EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 13, 1997

.0810

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, we have a quorum.

The Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, as you well know, is meeting across Canada. We're delighted to be here in Fredericton. We've just come from Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, and now we're going to have the pleasure of meeting with you before we leave for Montreal for tomorrow.

This has been a really exciting and interesting dynamic, the ability we've had to consult with Canadians across this country. They are people who represent a great diversity of views with respect to privacy and privacy rights and the implication of new technology on this right as a human right.

This high-tech world has presented a number of conflicting views with respect to how one can resolve the questions of our human rights in the field of privacy.

We've heard a great deal during the months of September, October and November, when we met with round tables to look from an overview perspective as to just how high technology has had an impact on our privacy as a human right. I must say it was a very broad field of concern that was presented to us. As a result, we decided we would have to narrow our scope and focus in on three particular issues, because we really wanted to know from all the information we received what the implications are for our personal lives, and what our privacy and human rights are.

.0815

We've adopted a modified format that we'll explain to you in detail in a few moments. But just to note that this is a formal meeting of the standing committee of the House, we will recess shortly and then reconvene.

When you look at the invasive evolving forms of new technology today, I think you can't help but ask who's watching you, who knows what about you and how much they really need to know. Where is the balance between the competing social and economic interests, such as crime prevention, fraud, health care, business marketing practices and our right to protect our own individual persona, our own privacy rights? Is there a need for an ethical framework, an obligation to ensure informed consent in the use of all these new technologies?

There are many stories that have been out there in the newspapers over the past few weeks. They've been very timely. As a matter of fact, there was one cartoon in Vancouver on photo radar that was quite comical. As you know, the Dolly issue has raised many concerns about cloning and about the rights we have with respect to cloning. Then, of course, there was the false story about the twin children who were four years old in Belgium, which had to be denied the next day as a cloning issue. We've had within the French media, Le Droit, what has been of great concern, particularly as there has seemingly been selling of private information. In fact today's Globe and Mail has a story in that regard, which I have here somewhere.

So there is some serious concern about how one protects privacy, even where there is the will to have that privacy protected.

As I think we all are aware, the right to privacy does not stem from one particular source. It's drawn from international law, constitutional law, federal and provincial jurisdictions, judge made law, professional codes of ethics and guidelines. The result is often referred to as a patchwork of privacy rights and protection in this country.

I think we need some of the background just to put this whole picture into perspective. At the international level, several important human rights documents guarantee the right to privacy. Bill Young is the author of the words, as I call it, the Magna Carta of humankind. It is the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which in 1948 was co-drafted by a Canadian, John Humphrey, with Eleanor Roosevelt, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, of which Canada is a signatory.

There is no comprehensive privacy protection currently in Canada. The only place in North America where there is such comprehensive legislation on private sector personal date is in the province of Quebec.

In Europe, for example, the fair information principle of the European Union and the OECD countries applies to all personal information. As a matter of fact, it will have serious implications for Canada when it comes into full force in 1998. It states that whatever the nature of its medium and whatever the form in which it is acceptable, collected, held, used and distributed by other persons, it's a protected right.

In Europe everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and correspondence. There is no such expressed right in Canada, even though sections 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights apply to search and seizure. So we do have protection under the Criminal Code. The right to life, liberty, and security of the person has been interpreted through the courts to apply to privacy. Of course, as I said, the exception is Quebec.

The ministers of justice and industry are in the process of bringing forward a white paper within the near future, in which they will be including the Canadian Standards Association code of ethical practice. I think it will be of interest to all of us to take a good look at that white paper. We would be interested in your input if you would like to give it at the time the white paper is circulated.

.0820

The concept that privacy is the most comprehensive of all human rights is held around the world as a broad and ambitious right. It is a universal concept, but it is not an inalienable right. I think you would all agree that privacy is a core human value that goes to the very heart of preserving human dignity and autonomy. I think most of us too would agree that the right to privacy is something that is of paramount importance in our lives.

By the way, I hope you have all got your earphones for translation. I would like to use some of the French in our exchanges and we have French members in the audience.

[Translation]

Some experts define the right to privacy as the right to a private sphere, to private communications, not to be put under surveillance and to the respect of our physical integrity.

For the ordinary Canadian, it is a matter of power, of having the ability to control our own personal information. It is also the right to remain anonymous.

[English]

So the question then becomes what privacy is worth in today's high-tech society. There is no doubt that the emerging technologies offer valuable advantages, efficiencies and conveniences to all of us. But do the benefits offered by the new technologies come with a privacy personal price tag? Is this price too high? Is this trade-off inevitable? Where and how do we draw the lines, for privacy is a precious resource, which, once lost, whether intentionally or inadvertently, can never be recaptured.

[Translation]

As members of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, we resolutely opt for the human rights approach when considering the positive and negative impacts of new technologies on our privacy rights.

[English]

Canadians have never opted for nor adopted a peeping Tom approach nor unauthorized wiretapping. They've never really approved of that kind of approach to our daily lives. I think our criminal laws reflect this. The question is, does the same disapproval extend, for example, to hidden video cameras in the workplace, to DNA databanks, or to citizen identity cards?

In order to exchange ideas on Canadians with the view to having an idea of just how far is too far, we really feel it's important to have this series of broad based town hall meetings and exchanges, which, as I explained, started earlier. We're really looking forward to discussing the issues with you and to getting some guidance from you.

To decide these matters, we have decided to focus in on video monitoring, genetic testing and smart cards. We hope that through these cases we can raise public awareness. I think that public education is vital in this area about the issues that are ahead of us, the risks and the benefits of advanced technologies, and this open and frank debate about the promise and the perils to our privacy as a human right in this era of modern evolving technologies.

In conclusion, we really don't expect to definitively resolve all the issues that are raised by these particular scenarios. We do hope for your input today, as well as that of other Canadians and those who would be watching us on the World Wide Web. Those of you who have tuned into it will see across your screen the access potential as a result of watching this particular exercise on CPAC, which by the way should start this coming Sunday. We would welcome any briefs you would like to submit to our clerk, Mr. Wayne Cole.

.0825

I hope we will have some concrete resolutions to present to you, and we will put those ideas we're hearing from you...and present your concerns and your proposals.

I thank you very much for participating and coming on a lovely, bright, sunny day in a little cold but nevertheless beautiful sunny city.

We're happy, Andy, that you've made all these arrangements for us. We're most appreciative of your input.

Mr. Scott is known to us as a very active and enabling member of Parliament in many fields.

Our coordinator of the proceedings today is Valerie Steeves, our hearing coordinator. She's a professor at the University of Ottawa Centre for Human Rights, and leads their technology project.

Before I introduce Valerie to you and pass the floor to her, I would ask committee members to please introduce themselves.

[Translation]

Maurice, how come you are sitting on this side of the table?

Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic - Compton - Stanstead, BQ): I do not know. My name is Maurice Bernier. I am the member for Mégantic - Compton - Stanstead and vice-chair of the Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I am very happy to be here in Andy Scott's riding.

[English]

Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton - York-Sunbury, Lib.): My name is Andy Scott. I'm a member of Parliament for Fredericton and vice-chair for the standing committee. I would simply like to advise the chair that not only is the co-author of the International Declaration of Human Rights a Canadian, he was also a New Brunswicker.

The Chair: Oh, and he lived in my riding.

Ms Jean Augustine (Etobicoke - Lakeshore, Lib.): Good morning. I'm Jean Augustine, the member of Parliament for Etobicoke - Lakeshore.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I'm John Godfrey. I used to be president of the University of Kings College in Halifax, which, as you all know, is older than the University of New Brunswick.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. John Godfrey: I'm just seeing if you're awake. Currently, if I can remember - I couldn't yesterday - I am the member of Parliament for Don Valley West in Toronto.

The Chair: Thank you very much. At the far end we have Bill Young, who is a part of the Library of Parliament and co-director of.... Is that the right title, Bill?

Mr. Bill Young (Committee Researcher): Of the political and social affairs division.

The Chair: Thank you very much. He's a very valued member of our team.

Next to Valerie is Nancy Holmes. Nancy, I've done this to you too often; it's disgusting. She's a very valued member of our team. Nancy, are you also with the political and social affairs division, or...?

Ms Nancy Holmes (Committee Researcher): I'm with the law and government division.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Wayne Cole, I introduced you.

We also have with us Roger Préfontaine, who's at the back of the room. He has also been very helpful on this tour.

Without further ado, we have Valerie.

Ms Valerie Steeves (Committee Facilitator): Thank you very much, Mrs. Finestone.

In order to provide our discussions here this morning with some kind of personal or social context, the committee is presenting you with three case studies. As Mrs. Finestone indicated, these case studies deal with video surveillance, genetic testing, and smart card technology. These case studies are also available on our World Wide Web site for the people who are viewing through CPAC.

As you know, these case studies or stories basically try to illustrate both the benefits and the detriments of these new technologies.

It's our hope that through discussing the impact of these technologies on the lives of the people in the stories, we're going to get a better understanding of two things: first, what privacy means to Canadians; and second, how we as a society can best seek to balance the benefits of these new technologies with our underlying social values, including our commitment to privacy.

You the participants here this morning represent a broad cross-section of Canadian society. Among you there are representatives of advocacy groups, banks and insurance companies, general business associations, disability organizations, educators, government workers, health workers, human rights groups, multicultural organizations, labour unions, police officers, lawyers, media, technology firms, telecommunications companies, cable companies, and youth.

In order to best explore the very diverse perspectives that you bring to the table in this discussion, we're going to begin the consultation process by dividing into small groups. This will give us the opportunity to sit down and have a detailed and informed discussion about the case studies and the issues they raise.

Each of these small group discussions will be facilitated by an expert in the field of privacy rights. We all discussed we didn't like the word ``expert'', but they are experts. We've really been lucky across the country. We've attracted some incredible facilitators, and that's added to the discussion. Each of these groups will also include at least one member of the committee; that member will participate in the discussion as well.

.0830

Once we've had the opportunity to explore the case studies in our small groups, we'll reconvene the general meeting and have a town hall discussion about the issues. To start the town hall discussion, we'll be asking the committee members to give a brief summary of the dialogue that took place in each of the small groups. We'll then ask the small group facilitators to add any comments or concerns of their own, and then we'll open the discussion to the floor and invite comments and concerns from you as well.

We're looking forward to an open and free-flowing discussion between you, the experts, and the committee members about the meaning of privacy in the technological age.

It's my privilege today to introduce the three people who will be facilitating the small group discussions.

At the far end on my left is Bill Hall. Bill has been in the computer field since 1966. He moved to Fredericton from Montreal in 1973 for a two-year project and has been here ever since. He advises me the project is over. We're not quite sure about that yet, though. Bill works in the Information Highway Secretariat, to which he was seconded at its inception in January 1994. His areas of interest include the information highway system's management. Last year he participated in an interdepartmental committee that was developing a white paper on privacy legislation for the New Brunswick government. Bill has quite a lot of insight into these issues.

To Bill's right is Ron Byrne. Ron Byrne is a research associate with the Atlantic Human Rights Centre and is currently conducting research in the area of information technology and privacy. Ron obtained his law degree from the University of New Brunswick and is currently pursuing a master's degree in law.

To Ron's right is David Townsend. David Townsend is the associate dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of New Brunswick, where he's taught regulatory policy subjects since 1979. He holds a bachelor of law degree from Dalhousie University and a master's of law degree from Osgoode Hall Law School. His principal research activities have concerned the writing and implementation of legal, technical, and social polices related to wireless communications. In 1993 he received his university's highest award for his teaching, the Allan P. Stuart Award for teaching excellence. I was lucky enough to be in a group that was facilitated by David last year, when I was in Fredericton for a conference. I'm glad he could be here with us today.

We divided you into small groups and tried to make them as diverse as possible to cross-fertilize the dialogue. You'll notice that your name tags are colour coded. If you have a blue name tag, you'll be working with Ron Byrne in the front right-hand corner of the room. If you have a green name tag, you'll be working with David Townsend in the back of the room. If you have a yellow name tag, you'll be working with Bill Hall in the back left-hand corner of the room. If you have a red name tag, you'll be working with me in the back right-hand corner of the room.

When we do get into the small groups in just a moment, the first thing the facilitator will do is ask which of the three case studies you'd like to deal with. The one thing we found all across the country is our time together for these discussions is extremely short, so I'd like to remind you that the case studies are really a starting point for your discussions. Please feel free to spend as long or as short a time as you want on any of the case studies and please feel free to draw linkages, primarily to bring out your concerns about the impact these technologies have on privacy from your perspective.

Coffee will be available throughout the morning. We will be reconvening for the town hall shortly after 11 a.m. In just a moment, because this is part of the official procedure, the gavel will fall. Mrs. Finestone will be suspending the meeting, but when she does I would ask you to migrate towards your small groups to enable us to maximize the time we do have together.

I'd like to thank you as well for your participation.

The Chair: Thank you very much. This is very official, because otherwise the track doesn't run.

The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.

.0834

.1009

The Chair: We reconvene the meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

At this point you will have the reports.

We will turn the meeting back to you, Valerie, so we can hear the members of the House.

Ms Steeves: Thank you very much.

Ms Augustine, would you like to start?

.1010

Ms Jean Augustine: Thank you, Valerie and Madam Chair.

The small group I was with was headed by David Townsend, who provided excellent leadership. We had individuals concerned with the issue and experts in their own fields, working in the area of privacy or where there is concern about privacy.

We started with video surveillance. It was brought to our attention that surveillance is used on school buses. We went from there to talk about the technology and its limitations. We contrasted that with the workplace and what is taking place in the workplace. Some concerns were expressed about when it's used against workers. So we saw both ends of it.

Of course the issue of the legal need for that technology was raised. We talked about the need for wire-tapping. There are some legal rules around that. We went on to discuss the issue of intrusiveness against personal rights. We did see the side that dealt with criminal activity and danger and risk to individuals.

We went on to discuss the fact that it's a cheaper way to monitor, at the same time balancing that against the fact that one cannot evade that technology once it's set up. I think there was general agreement that it is the secret versus the stated surveillance. There was more concern if someone did not know this was happening.

We went on to discuss the issue of sound. Is it just monitoring individuals' presence or is it also monitoring what they are saying? Of course if your conversations are being recorded, there is some real difficulty there.

We talked about this as being the slippery slope, and therefore the need for guidelines and protocols. Over and over we heard from individuals in the group about the need for strong legislation. We heard about the P.E.I. situation, with little or no privacy legislation. We heard about the need for coordinated federal, provincial, and territorial legislation and about the need for basic guidelines on human rights in this technological area.

There was some emphasis in our group on the need to find some way to legislate and ensure that information being gathered in one system is not being passed on or used in another system. Again, the primary use and the secondary use issues were brought forward.

The issue of public education about the right to say no - can you say no and when can you say no? - and the obligation were all brought up by an individual. This all started out once the government gave us the SIN and allowed the marketplace to ask for that SIN in order to ensure that they provide certain kinds of services.

Therefore the issues of authorization to collect, the conditions, the retention period, and the ability of government departments to sell lists came up. We heard about one province where motor vehicle licences are being sold in the marketplace, and therefore information is obtained in that fashion. We talked about informed consent of individuals to the fact that their information is being passed on.

Then we went on to genetic information. One individual was very strong in saying the form should be short and tight. We discussed the collection, what use should be made of it, and what the time limit should be on this, and agreed that nothing should be done without the individual's consent.

We talked about research undertakings and anonymity in terms of the work researchers do. This involves the setting up of fire walls. The system needs barriers to protect all the different pieces of information. Therefore, in order to cross certain barriers.... For example, a nurse practitioner can have one set of information, a psychologist or psychiatrist can have another, and a medical doctor can have another. If one happens to break through the wall, then there should be some way to make that public.

.1015

The access issues as they relate to this issue, the consequences for abuses.... Over and over we came back to the issue of public information, public education and some way that legislation could prevent abuses in the exchanging of information.

We went on to discuss biometric cards, fingerprinting and a whole series of things. We also looked at the preventive measures, the fact that the technology is good, it's the use that's being made of it. Then we got philosophical in terms of ethical decisions, the right to know and what is the right to know. For example, the right to have information about the person you are about to marry - who has that information in terms of the patient? And if you give the patient the information, is it in their best interest? I'm not sure we resolved that, but we ended up by looking at the issues of biology, technology, religion, research and a whole series of things, which when we combine them could be called values. I think I posed this question at the end: What will society accept in all of this area?

This is basically the discussion - a lively one and a strong call for legislation on the part of the small group I was with. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms Steeves: Thank you very much, Ms Augustine.

The Chair: Could you just ask the gentleman from Newfoundland if he could identify himself, please?

Ms Steeves: Could the gentleman from Newfoundland identify himself? I imagine he was in one of the groups we were talking to.

The Chair: He was in Jean's group, yes.

I'd like to speak to you after, if you don't mind. While Jean was giving her report, it reminded me. Thank you.

Ms Steeves: Mr. Godfrey, would you like to give a summary please?

Mr. John Godfrey: I was asked yesterday in Toronto by somebody whether I detected so far in our cross-Canada tour much in the way of regional differences. As of that point, I hadn't, but as of today I have.

I suppose one way of putting it - and the group has, of course, every right to lynch me if I misrepresent them - is to say that in our group there was a fairly sharp division between what me might call the ``peace, order and good government'' crowd versus the ``life, liberty and pursuit of happiness'' crowd. I think it was a fairly good fight and fairly evenly balanced, but I think we heard more of the ``peace, order and good government'' crowd than we had in the rest of the country.

In a sense, this arose out of a certain seemingly dark view of human nature held by the ``peace, order and good government'' crowd that there was, in questions of trust, a kind of feeling of we'd better put in more security for ourselves. I should say we were focusing mostly on video cameras. It was a different way of looking at society and there was a clear division in the group. Also, of course, this was based on the Maritimes experience, which is that for countless years people who lived in small communities have always known everything about each other anyway, so what's the difference if you use a camera to find out.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. John Godfrey: I'm reminded of living in Upper Kingsburg, Nova Scotia, where audio surveillance was conducted by the party line.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. John Godfrey: There was also, I would say, a certain amount of technological pessimism or fatalism, a sense that this stuff is going to just evolve rapidly, no matter what we do, and can we ever catch up?

I think the answer to that was expressed by one member of group who noted the gap between the slow evolution of our sense of human rights over history and how we've come painfully to be aware that some people's rights are being abused - which we didn't even know about - and then taking corrective action through legislation and regulation, and the rapidity of this technological change.

The speaker suggested that the challenge for us, both as a society and as a committee looking at regulation, was to find ways of closing that gap at a faster pace. The thought occurred to me it was analogous to copyright legislation, which is very slow and cumbersome, and yet all of the new technologies are going at a great pace.

So how do we bridge that gap to protect and advance individual human rights, which I think everyone in the group felt very passionate about?

.1020

If there were some principles that emerged in our attempt to find ways of doing this, I suppose one of the first ones was the whole notion of purpose as a definition of how we deal with this. What is the purpose of this information being gathered? And in the case of video cameras, there is a certain sense that there was purposeless public surveillance. It was recognized that in some situations you might need it, but just to do it to do it was both purposeless and a representation of what was called in the example ``function creep''.

The second principle was the use of the information, which is really an extension of purpose. I think there was a particular concern in our group that the use or misuse by private interests was something that had to be paid particular attention to, although in our pessimistic and fatalistic group the state was not particularly trusted either.

So then I suppose a third principle, which was characterized, I should say, in the meetings across the country, is the notion of informed and free consent: people who are not forced into giving their consent in order to get something, just as we would do for surgery or some medical intervention. And we were told - and if I get this wrong, I hope that the person who told us will correct me - for instance, New Brunswick is about, as I understand it, to contract out the information management function of the health care system to a subsidiary of Blue Cross, to a private company. So 740,000 people who didn't realize they were signing up for this will now have their health information records in some sense controlled by a private company with its headquarters elsewhere, presumably beyond our control as legislators.

This may be perfectly all right, but is there potential for abuse within that company if there are not firewalls between the management function and the sales function, let's say? Is this true consent? Do we have to give our consent when things change, when fundamental conditions change, as they do in this example? So I may be misstating it, and I hope that will be corrected if I'm wrong, but it seemed like a powerful example of what we were talking about.

In regard to the last two points, there was some feeling in the group of a need for some kind of an independent audit organization to see how the data was being collected and used, both in the public and private sector. Whether that was a privacy commission or a human rights commission we didn't really get into. But there was also - and this is the last point - some sense that if there was to be legislation, we would propose that clearly its first task was to balance the rights, needs, convenience and security of society against the less convenient nature of human rights, which are always awkward and always difficult and often inefficient, but just simply fundamental.

Thank you.

Ms Steeves: So which side won out?

Mr. John Godfrey: It was a divided group.

Ms Steeves: Thank you, Mr. Godfrey.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Maurice Bernier: Along the same lines as John reported, our group did not discuss in depth any of these three case studies. We looked at all three and participants concluded that these scenarios are part of their reality, that they recognize themselves in these stories. Just as John's group, we realize that these new technologies are here to stay; there is a sense of fatalism about the arrival of new technologies. People wonder how these can be controlled and fear the major implications they may have for our privacy. As individuals, we feel helpless.

In other words, we agree that the individual whose privacy is endangered in any given situation is often the very last to be informed; everybody, himself excepted, knows what is in his personal file.

.1025

One of my friends who works in the health sector talked to me about professional privilege and told me that everyone in his hospital, himself excepted, knows what is in his file. It is quite similar to the situation we discussed when dealing with these case studies.

We also recognized that there is very little or no statutory protection and that very often no consent is required or consent is not properly informed. Various examples were brought up regarding the use of the social insurance number which originally, some 30 years ago, had a very narrow purpose tied to unemployment insurance. This number is now used for all sorts of things and many purposes. Someone mentioned, for example, Hydro-Quebec which goes so far as to threaten to cut off the phone of people who refuse to provide their social insurance number. This is quite outrageous.

Somebody also told a true story to show how people can be penalized. Two pregnant ladies who were at risk to give birth to a handicapped child were asked to take some tests. They refused and they were strongly advised to seek psychiatric treatment in order for them to understand the implications of their decision. It seems rather incredible, but this is the kind of situation that happens in everyday life.

We discussed these situations at length and came to the conclusion that legislation is necessary. We all agreed that there should be a legal framework to regulate both federal and provincial jurisdictions. This legal framework should be based on a number of principles, first and foremost the requirement of informed consent. A pre-requisite for informed consent would be that people have access to their own files in order to find out what others know about them and to correct wrong data. The basis of informed consent is the ability to find out what others know about ourselves and to be told what use will be made of any given technology, who will use it and for what purpose.

Our group also insisted - and this is really a very strong point we heard throughout the week - on the need to inform and educate the public about these new technologies. The government has a responsibility to make sure people understand their implications.

We also urge the government to implement legislation with teeth and to provide all the resources that will be required for its enforcement. Some participants also called for a separation of the office of ombudsman and privacy commissioner and for making these two resources really available.

Finally, one participant suggested that if businesses make money with our personal information, they should pay royalties to us. In this way, individuals could gain a benefit when information about them is being used commercially.

Ms Steeves: Thank you, Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Scott.

[English]

Mr. Andy Scott: Thank you very much.

Although the people in my group will tell you I did the use the flip chart, I'm going to try to do this off of my notes that I just scribbled over in the corner, because I don't want anyone to imagine that my choice of the red marker meant anything.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

.1030

Mr. Andy Scott: I can only tell you that in Alberta I used a blue marker.

In any case, we had the particular advantage in our group of having scenario number four, in that we had a real-life experience of a provincial institution in the province of New Brunswick, with video surveillance, specifically as it affects workers in terms of the employer being aware of the various activities during the course of the day, and also in terms of the fact that it was a medical institution, so it also speaks to the question of client privilege.

I remember that in the United States in 1968 a vice-presidential candidate withdrew his candidacy on the grounds that it had been revealed that he visited a psychiatrist. So it was very important to our group that that point was put forward.

It seemed to be the feeling of the group, though, that the technology is here and we do ourselves damage by somehow thinking the way to deal with this is to stop it. It's beyond our ability. We may be able to control, manage it, and regulate it, but it's here for sure. It's going to be very difficult to control it, but we might want to challenge some of the assumptions we all make around its protection.

The point was made that as Canadians, there's a residual feeling in all of us that somehow there is some sense of right and wrong, or privacy or lack thereof, and somehow we're being protected. I think we all experienced the realization, over the hour and a half, that perhaps we assumed a little bit too much in that regard. That's why it's pretty much unchallenged, because there is this sense of, ``Oh, nobody would do that''.

Probably the best evidence of our instinctive sense that our privacy is protected is that most people believe that somehow the Internet has some privacy. I know my 12-year-old has been caught a couple of times engaging in some pretty weird stuff, because his mind is such that he believed there was some privacy around this.

Another thing that's happening that we need to be conscious of has been identified by our group. I think I coined this phrase, or perhaps I'm showing my ignorance and someone else has coined this phrase; it's ``cognitive steroids''. Basically there's so much new information that some kind of rush goes with all of this. We're chasing it because it's there.

We have to be alerted to the need to control ourselves, collectively and individually. That led us down the road of self-regulation as opposed to collective regulation and so on, and the need for education and critical decision-making.

That then took us to the place of informed consent. We challenged both the concept of ``informed'' and the question of, really, how informed is informed?

I'll say I'm proud of the fact that Fredericton was the first place that brought forward in one of the groups the issue that if you can't read - we're so conscious of literacy issues here in Fredericton, I'll make that point - how informed can you be? If the answer is to put a sign on the automatic teller that says ``You're being watched'', what if you can't read? That's an important feature.

The other is this: is it real consent if you need the service that is being offered and that you have to sign off on? What if there's not a single grocery store in the region that will allow you to use their service unless you give them some information? You have to eat. Is it consent?

Then we discussed whether the issue was gathering the information or its use, and we explored the whole issue of secondary use. Perhaps it's okay to do video surveillance in a convenience store for the safety of the clerk and so on, but does that mean the camera can be basically aimed at the clerk to find out whether they're in fact doing all the things they're supposed to do? What's the use? Where is the right and wrong? Where's the privacy and public safety lying there?

.1035

Basically, we concluded that we have to regulate the gathering of information and educate people to think critically, and at the same time regulate its use, particularly in the areas of secondary use and so on.

That led us to the suggestion that we had to generate a better sense of co-ownership. As Canadian workers, employers and so on we really need to recognize that there's a clash of values here and that the only way to realistically win-win is to have those values, sit down and try to achieve some kind of consensus so that everybody owns the benefits and recognizes the perils associated with this technology.

In terms of how that might play itself out, we talked about some kind of charter of privacy rights or some kind of statement that would enunciate what we would think are Canadian values. Even if it were difficult to enforce, just the fact that as a country we would stand up and say this is the way we see these issues would have an educational advantage. It would provide an opportunity to raise the debate. We did discuss at some length the question of whether or not there is value even if it is not necessarily enforceable.

We also spoke of the responsibilities of government. There's a great deal of concern. While governments would prefer to see themselves as the protection, it's possible that government is the most likely villain in this in the context of the provision of service that would require some kind of consent that may or may not be informed and may or may not be consent. So we are at the same time the people who the communities in this country might look to to put the protections in place. We are also most likely to be the largest perpetrator. That carries with it a great deal of responsibility.

We ended with a recognition of the need for some urgency to this. We need to bring more attention to this. I read in the group that we do have a pretty high standard in terms of the value of privacy and that we would suggest that it needs to be attended to because that standard is being violated. We're struggling with how we might do it, but the group thought it's worth the time and attention of the committee and the government to pursue this with dispatch.

If I've misrepresented our group's feelings, I know that everyone's comfortable enough to tell me so.

Thank you.

The Chair: You're probably a member of his riding association.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Ms Steeves: Thank you, Mr. Scott. I just wanted to welcome Mr. Assadourian, who's a member of the committee. Unfortunately, his plane was delayed.

Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): I'm from Toronto. I was in Montreal because of the strike of Air Nova and Air Atlantic. The airlines postponed the flights. Anyway, I'm glad I'm here. Thank you very much.

Ms Steeves: We're glad you're here too. Just before we open the mike to the floor, we'd like to give our experts an opportunity to add any comments or concerns that they have in regard to the issues. We'll start with David Townsend, please.

Mr. David Townsend (Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick): Thank you, Valerie. My task was a very easy one having Jean Augustine and the members of the green group to help. They were truly the experts and my job really was as a facilitator.

I'd like to offer a comment or two about the things the group had in common and then about some of the differences. Perhaps the differences revolve around how they see solutions coming.

As far as what they had in common, I saw a lot of genuine emotion from the group. There was a genuine sense of threat, of risk, of technology being out of control, of a loss of control over people's lives. There was a certain amount of lack of trust, of concern particularly about the private sector, about people's private lives and their employment context. The threat seemed greatest there and less on the public side.

.1040

As far as the dichotomy of the group was concerned, there were those who were concerned most about the role of the individual and those who were concerned most about the role of the government.

The role of the individual people...they felt one could negotiate their protections in the context. In other words, if you had some kind of public notice that you were being taped, you could avoid that surveillance. If you had an option of reviewing a detailed consent form for medical treatments, then you could control what kind of consent you were giving. If you had a detailed release form for information, then you would be making a knowledgeable decision about what information you were releasing and what purposes you were releasing it for.

The role of government people...they seemed to feel most strongly that the government really should get in there and do something. It's the government's role. The government has introduced certain technologies, in some sense, certain protocols - for example, the social insurance number. Once the government's involved in the prevalent development of a particular technology or means of identification, it then has certain responsibilities to watch for its use.

They talked about things like setting protocols at the government level for accessing information on the who and how deep, on firewalls and things like that.

If I were going to offer some comments about the observations of the two groups, I certainly share the common sense of threat and concern and emotion. As far as the negotiated protections is concerned - the role of the individual - I worry a lot about our ability to negotiate our protections in the context.

This statistic certainly varies, and I've heard different views of it, but I've heard it said that the average Canadian reads at about a grade eight level and understands about 60% of what they're reading. As my legal training tells me, when you give people detailed consent forms and detailed release forms, I really worry whether or not they can read that and make an informed decision about what they're saying yes to and what they're releasing.

One of the concerns raised by the group that I personally share is whether or not young people today have been so watched and so monitored in the various transactions in their daily lives that they've become somewhat desensitized to privacy issues. The long-term implications of that certainly are great.

As far as the role of the government is concerned, a couple of group members seemed to feel very strongly that the government should be stepping in. My little caveat on that would be that whatever this committee does, it cannot produce a dramatically new and greater role for the government because at a time of diminishing resources, we're just not going to see a great deal of resources dedicated to any particular purpose.

I thought one member made a good suggestion: to the extent the technology is used for the government to achieve certain savings, perhaps the government should have an obligation to re-dedicate some of the savings back to privacy protection. If using a particular technology at the border allows them to have less personnel at a border crossing, then perhaps there should be an obligation to invest a certain percentage of the savings back in that.

The other thing about government is that a lot of the concern by the groups can be addressed as policing or sanctioning after the fact. If the government had set protocols in place, or set firewalls, or whatever it happened to be, in the end you might find out that they've been violated and then the government would have to prosecute.

My only reaction to this is that the loss and the risk here is so great, as some of the detailed notes passed out suggested, that once privacy is lost, it really is lost. Punishing individuals after the fact can be small comfort to the individual who will never have back their anonymity, if, say, a municipality should discover they have AIDS or something like that.

I certainly don't envy the challenge of the standing committee and wish them the best.

Ms Steeves: Thank you, David. Ron.

Mr. Ron Byrne (Atlantic Human Rights Centre, St. Thomas University): At the risk of breaking a stereotype or a past pattern, for those of you who know me, I'll try to be brief. It's not always an easy task, both from my own legal training and the fact that I too come from Newfoundland. There's a bit of the Irishman in me.

.1045

Like David, one of the things that impressed me most was the fact that as a facilitator it was a very easy task. I would argue that I didn't facilitate as much as I became an active participant in the process, in the discussions, which was great.

Mr. Scott has outlined the views of the group, and in thinking about what to say on this ``expert category'', I thought perhaps I would just give a couple of comments about my own feelings as to where we need to be heading in the whole area of privacy and the protection of privacy with regard to information technologies.

I'll put some of my biases on the table. My first bias is that I truly believe privacy is the most fundamental right. I believe in the ability to know that my actions in a private sphere or even to some extent in a public sphere are my actions. I believe that knowing that my right to privacy is protected gives me encouragement to follow up on my right to free speech or my right of association or my freedom of religion, whatever it may be.

I firmly and truly believe we need to balance the interests privacy has. It came out very clearly in our group that to some extent, privacy, certainly like most other rights but perhaps to a higher degree, denotes the clash between individual protections and societal protections and the need for a balance. Our group was no exception. We certainly talked a lot about the need to balance these interests.

Perhaps it's trite to say that I believe the only way these interests can be balanced is through an equal sharing and communication and discussion around the issues of privacy, which tie into education. In terms of education around the right of privacy, one of my concerns is that many of us on a day-to-day, hour-to-hour, minute-to-minute basis waive our rights to privacy and we don't even realize we're doing it. In many cases we do not know enough about the technology to even realize that the information we're giving might be used in a completely different forum or form.

For me it's very important that we educate the consumer around the issue of what they're giving up, which means there's a responsibility for the gatherer and the collector and the user of that information to make sure they are educating that consumer. I think we need to develop mechanisms which will allow for that, which will ensure that it occurs.

I am not completely distrustful of business, and neither am I completely distrustful of the individual or of government. But I think it is extremely important that we as individuals all work together to try to establish protocols by which improper use, improper storage, or whatever the case may be that impacts upon our privacy right as a result of technology, need to be addressed.

Here's a little bit of the right-wing fascist coming out. I do believe we need some form of enforcement. I do not believe wonderful statements by themselves will be enough. That's why frankly I don't think most business codes will work and I don't think most private codes will work. I think they are only part of the solution; there have to be other mechanisms in place.

One of the fundamental parts about privacy and technology is that I feel that at times we operate in splendid divide. I'm not speaking as a Luddite here; I'd like to think of myself as a bit of a techno-geek. I like technology; I think it's kind of cool and jazzy. When I make this comment, it's not an anti-technology comment. I believe the divide exists, that many of the people who like technology like it without restriction, without qualification. It's wonderful, it has no evil side, no down side.

On the other side, people who are concerned about human rights and the protection of those rights often see nothing good about technology. It's all bad. It's all an invasion. It's all horrible stuff and it's like Big Brother and Big Sister. They're all watching us.

I think the truth is somewhere in between. I think the more the people from the human rights side of things pay attention to the technology and learn more about it and vice-versa, which is equally important, what I consider - and I put myself in this category - the techno-geeks will learn more about the humanitarian and human rights side of things...that's really where the protection will come from best. It will reduce unreasonable fears, but it will help us realize realistic fears. Then we can deal with the issue.

.1050

How was that? Was it relatively brief?

Ms Steeves: That was pretty good. Thank you very much for your comments.

Bill.

Mr. Bill Hall (New Brunswick Information Highway Secretariat): Thank you very much. I've really had a good time. Like Ron, I was not called upon to play the heavy facilitator role. The group members took off on their own, and we had a good time sharing information with one another. As you can see from my hand-lettered sign, I'm a recently discovered expert in this field. I don't get to speak to groups at universities as do my two colleagues here, so I'll try to be really brief.

Mr. Byrne: I'm glad you used that ``gentlemen'' qualifier.

Mr. Hall: My own points can be summarized this way. It seems to me the most critical thing with respect to the protection of our privacy is for us to be well informed in a very broad and general way. I'm not talking here about consent, although that's critical as well. I think things like these three case studies we had before us should be made available to people. People should be able to understand the implications of giving up their social insurance number every time somebody asks them for it or to understand the possibilities of misuse of video surveillance. There really does need to be a concerted effort at acquainting the average Canadian. If they're all reading at the average of grade eight or below, we've got to pay attention to that and still make sure people know what's implied, what can happen, and what they can do.

Another point discussed in our group, and I'm sure in others as well, is not being able to turn off technology. That's like the Chinese wall. You can't stop this stuff. It's going to happen. We've got to be in a position to protect the rights of individuals. People have to know what their information could be used for and be able to restrict it. There needs to be legislation in place to protect. There needs to be something that can be enforced. It's all very well to have highfalutin words, but there need to be some penalties that mean something so people will think twice before abusing the confidential information they've gained custody of.

That's all I'd like to offer. Thanks very much for the chance to participate.

Ms Steeves: We'd now like to hear from you, if you'd like to come forward. When you do come to the mike, we ask that you state your name for the purposes of the transcript.

Mr. Michael MacDonald (Individual Presentation): My name is Michael MacDonald. I'd like to bring up a number of points.

First of all, you're not the only people fighting with this issue. I work with the Canadian Information Processing Society. It's a professional organization. I actually work for the university. We are in the process of implementing operational guidelines on privacy and information technology. That's in draft form. It's not out yet.

We are a group of about 6,000 computer professionals in Canada, who have gotten together and understand this is a fundamentally sticky issue that we have to learn more about. The operational guidelines are coming out.

The Canadian Information Processing Society and the Atlantic Human Rights Centre have worked together. We are sponsoring a conference on April 27, 28, and 29 this year. It's on privacy and information technology. It's here in Fredericton. I encourage everyone to come. The person who wrote the Canadian Standards Association model code for privacy is coming to the conference. A number of very key people and some of the best minds in the country are coming. I encourage all of you to come.

Now I'll take off my salesman's hat and talk about other issues.

One thing I think important is that Canada has a very enviable position in that people generally trust the government. Statistics Canada is marvelled at around the world for its ability to ask people questions and have them answered. In Germany that is extremely not true. In a number of countries there is no amount of trust within the government. Unless Parliament acts in some way that does give some teeth to the issue, there will be a loss of trust that you may never be able to restore, and that does have very serious consequences.

.1055

Another issue that came out of our group, and I'm not sure this was covered, was that the consent must be an informed consent and the consent must have an audit process, so that we don't have to pick up issues such as ``function creep''.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Michael, before you sit down, I'd like to ask you something. All of us on this committee have admired the depth of concern that's been manifested and the agreement found around the Canadian Standards Association's model code. However, we've had some concern about looking at privacy from a human rights perspective rather than from a business operative ethics perspective.

I'm raising this because you just mentioned that you're going to the national meeting in Toronto, I believe. I wonder if in any way today's views, concerns, and sense of anxiety are seen in and reflected by the code. If not, do you think you ought to be looking a little bit more deeply into the questions of individual privacy? Can you see its need in this regard, as far as business practices are concerned? There is the whole issue of informed consent, meaningful consent, and the question of access for verification of the contents of the information.

Mr. MacDonald: I'm not part of the CSA; I'm part of the Canadian Information Processing Society. That's a professional organization. We are -

The Chair: But you are members of this group.

Mr. MacDonald: No.

The Chair: No?

Mr. MacDonald: We're a side organization of that group.

The Chair: Okay, I misunderstood that.

Mr. MacDonald: We're a professional body, much like an association of professional engineers. We are involved in tracking the CSA model code. We have made what we consider a number of improvements, and we're pushing it through our membership to try to get a buy-in to the idea that there has to be serious consideration of privacy issues. Things such as auditing are important, to make sure that not only is informed consent delivered up front, that if you fill in this information on your consent form this is what it really means, but also to make sure that the function is audited through the systems we make.

The Chair: Do you also see the need when issues are being addressed - and here you have Newfoundland thinking of putting in some new guidelines or some new procedures to become more efficient and more effective. We saw this in Vancouver at the hospital. The Vancouver Hospital is buying a new package form to keep the information well organized. There are anticipated savings of $20 million out of the Vancouver Hospital experience.

Are you pursuing the building in of the technological protections - the encryption, the firewall - as part and parcel of the development of the information system, so that the protection one seems to indicate we want is there at the very outset, so that the goal, the usage, the access, and the information are all part of the protected views or protected input into the technology being developed by your technology groups?

Mr. MacDonald: That's an extremely complicated question. I suppose the answer is as well.

I think we are becoming more and more aware of privacy concerns. The issues you've raised are things we are looking at seriously and trying to understand. Many of the systems being generated are that way now; many of them are not. Systems of this nature require a professional management structure, a professional organization. Just as you need a professional engineer to sign off on a bridge that's being built for a road, you need a professional computer person to understand the privacy implications and make sure that the systems being developed and the software being created are done properly.

.1100

CIPS across the country has a number of professional organizations. Professional designations are a provincial responsibility. Nova Scotia already has the Canadian Information Processing Society's information system professional designation...registered as a professional society. British Columbia is working on it. Ontario is working on it. Alberta is working on it. It's starting to spread across the country. It is not there yet.

One of the codes we are working with is the privacy code. If you're going to be a computer professional practising in the country, this is the kind of code you should be following. It's coming, but it's not there yet. We are working on it.

The Chair: I'm very pleased, because it's one of the concerns we've heard across the country and one of the needs that have been expressed. I really thank you for being here and for the fact you're looking at it, including at some of the futuristic sort of stuff we're all thinking about, such as Dick Tracy with the watch. That's a little bit later on in life; we've by-passed it. We've gone past Superman - I don't know who we've gone on to, but anyway.... Thank you very much.

Mr. Assadourian, you had a question.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I had a question, not for the gentleman, but a more general one.

It was mentioned earlier, and it raised some concerns for me, that New Brunswick is thinking of giving the protection of medical records to a company or subsidiary of Blue Cross. Am I right?

Mr. Randy Dickinson (Premier's Council for the Disabled): Yes. It's done.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: What happens if a company is bought by a foreign hostile government? What happens to the information this company has on me? A foreign company or a foreign government is going to have information on me. What happens then? Did I get it right or am I wrong?

The Chair: That's a very important question.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Giving it to small companies or big companies to save money for taxpayers is fair game, that's okay, but it has to be under some kind of control. Everybody knows there's no U.S.S.R. now. What would happen if the U.S.S.R. were to get that information? The KGB would have a file on my health, wouldn't it? Give me a break.

The Chair: We're going to keep that in mind, Sarkis, when we get feedback from the audience out there on the wide, wide web and from people like you. Thank you for raising the issue.

Mr. Dickinson: I won't comment on the KGB -

The Chair: You might want to comment on it, as well as on the CIA, CSIS, or anybody else.

Mr. Dickinson: I'm with the Premier's Council on the Status of Disabled Persons. I do want to focus specifically on the issue of health information and disability-related information. I appreciate the discussion this morning about the ideas of codes, professional ethics, etc. I think that's a nice statement to set the frame of reference for the issues, but our experience has been that unless there's statutory protection of privacy....

Given the new technology that is operational now, there have to be some clear methods to prevent things from happening by people who are unscrupulous, who aren't as ethical as all of us here in the room today. When there's a commercial benefit to be obtained by the selling of information about individuals...whether it's by identifying products you're purchasing at the grocery store by scanning them in on the cash register...and even more importantly when you're applying for health insurance benefits or making decisions about whether you're going to have an abortion because some genetic test has been done to indicate there's a possibility - not a certainty - that some condition may arise....

We think it's very important that individuals have the choice about who has access to information about their personal health status, etc. There are certainly some situations in which the public has the right to get access to certain types of information for certain purposes, but our feeling right now is that the technology allows a lot of information to be disclosed when it shouldn't be without the advance, specific consent of the individual.

It's being used for purposes that affect the commercial activity of the community. It also has personal financial consequences for individuals who are being denied eligibility to benefits, not just to insurance, but as the scenario said, mortgages, the ability to join health plans, get a job - because there is some potential risk - or getting to the extreme of abortion.

.1105

We'd like to see whatever legislation or process you put in place clearly defining the right of the individual to own their own personal information and have access to any data base that collects information about an individual.

The portion of the data base relating to that individual should be available to the individual first, before it's shared with any other third party. That information collected for one purpose cannot be provided somewhere else without the specific and informed consent of that individual.

Again, for a whole lot of information, we're not talking here about 1984; we're in 1997. We're even beyond that.

The fear of the disability community has very much to with the current trends in the economic pressures on the health system, etc. Eugenics is no longer a topic relegated to the Second World War. It's back on the front burner of the public health agenda, and the private sector agenda of social programs and benefits.

I hope the federal government will show some leadership in protecting the future of all Canadians, including those who may have some very specific considerations to be concerned about.

Thank you.

Ms Steeves: Very well said. Thank you, Randy.

The Chair: Yes, go ahead.

Mr. Andy Scott: I would just like to follow up a bit on what Randy said, just for one second. One of the other advantages that has come out of this specifically speaks to the discrimination systemically exercised against Canadians with disabilities.

In terms of various sorts of economically driven and efficiency-driven kinds of decisions that are made, one of the unintended or unexpected consequences of this debate is that with the various tests that go on now, we find out that many of us contained information of our beings that allows for those discriminatory decisions to be made about us.

So the critical mass of Canadians who would feel particularly imposed upon by that kind of discrimination is growing as we find out that there are very few of us who don't have some piece of information somewhere in our system that would allow some insurance company or somebody to make a decision that would affect me.

Consequently, one of the benefits - if I can call it that - is the fact that the number of Canadians who can relate to what you just said is growing very quickly.

Mr. Dickinson: May I offer just a postscript? This is not paranoia either.

A voice: Hear, hear.

Mr. Dickinson: It is based on actual dealings with hundreds of people over the years. Information from their personal medical files or personal financial information is actually ending up in the hands of many places they were not aware of, or they did not intend that this should end up there, or they would not give permission for that to happen.

So the work of your committee is extremely timely. We're not against technology or information technology. We're just very concerned that we should use it to benefit the community, and protect the citizens. Let's not allow it to be misused and abused by people who don't share the same ethical standards as the people who are here today.

The Chair: Thank you. You can be sure to know that this will be very closely monitored, and reflected in the thinking of this committee. You have friends and colleagues across this country who share your views, and they are not necessarily from the disabled community.

Does someone else wish to speak? Yes.

Mr. Don McNaughton (Individual Presentation): My company is part of the industrial security systems. As part of the protection industry I would like to point out that this industry business is to test the limits of individuals' privacy.

The industry is generally unregulated, and has very few standards. It employs professionals who are experts in their field, such as private investigators, experts in the use of closed-circuit television cameras, alarm installations at systems, and truth-verifiers. The latter are the group who test whether you're telling the truth by polygraph methods, etc.

.1110

As a consequence, we are very interested in how this committee comes up with a recommendation on what it's going to do for the future, and how it handles the technology that is used in our industry for commercial purposes.

The industry is international in scope, and our standards are somewhat set by governments and by the fact that we use industrial espionage methods to determine what product is good, what product is bad, how it's used, whether people are telling the truth, or whether they're trying to pull a scam, etc.

Consequently, any regulation that comes up and is going to impact upon this industry is going to have very far-reaching implications, and we'd like to be very careful as to how you proceed in the future.

Thank you.

The Chair: I think that it would be important for....

I have an answer too, but you go ahead first, John.

Mr. John Godfrey: Would I be correct in assuming that, in general, regulation would be a good thing for your unregulated industry? Would it be good for companies that were honourable and decent, but were always being menaced by people coming in with lower ethical standards, provided the regulations were reasonable, and there was consultation? Would it enhance both the reputation and quality of what the folks in your industry do if there was some form of regulation?

Mr. McNaughton: Currently regulations are set provincially. To date the standards set by provincial governments are usually more concerned with collecting the fee for the licensing of the particular guard or private investigator.

The industry itself is trying to change this, but I think the possibility of the industry being able to provide any type of leadership in this regard is very poor, because the motivation is profit-oriented. It's a commercial enterprise, it has nothing to do with ethics and morality, except for the individuals themselves who practise it.

We would like -

The Chair: Did you say that the industry has nothing to do with ethics and morality as far as Canadians are concerned?

Mr. McNaughton: The individuals are concerned, though. They have the concern of their own morality and their own ethical values.

However, in terms of competition, there's a great deal of latitude in how this is interpreted or implied in trying to get the information for your client.

The Chair: I would think then that Mr. Godfrey's question is all the more pertinent as Canadians want.... I think that for the most part Canadians trust each other in our sharing community. That's part of Canadian values. It's sort of the overarching value that is one of the things that binds us as a people, and differentiates us as a people.

It would seem to me that the unethical practitioner who loves a spy story, and loves to use the newest technology and the newest bug without the sense of any control or ethics is not the welcome person on the Canadian scene, and you would probably be welcoming some kind of regulation.

This would not necessarily be our concern. I think that the industry and justice committees view that the protocol or piece of legislation they're anticipating between now and the year 2000 may be the one that would have some impact on what you're doing.

But certainly you can't say that Canadians are not concerned about ethical practices. I don't think they're crazy about CSIS and the CIA, or anybody else who falls into that category.

Mr. McNaughton: Absolutely.

The Chair: So I hope that you would welcome any intervention that will be forthcoming, and you will be in receipt of a white paper that will be looking at these matters. We'd be anxious to have your feedback at that time.

Mr. McNaughton: Thank you. As I say, the Canadian companies are looking for ``standards'' in this way. Unfortunately -

The Chair: So you're saying that you're looking for direction?

Mr. McNaughton: - we are competing with international ``organizations'' who are in the business, the espionage business, and the private investigators who work both sides of the borders, and without borders.

Consequently, these are the people we are competing with, and their standards are quite different from ours.

We have no standard by which to guide ourselves at the moment. We would welcome some.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

.1115

Did anybody else want to say something? Did you want to say something on that, John?

Mr. John Godfrey: No, I just thought it a fascinating discussion.

The Chair: Mr. Vink.

Mr. Gerry Vink (Newfoundland/Labrador Human Rights Association): I think the previous speaker brought up an issue that we addressed a bit in our discussion group. I want to emphasize this again.

The nature of the beast of technology is that it knows no boundaries. That's a fact, and we know that.

As on most human rights issues, we've developed a number of international instruments. I think it behooves us, that is, the Canadian government and the Canadian people, to take a leading role in trying to get some sort of international standards set on privacy considerations, much like we have with the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, or the convention we have on the rights of the child, and so forth.

Once we have that, it will then become easier to set up national regulations, which I think we need and which I strongly support. We would then have national regulations that would match national regulations elsewhere.

I would urge the committee to ensure that one of the regulations it makes is that the government take a leading role in an international convention on privacy with new technologies.

Thank you.

The Chair: Have you had the opportunity, sir, to look at the new law on privacy by the European Union and the OECD? It has started, but the actual international effect will be in 1998.

Mr. Vink: No, I think you mentioned that this morning. I have not seen that.

The Chair: If you would like to have copies of that, and if you don't have access, I'm sure our clerk will see that you could get those copies.

Mr. Vink: But that does not take away that this still needs to be done internationally.

Mr. John Godfrey: Including us.

The Chair: Starting with us, I would suggest.

Thank you very much; I think that's an important point.

Ms Liz Burge (University of New Brunswick): I'm speaking now as President of the Canadian Association for Distance Education.

Canada has long been regarded as an international leader in all forms of open and distance learning, which is now using increasing numbers of different delivery and communications technologies.

As I've been listening to various people here this morning, it's become very pertinent to ask you, on behalf of the association, to consider the level of distance learning going on in this country, where learners are in a power relationship with teachers, where teachers are in a power relationship with institutions.

There is an enormous potential for invasion of privacy and abuse of human rights at the moment. That may sound dramatic, but I'm trying to indicate the issue.

Distance education is often not considered, because it is not visible. There are no walls, there are no windows, and there are no doors that you can see. It is a huge industry in Canada. For example, Statistics Canada figures dated 1993 indicate that about 500,000 Canadian adults are engaged in distance education.

In Ontario alone, when I was there from 1980 to 1993, over 90,000 adults were completing a high school diploma using distance education through the Ontario Ministry of Education.

The figures are massive. Technologies are being used more and more. The corporate agenda is usually behind much of the use of those technologies.

Our association is standing up for the rights of learners and teachers, and for the appropriate use of technology. So I would urge you to consider this whole area of education, both for adults and children, as it relates to human rights.

Mr. John Godfrey: Could you help us a little in explaining where the abuse...? Are there abuses you know of because of this technology? What are your fears?

.1120

Ms Burge: I can give you two examples, John, one of which happened to me.

I teach. I'm a practitioner of distance education, and I teach using predominately audio-conferencing, but I'm now moving into using the Internet.

I was caught several years ago in New Brunswick because I had assumed that our audio classroom across New Brunswick - 30 students in five sites all connected by telephone - was a confidential classroom. We started to critique a technology paid for by the government. Unbeknownst to me, the government employees at the sites were relaying back to head office our comments. I then got carpeted.

There have been other examples. The use of the Internet is something we really have to consider very carefully. At my university there have already been a few examples of student hackers getting into class discussions in courses we thought were confidential. There are very serious issues here.

The Chair: Why did you assume there was confidentiality on Internet?

Ms Burge: Because it's an academic tradition that when you're having a class going on, there should be some confidentiality.

I was caught in an audio-conference environment, but it's going to happen more, I think, on the Internet, even with password controls.

The Chair: It's like the cellular telephone, where, as all of you know, you're using radio waves. Radio waves are interceptable; therefore there is no confidentiality. If you want to have a confidential phone call, you go and you use the Bell Telephone sanctioned wires.

Ms Steeves: Perhaps the technology is just not consistent with the cultural framework of the activity. The fact that you'd move to the Internet just underlines the fact that this is an insecure or open network, and we have to deal with that.

Ms Burge: Yes. What we would like to see is, for example, some kind of a charter of technological rights for students and for faculty members, and help everyone understand what the issues are, and what they can expect in a technologically mediated learning environment where everyone has to feel safe.

The Chair: That directs us to some remarks made by the participants, and particularly some of our experts, that our fundamental and important role is first to educate, so that people understand what technology is doing to our whole environment, whether it's the audio or the visual environment - the openness, and the need for realizing that any time you really want confidentiality, you've really got to think about what medium of exchange you're going to be using.

Ms Burge: Yes, absolutely.

The Chair: Certainly it will be brought to our attention as it was reported. I know that I heard you at your round table, so it's on the chart, and even though Andy didn't want to use the red chart, it's there -

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: - and it will be part of the report we're going to be using.

Ms Burge: He gave an excellent summary. I just don't know how he did it, but he did it.

The Chair: He's a very smart man. Blush some more.

Ms Steeves: I think it's all agreed - we like Andy.

Any other comments? It's extremely helpful, particularly for the purposes of writing the report, to get your comments on the record, because this part is going to generate a full transcript, so please come forward.

Ms Ellen King (Ombudsman, Government of New Brunswick): Thank you very much.

My name is Ellen King and I'm the ombudsman for the province of New Brunswick.

In December of 1994 I was also given a role with respect to privacy, when the government tabled a privacy code in the legislative assembly and assigned a role to the office of the ombudsman to investigate complaints.

When I received the code, I was already aware of it and had looked at it before that. When our office did receive it and received the news, I immediately wrote to the executive council and the government and asked them to put in place an act as soon as possible.

I am a firm believer in acts versus codes, although I like to keep an open mind. With respect to the Canadian Standards Association, it is a step in the right direction, and we will see what happens there. I'm following that closely and I admire the efforts being made there so far, but I still am a firm believer in legislation as opposed to codes.

.1125

So I was extremely pleased to learn, six months or so after I wrote my memo, that the government was undertaking to do a discussion paper, and to hold public hearings on it, with the intention of introducing a bill as soon as possible.

Having been around government for a long time in my past, I was very impressed with the speed with which the government seized on this issue. That gave me a great deal of hope, because I think it is the issue of the decade. I think that technology is galloping along - certainly Internet and everything that has been talked about here this morning. As Bill Hall mentioned, who is my resident expert when I have technology problems - I believe it was you, Bill - it is here to stay, so we have to adapt, manage and put whatever controls we can in place.

With respect to the legislation, while the legislation being proposed may not be as strong as some would like, it is a great step in the right direction in this province. I think that it will still be worked on and refined as time goes on. My understanding is that the government will be open to amendments as time goes on.

I agree with so many of the things that have been said here today, and in particular the comments of Randy Dickinson.

A comment was made with respect to the government privatizing medical records or issues. That is addressed in the discussion paper the government put out, I believe in the third or fourth recommendation in that report. I don't have it with me or would refer to it directly, but there is a reference or a recommendation there that there will be protection in the act that the government is contemplating in the bill, so I feel reassured about that. I have yet to see the wording, but it is a recommendation in that discussion paper.

Also, we have had in this province a very strong lobby from the New Brunswick Medical Association, which is just excellent. They are putting the pressure on the government to do this, and that's good. They're raising awareness.

I also am so pleased that the committee has chosen to come here. It is a wonderful opportunity perhaps not only for yourself, but certainly for all of us in New Brunswick and in the Atlantic - to have an opportunity to share with you our concerns and our thoughts.

The fact that the media is here will also continue to heighten awareness. For those of you who may not know, the freedom of information and privacy protection commissioner from Nova Scotia was here. I see he's not now. He is working basically alone, in his province. So I also want to make a plea for those people who are involved with commissioners or implementing legislation in the various parts of the country.

Certainly I do not want to forget the federal privacy commissioner. I did have an opportunity to review his annual report recently, just very quickly. His office is dealing with many of the issues that have been raised here, and has been doing a fine job in many respects.

I would also make the plea that the federal legislation, while it too may not be perfect, has been around for a while. It needs to be strengthened, and I'm sure Mr. Phillips is the one who can tell you in what ways. He also needs resources. His office is a great resource to the provinces. We can pick up the telephone and call his office and obtain information very quickly. They are very helpful and very supportive of us, much like the network in other areas such as human rights.

I think that we are really in the embryonic stage in New Brunswick. We have a lot of work to do - a lot of consciousness-raising. I urge everyone, at every opportunity that I get, to not give out their personal information so readily.

.1130

New Brunswick is a rural province for the most part, and as someone previously stated, we have a tendency.... Your neighbour knows what you're doing and so on. It's kind of our Atlantic way, if you wish, or certainly our New Brunswick way.

The work of this committee is so, so important. I want to thank you for coming here, and thank you for all of the things that I know you are going to propose.

Our office would have no jurisdiction over this, but I would be remiss if I didn't say I have recently heard - and what reminded me of it was the lady from the university - that at the University of New Brunswick, for example, all the professors can access all of the students' records on-line. I'm not sure if that's true - I have no jurisdiction over this - but that did concern me, and although I'm not sure of the implications I'm sure it does have some.

I could say much more. Basically, thank you for coming to our wonderful province and to our cold city this morning. Thank you.

The Chair: Well, thank you very much. That was a very good wrap-up for the morning. I want to thank you, Valerie, for the -

A voice: We have one more...

The Chair: Oh, we have one more? I'm sorry.

We've got about one minute. I'm sorry. We have a time clock on the cameras and on the sitting.

Mr. Terry Mullin (President, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 865): That's no problem. My name's Terry Mullin. I'm here as a worker at the Miramichi Regional Hospital. As most people in the room probably know, it's a new hospital, just opened in December. It's very high-tech.

The Chair: The city is new too.

Mr. Mullin: Yes, our city is new too. We still haven't gotten together on that.

There are three systems in place in our hospital - two are in place, and one will be in place by the end of April: video surveillance, access cards, and Smartlink. Smartlink is not yet on-line. There are video surveillance cameras that are watching us eight or twelve hours a day - whichever we work.

The access cards - every employee has them with their name on them. In order to get the access cards, we had to provide information to human resources as to our height, our weight, our hair colour, what vehicle we drove, and things like this. These cards give us access to certain areas of the hospital, and are registered in the computer in the security room. They can tell at any time of the day where I was, what area I was in, and how long I was in there.

When I asked about it at management meetings they'd say this is for your protection: if someone breaks into the locker room then we know what people were in the locker room at such and such a time.

When we question all these technologies, they tell us they're there for our own good, but they're not telling us how it could be used against us.

Our collective agreement says that we won't punch a time clock when we come in to work. So when I questioned these access cards - using them to come in the back door - they say oh yes, we do have that capability, but we won't be using it.

I guess I'd like to see the committee address this ``Big Brother is watching you'' type of thing at work all twelve hours of the day. I know there are things they need cameras there for - to watch dangerous people who are coming into emergency, or things like that. But the feelings the employees are getting are that they're more there to watch us and monitor us rather than to monitor their public, and I would hope the committee would address these concerns for us.

The Chair: Well, first of all, thank you very much. I'm glad that the wider audience has heard you, because I did hear you with the same concerns - and legitimate ones to be considered - at the table with Andy. Is that right?

Mr. Mullin: Yes. Thank you.

The Chair: It is something I think everybody wants some answers for, because the balance between the economic interests and the personal interest and stress has to be looked at. So I thank you very much.

Ms Steeves: I'd like to thank you all for participating. It's incredibly valuable to have the opportunity to share and exchange these views. We look forward to putting our report together and hopefully hearing your feedback on that as well. Thank you.

The Chair: As we draw this meeting to a close, colleagues, I think it has become pretty obvious that genetic discrimination is going to be the human rights issue of the 21st century.

.1135

John, we're going to be interested to see where ``peace, order and good government'' versus ``life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'' is going to fall.

I thank you for the enlightened approach. I thank our experts who shared the day with us. Thank you all. You've helped us grow and expand our knowledge and thought base with respect to the writing of our report.

The meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page