair: Okay, one more brief question.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: To follow up on that a little bit, from your point of view, what privacy concerns are there with that? You may well be looking at this issue on behalf of Canadians. Just how would you approach that issue in making a decision as to whether, in your judgment, that may be a matter of...? There may be some serious privacy concerns with that. How would you approach that in doing your job?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: I used that just as a recent example of the effect technology has. It's not necessarily something that comes at this point within the purview of the Privacy Act or the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, and so on. It's simply an example of ongoing trends and how technology is challenging our privacy in new ways every month.

    When you look at those kinds of issues, you have to ask, what is the technology being used for; who is it being used by; what benefit does it give us; what harm can it bring; how do these impact on privacy rights; and what then is the sum total of the benefits that technology can bring?

    In that case, it seems to be more of a gag. It's a kind of stealth weapon, isn't it? It's something that you use to sneak up on people and take their picture unawares. It seems to me the benefits of that are not very great. Other kinds of technology can have benefits; we have to weigh them with the impact on the privacy of Canadians.

    I would roughly use that kind of framework.

º  (1600)  

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Bryden.

    Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Can you comment a little about the interface between privacy and access to information? Most jurisdictions combine the two roles. You are going to enter a role in which you are going to be on one side as opposed to the other. Can you just give us a sense of your view of that?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: As you know, I'm now the Privacy Commissioner of Quebec. Quebec, like many other provinces, has taken the position that these two rights are integrally related to each other and that the interpretation of one has in fact to do with the interpretation of the other. This has led, I think, in the case of the provinces, to combined operations of access and protection of personal information. This is certainly the case in the commission that I chair now. We have made a recommendation that this is the most appropriate kind of structural framework for the Quebec legislation to be based on.

    The federal government chose a different path some twenty years ago, choosing to have separate offices. I know that Commissioner Reid has suggested that these offices be combined. I'll answer your questions quite frankly and say that I think there is merit in that suggestion. I think it's something Parliament could look at in the future. However, given the two things that have happened—the rather stormy past of the Privacy Commissioner's office, and the very great challenge of putting into force PIPEDA—this is not an issue we should look at either today or in the immediate future in terms of priority. But I think it is an issue that has been raised, will be raised, and should be raised.

    Would it make sense conceptually, in terms of administration and government efficiency, to look at these two together? I would be willing to do that.

    Mr. John Bryden: You've had long experience with privacy. Tell me, what was your most difficult privacy case?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: The most difficult privacy case? Oh, my goodness. That's a hard one.

    Mr. John Bryden: All right, then give me a good example.

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Some of the difficult privacy cases in the provincial sphere have to do with tenant information. People go to rent apartments and they are asked, “Can I have your social insurance number; can I have your health card, can I consult your credit records”, and so on. We see two issues coming head-on, the search for housing and the desire of landlords for security for payments, because they are often renting out a very valuable piece of property—valuable over time because of the consecutive payments.

    That is a difficult issue, and it continues to be a difficult issue, as to how you balance those rights. Housing is a pretty fundamental need in our country. At the same time, you recognize that people who are renting out their property need to have an assurance of financial security in terms of the payments. That's an ongoing difficult question, I'd say.

    Mr. John Bryden: Can you give us an example of one you've actually made a decision on, and how you came to that decision?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Yes. On those cases we sit as three commissioners in Quebec, by law. We would like to have it changed to one, because it would be simpler.

    It was a decision involving an apartment building in Quebec City that required an exhaustive amount of information on a young couple who were going to rent an apartment. The couple hesitated to give them all this information, including their salary, their bank account, the phone number of their bank so they could check on the amount of their bank account, their licence plate, their employer, and so on. Because the couple demurred, they were refused the apartment. The couple then came to us, and we investigated.

    Meanwhile, the couple rented an apartment at the same rent in another part of the city. When we investigated and asked questions of the witness for the apartment's owner, I guess we all realized that a lot of these questions were being asked by rote--for example, the people's bank accounts, the names of their bank managers, and so on. In fact, they could have taken other substitute information.

    We came down with a decision then that said a certain amount of that information in the list was not necessary and that the information collected by the apartment owner--it was a huge apartment block--had to be destroyed because it was kept, as I remember, in a kind of haphazard way.

    As I say, the issues are ongoing. The facts are not, perhaps, the most complex. There are some we're still sitting on that are going to be very, very difficult.

º  (1605)  

    Mr. John Bryden: One final question, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: One final.

    Mr. John Bryden: Are you or have you been tracking the American anti-terrorism legislation for its impact on privacy rights in the United States?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: I can't say that honestly I could answer any question you would have on that with any accuracy. I guess we're very busy tracking privacy rights right now in Quebec, and I don't really have much time to track exactly what's happening in the United States, except that I understand the ACLU was successful in pushing back one of the recent attempts to have comprehensive identification legislation. I forget exactly which program this was, whether this was total awareness or not.

    I know that at the conference that Mr. Coderre hosted there was a representative from the Office of Budget Management from the White House who assured us that our American neighbours would not themselves be required to have ID cards. I think that's about my....

    That has not, however, stopped the Americans from putting into place fairly aggressive systems that monitor their borders--not so much their own citizens once they're in, but entry and exit into the United States, so-called aliens. Those, I think, are going ahead.

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

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

    On your question about forms, I think the answer was interesting. We should have you look at our passport forms.

    Mr. Martin.

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

    I'm sorry I had to be out of the room, so I hope I'm not repetitious in the questions I'd like to ask.

    Thank you for being here and going through this odd process. I suppose it's unique, but so is being an officer of Parliament quite unique in the Canadian experience.

    An aspect I'd like to ask you about is the history of the current Privacy Commissioner's office that was such a horror story. As members of the committee, we heard witnesses who told us it was the most unpleasant place to work in recent years that you could possibly imagine. In fact staff was terrorized, virtually. Apparently, the previous Privacy Commissioner would yell and scream and reduce people to tears on a regular basis, an absolute horror of a man and a horror of a workplace.

    I'd ask you what management strategies could you share with us, or even philosophies about management that you might bring to the job that would help to heal some of the incredible damage done to morale and ultimately to productivity stemming from that? Can you speak to the difficulty in entering a workplace where that has been the recent experience?

º  (1610)  

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Yes. I'm sure it is a difficult environment, because I gather the wounds are very deep.

    I think there are several things that could guide one in such a position--first of all, the fact that there is a touchstone. When we work in the public service, there are always touchstones. They're the touchstones of the rules and procedures by which management carries out its jobs. Employees, on the other hand, have collective bargaining agreements in large organizations like the federal civil service, which give them rights.

    There is also usually an extensive series of policies put out by Treasury Board in its capacity to guide the managers on a series of personnel management ethical issues and so on that should be applied--perhaps were not, but should be applied. So you have these lighthouses on your way, but you have to look out for them, of course, and be guided around them.

    You also, I think, have to respect your employees. You have to listen to them and you have to encourage their participation. Those are things I've always tried to put into force. Employees have important things to bring. The office generally works as a team, or should work as a team, so I think respect for the people you work with is perhaps the first thing you have to do.

    In this particular case, I think the reports and the comments of Mr. Marleau in response to these reports have suggested that there are some ongoing, very difficult problems that will have to be dealt with specifically around perhaps the very individuals who are involved. But those remedial measures may not involve the whole workplace, except to the extent that the rest of the workplace has to be reassured that in fact there are, I'd say, normal ethical values once more in place, and fair management practices.

    Mr. Pat Martin: I think that's a very good answer. I would only add that it may be necessary to put some even extra effort into all of those things you've listed, given the unique situation in that workplace. Even the Auditor General found that in her interview process of the employees in her investigation there was an absolute climate of fear and intimidation that is lingering there, and distrust.

    Expanding on that, could you speak generally about what are some of the core values and principles that would govern you or guide you in your role as Privacy Commissioner? Without speaking specifically, in your introductory remarks I suppose you touched on some of that, the core values and principles. But would you like to expand further on what might guide you?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: I think perhaps I'll answer in terms of the immediate actions that I think a privacy commissioner should undertake, and that is making known the values that underpin the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

    It seems to me that what's important is to make these values known, to encourage the adhesion of Canadians to these values, to values of respect for personal information, which perhaps to a certain extent we grew up with. That kind of personal information changed its technological base so quickly that our mores haven't followed, and we have to be extra careful now that information is in a sense so volatile, so dangerous, and can do so many things.

    I think these values are basically premised on a respect for the individual. Personal information is information about an individual that allows you to identify him or her. So I think as Canadians we have to remind ourselves of those values and what they would involve.

    Certainly in terms of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, I think the values that generally are with public servants are the values I would try to put into place, which is that it's a great honour and it's a very special kind of job to be working for the Government of Canada, certainly in a field like that, which I obviously find so interesting, but which is so important to all Canadians. People who have the fortune to work in that field, then, should be highly motivated and very mindful of their duties to Canadians, because they have a trust they're carrying out for all our citizens. That is the kind of spirit I would like to bring to the Privacy Commissioner's office.

º  (1615)  

    Mr. Pat Martin: Very good.

    Could I have one more minute, Mr. Chair?

    The Chair: Please.

    Mr. Pat Martin: On the screening process that took place, I know we've been openly critical of the selection process, although that has nothing to do with you. It's the fact that we were assured as a standing committee we would have an active and full role in the selection, the shortlisting and the nomination of a future candidate, and instead Mr. Boudria, the House leader for the government, simply announced that you were the successful candidate. That was the first we'd heard of it.

    The question I have.... With such a long introduction, I forgot the point I was going to make.

    The Chair: That's why you should forgo those preambles, Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Pat Martin: I suppose, yes. Can I come back to this, Mr. Chairman, if I can remember what I was going to say?

    The Chair: You know, Mr. Martin, I am delighted to see it happens to you too, because I constantly get lost.

    Mr. Pat Martin: A long, windy introduction.

    The Chair: If you like, I can come back to you if you want a minute.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

    The Chair: But you will come back.

    Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Welcome to this committee. I'm sitting on the Liberal side, but I'm from the official opposition.

    You just made a very interesting comment, and I would like you to expand on it. You said you found it a great opportunity--or something to that effect--to be working for the government. That's what you said. The Privacy Commissioner does not work for the government.

    Could you explain that?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Yes, okay. You're quite right to correct me.

    I meant working for the public sector. I am very cognizant of the fact that a privacy commissioner is in fact a person appointed by both houses who reports directly to Parliament. When I said that, I meant it in the broadest sense, for the Canadian public good. I understand very well the constitutional position. In fact, the Privacy Commissioner is most well known as a critic of the Government of Canada, because he or she has to bring the values of privacy, which may not always be the same values that are going forward in a given legislative or political agenda.

    So it would be for the values of the public service at large. That would be a more accurate description.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: That's why we have been saying to the country that these are officers of Parliament, not officials of the government.

    I'd like to change the topic a little bit. I'd like for you to tell us, as carefully as you can, the sequential story of how you first heard of the position and how it came into your mind that you might even conceive of offering your name. Just take us through the sequence of the very first time this information or thought ever came to your mind. Did you receive a phone call, an invitation? And then just kind of follow through some of the sequences of what happened up until today.

    Do you recall? I'm trying to piece together the sequential story of how you got to your chair today, being interviewed by this committee. That story is quite important.

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Well, I think the events at the end of June and July were quite public. I probably got more information than other people because of being in the privacy and access to information field, and the events came through my press clippings at the office. We were very busy in Quebec City. We had a new government. Our budgets were not approved until mid-July and so on. Then I was on vacation.

    After vacation I came back and I was sitting in Gatineau, in the courthouse in Hull, and I wanted to meet the successor--Mr. Marleau had been named, and I wanted to pay a courtesy visit to Mr. Marleau to bring relations back to the state they've enjoyed traditionally. I arranged to have lunch with Mr. Marleau. That was maybe mid-August, something like that.

    Some few weeks later Mr. Marleau got in touch with me and asked me if I would be interested and if I could put my c.v. forward.

º  (1620)  

    Mr. Paul Forseth: I've been in this position before of being on a committee and asking the questions about how the nominee or the appointee got to the chair of where they were, and upon discovering the story, I could see that the fix was in and it was not a good process.

    My question is somewhat related to the question that my colleague Mr. Benoit tried to ask earlier today of Mr. Marleau, about was there any hint of a political agenda involved, and Mr. Marleau gave evidence at this committee something to the effect that if there was any whiff or hint of political agenda involved, he would have had absolutely no part of it. But I wanted to hear from you what the sequence was. Essentially you're saying today that you're here because Mr. Marleau first really raised it to you as a significant matter and suggested that you consider offering yourself into the competition.

    One other issue that I did put to Mr. Marleau was more a philosophical and government structural one, to crystal ball gaze maybe into a future era in a different government. We do say that these are officers of Parliament, and yet the PCO and the PMO are still involved. I have put forward the premise that maybe we will change the structure some day in the future whereby we will have all our officers of Parliament--the Auditor General, the Chief Electoral Officer, and so on--truly officers of Parliament. We will then have national advertising, and a committee of Parliament will do the selection, and the hiring and those individuals will be paid from parliamentary resources to truly be independent and not be associated at all with the government. That's why I twigged to that earlier allusion of yours of working for the government.

    I wonder if you've ever cast your mind to this kind of hybrid that we have in structure right now whereby we call these positions officers of Parliament and yet in a way they're not, and considered that maybe some day we could get to a purer form of officer of Parliament.

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Yes. In fact, in my present position we did look at this question. And I would also like to say that of course where the head of an agency may be an officer of Parliament you also have the situation that all the staff are members of the public service, so there is that anomaly to contend with.

    In the five-year report that the Quebec Access to Information and Privacy Commission put out last year, and we just emerged from a cycle of review by the National Assembly on that, we asked--that is, the five commissioners of that commission--that we be moved to be directly linked to the Quebec parliament, to the Quebec National Assembly, and we looked at models across Canada because we said it's an important issue of perception; it's a logical place to be. Right now we report to a minister. It's hard to describe; you don't really report, because there's a special status in, for example, the Financial Administration Act, that the budget is part of the budget of the ministerial portfolio. The Quebec commission has suggested that it then become like the director general of elections in Quebec, directly dependent on the National Assembly, and that seemed to be the preferred mode.

    We hadn't gone the step farther because that is a first step, and I haven't looked at the question of whether the offices would in fact be moved even closer to the parliament, but doubtless it's something that could be looked at in the future.

º  (1625)  

    Mr. Paul Forseth: So as the final supplementary in that, do you see that this could be a plausible alternative, an option for future structural change?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: It seems to me it's something that should be looked at, sure.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Forseth.

    Ms. Bennett.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Thanks very much.

    Yesterday we did a round table on good health through good governance, and one of the chiefs of one of the departments at the University of Toronto said that at the last board meeting at the hospital they spent two hours dealing with the interpretation of PIPEDA. And even though everybody says health was never really supposed to be part of that, accidentally it's ended up in there, such that specialists are having trouble even sending lab results to other specialists without the consent of the patient, and it has rendered almost paralyzed great parts of the health care system and also increased the costs a great deal.

    During the Romanow commission, Judy Maxwell ran, I think, some pretty impressive deliberative exercises in terms of privacy and patients understanding the trade-offs.

    Can you think of a process by which you would render an opinion on PIPEDA and health care, or is that something the government has to just fix?

    The second part of my question is in planning the health care system there is a whole amount of information that we can get with identifiers off. I think what we've been concerned about is that a lot of the privacy expertise has not acknowledged the role of technology in being able to actually take identifiers off and be able to track a system and be able to develop patterns. So the first thing is how would you sort out the trade-offs that are necessary in terms of getting people optimal health care, and secondly, what's your comfort in terms of the technology and what it can and can't do for us in protecting and not protecting privacy?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: In answer to the first question, I don't think there's any one simple answer. This is why I said that the coming into force of PIPEDA is a very important issue, and within it, health care practices, which are different across the country, are important. I think one of the ways one can approach it is by suggesting models for the handling and the flow of health care information that would be models that would conform to the PIPEDA standards and that could be adapted to the different places, because we do have across Canada many safeguards for the protection of personal information. We have them in doctors' codes. We have them in some hospital acts. We have them here and there. They're perhaps not all up to the same standard. They're perhaps not all uniform.

    So I think suggesting ways in which they could come to a common equivalent standard under, if necessary, their respective legislations, if that's the way the different regions want to go, is a way we could approach it.

    Your second question is about technology, and specifically, the question of identifiers.

    A lot of the issues in the circulation of health information now in fact do involve how anonymous is health information if it's being anonymized or de-identified and so on. This becomes partly a question of principle, partly a question for technical experts, because I know the place where I work now, the Quebec Access to Information and Privacy Commission, has lived through some rather difficult experiences with so-called anonymous patient data banks that were re-anonymized. This was before I came there several years later.

    So you have to look at anonymized information with the guidance of very reliable technological experts to determine, can this material easily be re-linked up with the people or not? And having learned from that experience, I would approach the issue in terms of asking, is this really anonymized, is this really identified, is this encrypted and so on, or can it be turned around, and if so, who--

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Who has the key?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: That's right. Exactly.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Because my view is that some of the scaremongering that has gone on about privacy is actually from the practitioners, supposedly on behalf of the patients. It's because some of the practitioners haven't wanted their practices tracked, and therefore it's been put out there as though it's a privacy issue for patients instead of actually what is really a privacy issue for providers, and I think it decreases our ability to monitor quality of care.

º  (1630)  

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Yes, I think you touch on an interesting issue. Who has control—who's modulating the flow of personal information—is an important issue. It's not always the patients. There may be many professional service providers involved in it, and they all have a legitimate role to play in channeling that information. But exactly what and how? They're questions that have to be sorted out on a very careful, specific, I'd say almost an on-site basis.

    If you look at any health care setting now, you have a myriad of groups that are involved in manipulating your health care information. Each of them comes from a different perspective and has a different stake. I think we have to be aware of that.

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Bennett.

    Mr. Epp.

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

    Thank you for being here.

    I read your c.v. with some interest. What precisely is your position now? Is it access to information or is it privacy in Quebec?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: It's both. It's combined.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Oh, it is combined.

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: It's like the Alberta one, or Ontario or B.C.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. How many staffers do you have in your organization?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: About 50.

    Mr. Ken Epp: About 50. The group here is a little larger, I think.

    How do you rate your ability to work as a supervisor or overseer of a large number of people? How is that working out for you?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: It's working out fairly well. I think I've gained quite a bit of experience in management and recruiting people and so on. I think the fact that this office is a little bigger is not really a problem.

    Mr. Ken Epp: You have a good ability to work with what we call the “team concept”. One of the concerns that we have of course is a high degree of personal integrity is required in this position. Part of that is a reaction to the events of the past several months, but it's also an ongoing goal of the government that we have people—civil servants and indeed members of Parliament and senators and so on—who behave in the highest ethical way.

    I'm going to ask you this point-blank. Are you prepared to commit to us as a committee here that you will continue to uphold the highest ethical standards in your dealings, financially and otherwise, in that office?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Yes.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Good. That's exactly the answer I wanted. A short, one-word answer. We're going to hold you to that.

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: That's fine. I've always done it, as far as I know.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Good.

    Then I have a couple of questions from a philosophical basis. I would like to know.... For example, among other things in my life I've driven a truck. Nowadays trucking companies have GPS in their trucks, and they track exactly where their drivers go, 24 hours a day. Cab companies do this too. They say that it's a necessity for their business. Yet from a privacy point of view, does somebody have the right to track exactly where you go, day and night? What's your reaction to a dilemma like that?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: My reaction is this is a very serious trend that concerns me and concerns privacy people a lot. I've some familiarity with the issue, because Quebec has particular legislation that prohibits tracking of people if it's not for health or safety reasons. It hasn't really been tested.

    Some of this would come under employment law issues and so on, but I think it's something we should look at. Because you're a worker who happens to work with something that gives your location at all times, should you have fewer privacy rights than other kinds of workers? On the other hand, is it for your health and safety? Again, there's a trade-off. If you're driving and your truck breaks down or you have a problem at the side of the road—we often see this—would it be to your advantage that people know where you are? Is this the equivalent of filling in a log book, or is this a very invasive thing that is going to track you even in your off hours?

º  (1635)  

    Mr. Ken Epp: Of course the argument is made there that they're not tracking you personally. They don't have the device on your person. They have it in the vehicle, and it's their vehicle. They have the right to know where their vehicle is.

    Just as a little aside here, we had a wonderful case in Edmonton where a truck was stolen and the poor sucker didn't know that it had a GPS, so the RCMP just drove up to him and arrested him. To me, that was a wonderful application of the system.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: What about a bank card?

    Mr. Ken Epp: Yes.

    The next question concerns personal identity cards. I've had my identity stolen, and I'll tell you, it's a pain in the neck. So I would like to actually see a greater strengthening of personal identity security, but I also have no problem with an identity card. I don't care if somebody wants to know. In fact, I would like it if we had a really good, reliable identity card with biometrics, so that nobody else can pretend to be me, if in fact they're not.

    I don't know how much thought you've given to that. I'm sure you've given some. I would just like to know in general a brief description of where you're at on that issue.

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: One of the things we have to think about when we talk about biometric ID cards as being the solution to identity theft is that probably it's hard to envisage a system that is affordable and that is technologically secure enough at this point that somebody couldn't falsify your new biometric ID card. Somebody could also take your card and possibly insert other biometrics on them.

    The biometric process itself can also be falsified, so that it isn't necessarily at this point an absolutely sure way of protecting us against any of these problems of identity theft. In fact, it may make the matter worse, because the stronger a card you go to, once that card is cracked, so to speak, then the worse off you are than if you just lose your driver's licence or whatever.

    ID cards are always based on, to begin with, what are called originating documents, and those documents themselves may have been very craftily or skilfully falsified. There are a number of questions yet unanswered, I would say, about how much biometric ID cards can bring us in terms of greater security.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Good. I'm glad you've given some good thought to that. It's quite evident that you're not just going along with all of these issues in the violation of our privacy.

    I'm sure you've studied a little bit or become knowledgeable on the situation in the office here. What would be your highest priority? What would be the thing you would first want to change? Is there something there that's weak that you would like to have strengthened? What would be your highest priority if, as we expect, you will be appointed as the new Privacy Commissioner?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: I think the first thing you have to do is to secure the basis on which the privacy office functions. That means, in the short term, carrying through the reforms that were put into place in the last few months; seeing if others are necessary; having them reviewed; if necessary, bringing in outside views; if necessary, coming back and answering your questions, for example, on exactly what has been happening at the privacy office over the last few months. That is something you may be interested in—hearing an ongoing report—because like any place, that particular office depends on the credibilities, the skills, the integrity of the members who compose it. That is, I think, definitely the first thing. I don't think we can do credible work in either the Privacy Act or in PIPEDA if we don't have a solid base.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Okay.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Epp.

    Now, Mr. Martin, you had a small question you wanted to insert there.

    Mr. Pat Martin: If you don't mind, yes.

    The Chair: I don't mind at all.

    Mr. Pat Martin: I remember what I wanted to ask. I think I had one of those little mini-strokes for a minute there.

º  (1640)  

    The Chair: You have all our sympathies.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

    I'm interested in the screening process, Ms. Stoddart. I introduced this idea by saying that some of us aren't too satisfied with the candidate search or the selection process—nothing personal, but we were hoping we would have more involvement.

    When I posed this question of Mr. Marleau, who was in fact on the candidate search committee or group, he said that a screening process had taken place, that nominees or applicants were screened through CSIS, CCRA, and the local police. Was there an actual interview by CSIS or the CCRA regarding your suitability or background?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: I haven't been interviewed by any of those.

    Mr. Pat Martin: I see. That research just would have been done as a matter of course, I suppose, for applicants of your.... They don't need to talk to you to find out everything they need to know. It's a privacy issue in itself.

    I'm interested in that, I suppose, because we were assured—I think it was part of the damage control mode that the government found themselves in when the Radwanski scandal became embarrassing—that a more careful, thorough, comprehensive screening would take place. One of the embarrassing things was Mr. Radwanski's tax status. He had been forgiven $550,000 in back taxes 24 hours before he was hired for this job. I'm just wondering, since the due diligence wasn't very good in letting a fact like that slip by, what, if any, screening was done by CCRA that you can say, to your knowledge?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Maybe other people could reply to that. I didn't have an interview with them, so I don't know exactly what information they will have.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Even though I personally am really pleased with your c.v. and résumé and impressed by you personally, there's really nothing stopping Radwanski deux from sitting here and giving a really great interview--

    The Chair: Radwanski deux or Radwanski une?

    Mr. Pat Martin: That wasn't a Homer Simpson imitation. That was my bad accent in French.

    I'm finished. Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Szabo.

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

    Ms. Stoddart, how close was your relationship with Mr. Radwanski?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: It wasn't close at all.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Were you familiar with his work?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Yes.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Did you observe him at speaking engagements, for instance?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Yes. We had one common speaking engagement. I didn't see a lot of him. We were in international conferences together.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Is there anything that would have led you to come to an opinion about Mr. Radwanski's performance as Privacy Commissioner either in his activities or in how he handled his responsibilities?

    The Chair: I would point out, Mr. Szabo, that we're not investigating Mr. Radwanski in this particular meeting.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: There were a number of anecdotal stories. People said that he went to conventions to speak and then disappeared, didn't participate, etc. I'm just curious whether anybody else noticed, outside of the people working within the privacy office.

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Yes, quite frankly, I'll say to you that the portrait that came out, and I didn't see him very frequently, was the portrait that I observed at these international conferences. He would give a keynote address and then we basically wouldn't see him. I was named at the same time that he was, and I asked whether this is the way it always happens, and I was told no, it is not.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: With regard to balancing competing interests, specifically matters related to national security as they would be traded off or balanced with personal privacy issues, have you come to a starting position as to where or how we should as a government, for instance, approach that delicate balancing act?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: In approaching that, one of the things you have to look at is the real benefit of any security scheme you will adopt. I think at a time like this it's easy to say we'll adopt a sweeping approach, whatever it may be, that has privacy implications, without looking into the details of exactly how this massive, perhaps controlling approach will actually enhance security. I think that would be the premise from which I would start to look at it. On the overall issues, whether they be that everybody carry an ID, or everybody go into a databank every time they take an airplane, and so on, if you have these comprehensive measures, I think as a country we have to see whether they seem like a quick fix, or whether they are really going to help us to achieve the goal of security.

    Many critics have pointed out that with regard to the September 11 incidents, national ID, for example, would not necessarily have been all that much more useful, that you have to tailor—

    Mr. Paul Szabo: How do you feel about a database that would keep track of your international flights?

º  (1645)  

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: This issue has been approached before, it seems to me, by the previous Privacy Commissioner.

    In terms of a database of international flights, I think we have to really question why we need to keep a database of all Canadians' international flights. I have not come to this issue recently, so I can't really talk to you about the exact status—whether it's proposed, partly in force, and so on. I'm not conversant enough with that issue. That we need to track some people's international flights I think is without question. That we have databases of air travel I think is something that we know now we have—

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Could I please stop you there? You said some people--some people such as who?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Presumably people about whom there's reasonable doubt according to police investigations.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Racial profiling?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: No, no, no.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: All right.

    Finally, I think I'm going to be out of time, and I want to ask sincerely for your assistance to us in terms of assessment of the process we're going through. We certainly understand from Mr. Marleau how things in fact happened, and we find ourselves not generally familiar with the questions that were asked of you, or we even have had to determine how exactly you came to be sitting here today. There is a feeling, I think, among some members that we've been a little out of the loop.

    I wonder if you could offer to us some thoughts on how we may address this process maybe to refine it or to make recommendations on how to improve it so that there would be maybe a greater extent of transparency and acceptance, because to the extent that some things happen in camera or among a few, it's a reflection on us all, including yourself. Would you have any recommendations for us with regard to the overall process?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Do you mean for the future for an ideal selection process?

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Absolutely.

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: You might want to set up a procedure either by regulation or otherwise that has clear timelines, that has a process for recruitment that is more public. You might want to include yourselves in the participation of the selection committee. These are all things that in the future could be set up as a way of choosing officers of Parliament.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Actually I'm going to ask a question. You see, I get to ask questions, but I should recognize the presence of Madam Lalonde.

    For the benefit of members, though, I've been informed that Mr. Perron, who's been involved in this process from the Bloc, has fallen and broken his arm or broken his wrist today. It's interesting, I had Pat Martin supporting me coming over here too. So it's unfortunate, and we will have to send him our best wishes.

    I'm going to ask a question, Madam Lalonde, just to give you a chance to get settled in here, and then I'll turn to you.

    One of the issues that comes up, and it's been touched on as we've gone around these questions, is privacy and the impact of technology or the opportunities offered by technology. It seems that at one level there's been a policy structure within the privacy community that if you want to absolutely protect privacy what you try to do is not share information. You keep your information separate in separate silos, and that way you can pretty much guarantee that you're not going to suffer some of the consequences of ease of access and theft of identity, in Mr. Epp's example.

    At the same time, technology, through allowing us to combine information, allows us to create great efficiencies and ease of service, and there's a great deal of benefit that comes from this. So it strikes me that there is this constant tension between those two things, and you've remarked on that to a certain extent.

    Added to that, though, it seems to me that--and it was contained a bit in your response to Mr. Epp--we challenge in this case the issue of the biometric and the card from the perspective that it's possible it will not work. And I would agree with your technological assessment on this particular example, but similarly with Madam Bennett's concerns about health records, there's a concern that there will be an entry and an error, and a theft, and that we may not have the robustness in our systems that will make it absolutely certain that we won't suffer those losses. Yet at the same time, if we applied that kind of thinking to other aspects of our life, then if we couldn't guarantee that our car wouldn't be stolen, we wouldn't use it, we wouldn't build it.

    We address theft in other areas of our experience by obviously building things that try to minimize the active theft but also by building a strong penalty structure that imposes very severe penalties on the act of theft. Yet what I keep hearing from the privacy community is just the one, that we must not do things that put at risk the possibility of the theft. Thereby we lose a lot of benefit, I would argue, on the other side of that question, in terms of the kind of service and efficiencies, particularly in government, where these tools could be used to give us far greater transparency over the operation of governments, far greater accountability from government. We sacrifice some of that to this absolute error-free model of data protection.

    Can you square that circle for me a bit?

º  (1650)  

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Yes, and in fact it's one of the challenges that lies ahead in terms of--I think I mentioned it--moving towards government online, more accessibility by citizens into information held about them by government and so on, and more creative use of information held within government.

    As you say, that takes more fluidity in the transmission of data throughout the different spheres, therefore more sophisticated programs, more secure programs, I suppose, and very strict procedural safeguards so that you know that the right data is going to the right place, because if it's all in a silo and nobody accesses it, then you're more sure that you won't have any leaks and spills.

    If it's in constant circulation, you have to make sure then that your system of safeguards is up to date, and I think that's where we're going now.

    The Chair: What about the penalty side of that, though, if someone does violate someone's privacy?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Personally, I think the penalty side in privacy is a side that hasn't been explored. If you look at the jurisprudence across Canadian courts--I'm saying this in my personal opinion--transgressing one's privacy is not an act that brings incredible consequences.

    I've always wondered about this personally. It seems to me that perhaps Canadian society will move to some punitive measures because some of the privacy transgressions are not taken very seriously. We'll see with PEPIDA, for example, I think there's up to $10,000 worth of fines. Ten thousand dollars worth of fines is not a large amount. There's I think $100,000 worth of penal action and so on. But I think it's one of the open questions over privacy.

    So there are two issues. Clearly information has to circulate faster, better, and so on to maximize its use. Therefore, we have to go to new ways of ensuring privacy. We've talked about now the government is moving towards mandatory privacy impact assessments, and that is before to try to limit the spills from moving a lot of information through our systems.

º  (1655)  

    The Chair: It's interesting that in that particular example the mandatory--what do they call them--PIAs, privacy impact assessments, enshrine in that a value, which is personal privacy protection, but we don't do a transparency impact assessment on the accountability side. You've sat in both those chairs.

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: In access to information.

    The Chair: Right. It's interesting, when you were doing your opening statement you talked about the Quebec model, which was to create a tension between those two things, which is what I've always wondered about, in that it does seem to put you in the position then of constantly having to reconcile those two forces: the need to have open and visible government in order to ensure maximum accountability to citizens, and the need to at the same time protect individual privacy.

    Notwithstanding the comments about ATIP and the debate that's going on, swirling around us, about should it be one or two offices, I think that will not get answered until such time as we've done a complete review of both acts, which we will be undertaking, I suspect, in a new government, but that tension is at the heart of the problem we have sorting this one out. We want to go far on the transparency side. We want to go much farther than we have gone, because in that is a fundamental democratic right, and yet we have to balance that against this fundamental individual right. It must make a person crazy.

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: In looking at transparency, a lot of transparency deals with information that is not personal information, but as a society, whether you're talking about any of the jurisdictions, we could go a lot farther in transparency, because it's not all personal information. There are ways of blocking out the personal information.

    The Chair: Yes.

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: So I think that's an avenue that can continue to be explored.

    The Chair: I will go to Madam Lalonde and then I will come back to Mr. Benoit and Mr. Forseth. I think those are the indications I've had for additional questions, but we'll see if any more come.

    Madam Lalonde.

[Translation]

    Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Thank you.

    Welcome, Ms. Stoddart. My colleague who hurt his wrist was replacing one who was sick. So I'm starting to wonder what is going to happen to me.

    My colleague referred to the intense debate over the passage of Bill C-54, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. I was the critic for this matter at the time and I did everything I could to avoid having the Canadian legislation encroach upon the Quebec one. I'd be interested in hearing your comments on the question that was just put by the Chair.

    I'd also like you to tell us about how you see your relations with Parliament. Mr. Radwanski was subjected to a normal procedure when one considers the way in which he treated his expense account. Still he was someone who was very independent and strong in his recommendations to Parliament and we appreciated his comments. However, it is clear that parliamentarians, particularly from the opposition, expect the Privacy Commissioner to provide them with advice, particularly in this post September 11 period.

    Please excuse me for coming late but I would be interested in hearing what you see as your main challenges. Would you consider them to be transparency and independence? Do you expect to obtain information from the government or from businesses? There are so many questions relating to corporations, including encoding, that escape any surveillance.

»  (1700)  

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: You are asking me three different questions.

    Ms. Francine Lalonde: Let's start off then with the relationship with the Quebec legislation.

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: The relationship with the Quebec legislation?

    Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yes, there are aspects of the Canadian legislation that do not always fit in harmoniously, depending on the circumstances. In such situations, our contribution can prove to be important.

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: I'll try to deal with the subject, and you can set me on the right track if necessary. I'll start then with the relationship with the Quebec legislation.

    You probably know that the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act is particular in that it does allow for the possibility of provinces adopting their own legislation. Quebec is the only province that does have an all-encompassing act that could practically be used as a model, and that has been the case for nine years. Very early on the previous commissioner published a report clarifying that this legislation met all the criteria of the federal act.

    I think that the position of the Quebec commission is clear: its act will continue to apply in the areas where it has always applied and it will also apply to services that are ordinarily provided to the public, even by federal institutions. Quite recently, a lawsuit was begun on this matter.

»  (1705)  

    Ms. Francine Lalonde: By the banks?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Yes, the issue was consumer access to banks. Someone who is not an employee of Air Canada wished to apply for a position with this company but was refused. It was necessary to determine which law applied for access to information concerning his tests. This is the position adopted recently by the Quebec government with respect to the implementation of this law.

    As you know, the federal government can always, as was done by the former commissioner in his report, recognize on its own initiative that Quebec legislation, like that of all the other provinces in their areas of jurisdiction, is similar in substance.

    As for the challenges facing the Privacy Commissioner, I already mentioned that there were three of them. The most important is to restore the proper functioning of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner in an atmosphere of serenity. Over the past several months, reports have been carried out and a number of solutions have been proposed. Certain exercises have already been undertaken and Mr. Marleau has taken certain actions.

    If I were appointed to the position, I would continue with these exercises aimed at the improvement of various practices, in some cases requiring more discipline, for example, the recovery of funds that were improperly used. Adjustments could also be made to classification levels. However, we must also take into account the existence of collective agreements, or their equivalent. In a number of respects, we must bring back the office of commissioner to normality.

    That is very important because the second main challenge faced by the office on January 1^st is the implementation of the provisions of PIPEDA,the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. This will apply to all Canadian businesses in provinces which, contrary to Quebec, do not have legislation that is basically similar to the federal one, and to all matters pertaining to interprovincial commercial transactions, with the exception of that which is already being implemented, particularly in the health field, where there seems to be a number of challenges to this implementation.

    In addition, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, technology does pose a continuing challenge to the Government of Canada, whether it be biometric cards, identity cards or video surveillance. Keeping a watch over the evolution of this technology would be the third priority.

    At the same time, there is also the daily work of the Office of the Commission, that is the investigation of complaints and conducting audits. As I mentioned previously, the encoding of information can be relatively effective or may be decoded. That means that in the Office of the Commissioner, we must have staff members with competence in technology.

    Ms. Francine Lalonde: And what would your relationship with Parliament be?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: If I were appointed to this position, I would like my relations with Parliament to be direct and frequent. Obviously, under our tradition, Parliament is supreme. That is an old principle of the Constitutional Act that still holds sway.

    As part of my present functions, I am accustomed to requests to appear before the committees of the National Assembly. There have been circumstances when I have had to fly over Quebec within 24 hours to answer the call of the National Assembly. On occasions I've had only two or three hours notice. That comes with the position and I'd happily do the same thing if you were to need me in similar circumstances.

    Ms. Francine Lalonde: How do you see your role and your ability to give advice on bills? A number of bills were submitted to us that would have an impact on privacy. So the commissioner would be providing advice to Parliament.

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Yes. I think it is an important function. We have to review the bills from a legal point of view, that is with respect to privacy and constitutional law, and at the same time look at their technological aspect and social side in order to provide parliamentarians with full information on the possible impact of proposed legislation on privacy.

    If I'm appointed to this position, you may wish to hear my testimony in certain circumstances. This is one of my present roles. We often find ourselves testifying at the National Assembly on a particular provision of a bill having a particular affect on certain rights protected by Quebec's legislation.

    Ms. Francine Lalonde: Do you miss history? You were the co-author of a history of women, it is still considered a work of reference, with one of my professors under whom I studied history. Welcome to Ottawa.

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: I still read a lot of history but during my leisure time.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Of course, Madam Lalonde has been one of my mentors around here, so I look upon her opinion with great respect.

    I should tell members that we will start to hear a bell in about five minutes. There's a 15-minute bell starting at 5:15. What I will do is keep the committee active until about 5:25, at which point we will adjourn and scramble away from here very quickly.

    Madam Stoddart, I realize you understood this before.

    I don't want anybody running fast over the ice, so that we suffer more injuries.

    I have an indication from Mr. Benoit and Mr. Forseth. Does anyone else wish to pose a question?

    Perhaps what I could do is to ask Mr. Benoit to move with a couple of expeditious and focused questions, and then we will go to Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, I'm hurt that you would think that I'd ask any other kind of question. I'm deeply hurt by that.

    Ms. Stoddart, the Privacy Commissioner is an officer of Parliament. The commissioner answers to the House of Commons and to the Senate. The relationship between parliamentarians and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has been severely damaged by the actions of Mr. Radwanski. What do you feel you can do to help restore the relationship between parliamentarians and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Well, I would like to listen to your suggestions. I would think that it would be possible for me to come before you on a regular basis to explain what I'm doing, what the office is doing, any progress we are hopefully making, our priorities, and to answer any of your questions. That would seem to me to be one way.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: It would make sense for the committee to provide that kind of guidance. That is something, certainly, we can do in the future.

    Because of the severity of the damaged relationship, would you be willing to submit to this committee on say a quarterly basis your expense accounts, which would document your spending in carrying out this job, as a servant of Parliament?

»  (1710)  

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Thank you very much for that question, Mr. Benoit. I realize that's something I hadn't mentioned.

    In the job that I occupy now I am used to regular, routine scrutiny as a matter of course, as a matter of the general reporting of such an office to the National Assembly. Every year my office fills out about 45 extra questions that are requested by members of the opposition, mainly on expenditures and actions within our office, either staffing actions in terms of certain plans, or all my expense accounts for a category—they're not quite the same categories; they're called public meetings. Those kinds of hospitality expenses, my travel expenditures, any conferences go before the National Assembly. Even if I took the train to a conference to make a speech, that's all laid before the National Assembly. I would be very happy to furnish you with that.

    I believe there is an example set by the Commissioner of Access to Information and the Auditor General as to expenses, and I would be very happy to follow that pattern. It seems to me quite normal.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Parliament is the highest court in the land. Many people forget this, including, I think government, which may have forgotten it to some extent.

    But should you become the Privacy Commissioner, you would report directly to Parliament. Parliament makes the laws, of course, under which Canadians live. Those laws include laws against perjury, fraud, and forgery, for example--all things that this committee believes Mr. Radwanski may be guilty of, not maybe from a.... I won't take it any further than that; I'll leave it at that.

    Witnesses to parliamentary committees are expected to tell the truth and to be open and transparent in their testimony. If they're not, they can be found in contempt of Parliament, and in fact they can be sanctioned for that. The sanctions, actually, could be extremely serious, including, I understand, even jail, which hasn't happened in a awful lot of years, but I guess it has happened in the past. Are you willing to operate under those rules?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Mr. Benoit, I can't frankly imagine that one would operate under any other rules. I think it's clear when you're a witness that you tell the truth when you're before a legislative body, yes, that is your duty, and if you hold an office of some responsibility, you have to report honestly and truthfully on what you are doing.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: I like your answer. You could maybe give lessons to some others from time to time.

    Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Benoit.

    Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

    That was a good segue into my question, because of course we just tabled earlier today in the House of Commons matters related to the review of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and the issue was truthfulness before a committee.

    So you would consider that you are under oath, and if that is violated, sanctions could flow. Is that correct?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Do you mean if I consider that I'm under oath now?

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes.

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Well, I'm not strictly speaking under oath, but it seems there is a duty to answer.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay, well, I'll review it again. When anyone appears before a committee they are deemed to be under oath. The same consequences could flow of being held in contempt of Parliament, and the sanctions of that are admonishment at the Bar, fines, and jail.

    I just want to ask some quick questions, typical potential-employer types of questions.

    Are you under the care of a doctor for a medical condition that could affect your job performance?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: No.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Have you ever had a psychological disorder or chemical dependency?

    The Chair: Ms. Stoddart, it was suggested when the questions were discussed with some of the experts prior to this meeting that one would not be required to answer some questions, that the application of personal privacy exists in this committee also.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: I'm asking a question related to job performance, and I'll ask it again. Have you ever had a psychological disorder or chemical dependency?

»  (1715)  

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Perhaps I'll say, Mr. Forseth, that I don't think there's anything in my current health status that would affect my job in a negative manner.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay. Have you ever been dismissed from a position or job?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: No.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Have you ever been a member of or had membership in any group, association, or organization that if it were made known would cause perhaps some media controversy in your being associated now with the new position of Privacy Commissioner?

    This is a serious question.

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: I don't think so, Mr. Forseth. At this point I can't think of what I would have been a member of that....

    Mr. Paul Forseth: You can understand that Parliament went through this before. We had Mr. Radwanski before our committee. We went through the same process. I recall with Mr. Radwanski at the end of the table, there was quite a love-in. He was a very loquacious and charming fellow, and when he knew he was in the spotlight he knew how to charm his way. That was his history and track record. He could really razzle and dazzle people.

    Following up on Mr. Martin's line of reasoning, structurally we're still in the same situation. Unless a committee decides to ask some really tough questions and remind the person that they are under oath in answering, theoretically or technically we could produce the same result. If you have the same structure and the same process, you're highly likely to get the same result. That is the difficulty we're in, and that's why I wanted to ask these questions.

    I have a document here that shows some of the questions you may have been asked by this screening committee, and they don't get to the issues that got us to the point of having a Mr. Radwanski. That's the reason I ask about issues--which you'd better tell us about now--that could theoretically affect job performance.

    Do you have any follow-up to that rant?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: I don't think there's anything more I can add. I'm in a very similar job right now. I think after three years at that job, if I did have any things that would affect that kind of job performance they might have come out by now. Before that I was in a job that was also very similar. So I'm saying honestly that I don't think there is anything that is going to affect it negatively.

    If you look, sometimes you'll see the best indicator is past performance. Perhaps you would like to look at my past performance and see if there's anything that concerns you about it. But I'm not aware that anything has come up in fairly similar circumstances.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Forseth.

    Do you have a couple of very short questions, Mr. Epp?

    Mr. Ken Epp: I was going to pass.

    The Chair: Mr. Benoit, you said you had a further short question.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Ms. Stoddart, have you ever been a member of either a federal or provincial political party?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Yes, I have.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Which parties?

    It's very pertinent to the appointment, Ms. Stoddart.

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Should I answer, Mr. Chair?

    The Chair: Well, I think it's up to you, in a sense. You're not required to answer that by any means. I mean, we'd apply the same kinds of protections to anyone in any job.

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Okay, yes, I will answer. In the 1970s I was a member of the NDP in Quebec for two years.

    The Chair: Well, you know, Madam Stoddart, you show me yours and I'll show you mine. I was a member of the NDP in 1972 also.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Any other political parties?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Yes. Then I joined the Parti Québécois for I guess one year, at the time when the Parti Québécois was in power and the person chosen by the membership would become the next prime minister. I thought, in terms of direct democracy, that was a very interesting phenomenon, that it rarely happened in Canadian history that one could vote, although not an active member of the same party, for the sitting prime minister. I don't know if you know the context. It was very unusual. I don't know that it's been done again. So for that one year I was a member of the Parti Québécois.

    That is, as far as I remember, the extent of my foray into politics.

»  (1720)  

    Mr. Leon Benoit: The reason I asked the question, of course, is that you were appointed to your current position by a Parti Québécois government, so I was wondering whether you had been a member of the Parti Québécois or the Bloc Québécois, in fact.

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: To that extent, yes. But perhaps I will tell you that my name was put forward by the prime minister of Quebec at the time, and it was on unanimous consent of the National Assembly.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: This has, I guess, already been asked, but I just want to ask it as well. Are there any other organizations you have been a member of that could in any way...that you think should be disclosed to the public, quite frankly, to give them confidence in your being in this position?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: I don't think....

    The Chair: Sears, Shoppers Club, Air Miles?

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: I'm trying to think of any organizations. I'm perhaps not a member of a lot of organizations, so I can't think of any.

    You know about LEAF. I was a member of it for a couple of years, but I was mostly involved in doing research at the very beginning. Apart from that, I wasn't an active member of LEAF.

    The Chair: Ms. Stoddart, thank you.

    I have ten minutes before this next vote.

    Let me just conclude by saying two things. First, for the information of members, through this process there have been two issues: one is this question of process, and the other is determining our opinion of the suitability of the particular candidate. We will meet at 3:30 tomorrow to discuss both of those issues. My recommendation is that we separate those into two short reports. I think it's important that we express the concerns that members have felt about process questions, which I suspect are quite separate and distinct from our feeling on the qualities of this particular candidate.

    On your part, I do appreciate your being here. I share some of the concerns about the speed with which this process has taken place, but I also feel that it's critically important that we get a high-quality candidate into the position as quickly as possible, given the need to get that office back to work. I think Mr. Marleau has done a marvellous job, but it needs permanence.

    We will inform you of our decision as soon as we reach it. Thank you very much.

    Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Thank you for your time today. Thank you.

    The Chair: Members, we are adjourned until 3:30 tomorrow.