[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, March 18, 1997
.1114 
[English]
The Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.)): Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. This is a continuation of the standing committee's review of privacy as a human right and the implications of new technology on our right to privacy.
We're really very pleased to welcome today witnesses from the Department of Human Resources Development.
.1115
I can tell you that in general we have had a most successful tour of some of the major cities of Canada. The participation has been of very high quality. We had a very good mix of people who are concerned about these matters, from areas such as banking, insurance, consumers' associations, legal counsel, unions, and just ordinary people who have an interest in the subject.
One interesting dynamic, which was different from what happens when most standing committees hear witnesses, is that they did not come with prepared briefs. Different experts in each city were animators of the round table. Members of our committee acted as recorders, and they reported back what the general feelings were of the population we were talking with. So instead of close to 200 people presenting briefs to us, we had round tables without any formal presentations. It proved to be a most satisfactory formula.
I'm giving you this as background because of the expression in Quebec from Dr. Fortin, who is in charge of the smart card project in Rimouski, and from Mr. Comeau, who's the access to information commissioner. What was the job of the man from Chicoutimi - Lac-Saint-Jean?
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic - Compton - Stanstead, BQ): Professor Mélançon.
The Chair: Yes, but what is he doing?
Mr. Maurice Bernier: He teaches ethics.
[English]
The Chair: He is a professor of ethics, who, by the way, wrote a letter to La Presse about the nature of public consultations and mentioned what a wonderful experience he felt this had been.
For us it was an enjoyable learning experience.
Hopefully we will now be able to draw some conclusions while taking into account the research that has been done and the polls that were presented to us that had been taken between 1992 and 1995, which indicated that there is an increasing awareness and lack of comfort on the part of people. They don't know why, but they feel they're being watched.
There is concern about the balance between where surveillance is important in order to meet the public interest in terms of crime, safety, and issues of that nature and the ability to have control over the information and to have the right to determine what shall be in the public milieu. Because once privacy is broken, not only is there a tremendous impact on your access to the holder of that information, but also you can't recover the information once it is in the public milieu.
I want to publicly acknowledge that the three scenarios that were used to start the discussions were, first of all, very well drafted, and our researchers are to be complimented in that regard. But more importantly, they elicited a very enlightened discussion, which showed the degree of cross-fertilization of ideas that comes out of the three fields, whether it's genetic testing and retention, video surveillance and the implication of who holds the rights to the video and how that's used, or the question of smart cards and who controls access to that information. These were all issues that were addressed forthrightly.
The members of the committee were very assiduous in carrying out the tasks assigned. They listened carefully and gave really good summations that I think made everyone feel that they had been listened to and that their interests were presented by the members of the House of Commons. It wasn't a matter of the imposition of personal perspectives; it was rather a reflection of what the population out there was telling us. Many told us how comforted they were by this process and that they felt maybe Parliament really works and the members do listen, which was quite an interesting observation.
.1120
That said, the question of identity cards and smart cards is one of great interest. With respect to the acknowledgement of some concern about a government determining to take information from Revenue Canada's customs bureaux and cross-compiling that information against a list of those who are recipients of employment insurance, I wondered if it was a fair undertaking. When is information fair in terms of cross-compilation, or computer matching? How much should people know? Are these matters that have the right to be undertaken? Where is the right to know? Where does it start and where does it stop?
It's in that light that we're very pleased to have you here. Whether it is compiling of information from insurance companies, banks, and Visa cards or whether it is collection because you travelled and you declared, who has to know these things? That's your personal life.
Perhaps you might address some of those questions for us. We'd be very pleased to hear where you're at and what you're doing in the field of data collection for the common good and with the protection of society as a goal. And where does personal privacy, which is found in the European charters, in the OECD charter, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in the convention on civil and political liberties, the 1966 convention...? The name has just escaped me.
Ms Nancy Holmes (Committee Researcher): Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Chair: Right.
That's where we would like to start, because we understand that the federal government is considering modernizing the SIN, the social insurance number, and coming up with some new form of common identifier to increase administrative efficiency, streamline government operations, and monitor and reduce the fraudulent use of social security benefits and services.
This committee would be very interested to know if there is any kind of protection with the SIN. What kind of education have you given the population as to when they have the obligation to use it and when they don't?
Before I start, the members around the table will introduce themselves to you.
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I'm John Godfrey. I'm from Toronto, in the riding of Don Valley West.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton - York-Sunbury, Lib.): I'm Andy Scott from Fredericton - York - Sunbury.
The Chair: He is the vice-chairman.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton - The Sydneys, Lib.): I'm Russell MacLellan from Cape Breton - The Sydneys.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): I'm Sarkis Assadourian, not from Don Valley West, but from Don Valley North.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. John Godfrey: It's still Toronto.
The Chair: We still have to find out where their boundaries meet.
And welcome, Mrs. Sheridan.
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon - Humboldt, Lib.): Thank you. I'm Georgette Sheridan. Saskatoon - Humboldt is my riding. I've just joined the committee and have the arduous task of replacing Mr. Warren Allmand. It's not easy.
Ms Jean Augustine (Etobicoke - Lakeshore, Lib.): Warren, where are you when we need you?
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan: Don't say that. It makes me look bad.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Ms Jean Augustine: I'm Jean Augustine, member of Parliament for Etobicoke - Lakeshore.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier: I am Maurice Bernier, from Mégantic - Compton - Stanstead. I am the vice-chairman of the committee.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): I'm Myron Thompson from the Alberta riding of Wild Rose.
The Chair: Welcome. We're very pleased to have you with us.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Thank you.
The Chair: S'il vous plaît.
Ms Norine Smith (Assistant Deputy Minister, Employment Insurance Program, Department of Human Resources Development): Madam Chair, I don't really have a prepared presentation for the committee, but I'll start by introducing myself and my colleagues.
I'm the assistant deputy minister of the employment insurance program. With me are David McNaughton, assistant deputy minister of our systems group, and Ron Stewart, director general of the investigation and control group within the insurance program.
.1125
Within the insurance program we certainly do have a number of strategies and programs in place to help us ensure the integrity of the use of that program. We're responsible to premium payers and to taxpayers generally for the efficient and effective operation of the program and for the integrity of the insurance account.
Under his responsibilities for the systems group, Mr. McNaughton is responsible for developing the national information technology systems that support not only the insurance program, but all of the human resources programs for which our department is responsible. With regard to privacy issues, that means he is very much concerned with ensuring that any electronic information obtained and generated by the department on any individual is very safely handled, retained, and properly disposed of according to the provisions of the Privacy Act and any other legislation that governs our operations.
The right of Canadians to a reasonable expectation of privacy is a very key consideration for all program managers within Human Resources Development. All personal information gathered by HRDC is safeguarded in accordance with the legislative provisions under which we operate.
The Chair: Which provisions are they?
Ms Smith: Those in all of our acts, in addition to the Privacy Act. Any release of information that is made is based in law, and we will not accept any information from any other government department if there is no legislative provision that supports such a release to us.
Within the Department of Human Resources Development, we have a group that is responsible and is the focal point for privacy issues. It's the security and public rights division, and it ensures that all departmental activities are in accordance with the Privacy Act and that staff and management are aware of their responsibilities under the Privacy Act. That group is also the department's principal point of liaison with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.
Within the framework of our legislation and the framework of the Privacy Act, all our information exchanges are developed in compliance with the Treasury Board policies on data matches. The data matches are developed in consultation and collaboration with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. All data that is produced by the data matches is retained, safeguarded, and disposed of according to the legislation governing those matches. The data elements used in such matches are only those that are authorized by the agreements between the data-sharing organizations and us. Also, all uses of such data are described in InfoSource, as is required by Treasury Board policy.
Without taking up much more of the committee's time, and in order to leave more time for your specific questions, I just want to emphasize something by way of introduction. Just as I would imagine is the case for the members of this committee, we are very conscious of, aware of, and concerned about finding the appropriate balance between the expectations of Canadians for a reasonable degree of privacy on the one hand, and on the other, the legitimate use of the information that government has, firstly to ensure the efficient and effective administration of our programs by government, and secondly to ensure that the terms of entitlement to these programs, as legislated by Parliament, are adhered to and respected.
Perhaps we could turn it over to the members of the committee for questions now.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
The committee will be interested in following up the Treasury Board policy on data matching and data sharing. And further to that, we would like a clarification in the areas you outlined on only releasing information interdepartmentally based on legislative matters.
.1130
I would like to ask one question before I ask my colleagues to take over. You have no doubt read the report of the privacy commissioner, Mr. Bruce Phillips. Have you read the statements he made to this committee that actually were some of the motivating factors for us to move into an examination of this issue?
Ms Smith: Yes, we have.
The Chair: You have. Okay, that leaves it wide open.
[Translation]
We are going to begin with you, Mr. Bernier.
Mr. Maurice Bernier: I listened to what Ms Smith said about the action taken by the department to ensure that private files are protected, as well as about the whole legislative framework governing the supervision of your departmental operations.
However, a few weeks ago - and this is a concern which was raised in the course of our last week consultations - , we could read in The Gazette, I think, and maybe in some other newspapers too, that there was, within the Department of Human Resources Development, a committee made up of public officers who are discussing the possibility to put in place an identification card which would replace the present social insurance number and which could even possibly be used in the health sector.
I would ask you at the outset if that committee actually exists and who are taking part in it. Besides, are there any other departments involved in those discussions, at what levels are those discussions taking place and what specific issues are being debated there?
I might have other questions after, but that one concerns me more than any other.
[English]
Mr. David McNaughton (Assistant Deputy Minister, Systems, Department of Human Resources Development): I'm not aware of any committee whatsoever in our department that is discussing those kinds of topics, none whatsoever. In that sense the article was completely incorrect.
However, a committee has existed for years and years that brings together people from the federal government, our department only, and from the provincial and territorial governments. The people who come to that are people like me, who work with systems. The discussions in the room tend to be systems discussions and technological discussions. All of us work with and for people like Norine. They are in charge of social programs, be they at the federal, provincial, or territorial level.
In that room, for the last couple of years, one of the topics of highest interest is how we can legally use the information we have, within all the acts we have, to better serve Canadians and the residents of provinces and territories.
I was thinking of an analogy in preparation for this. I remember when I was a child, my mother collected my school records at my school. This was for when we moved to another town. She could carry these records to the next town. Of course in the electronic age one might not have to do that, but it was important for my new teacher to know about what happened in my old classroom.
Also, when I go to a specialist, having seen my general practitioner, they should know, and so on. It's that kind of assurance.
It's the same thinking that's going on in that room. If you deal with a person at the federal level and one at the provincial level who have the common goal of helping you, for example, get back to work, then it helps to know some of the information behind you, the person who wants to be served. That's the motivation in this room. We have discussed it at length. We've had experts preparing studies for us and so on.
We hope someday to bring forward our combined knowledge to our deputies and hence to our ministers. If we were going to make a recommendation, it would be of the flavour that it's good, where appropriate and where legal, to share information in the name of serving the client, the Canadian, better.
That group has explored all the technological options you have explored. We spent very little time there, somewhat at my direction, because they are technical people and they love to talk about technical things, such as cards and so on. That's a subject that always interests technical people, but it's not the theme of the room. The theme of the room is bringing information together, when appropriate and legal, to serve Canadians better.
.1135
If there were one label I would give, therefore, to what is being discussed in the room, it's the notion of a number, which you might call a service number, that every Canadian who is a client of the social system in Canada would have and control. So if they approached somebody at one level of government and then at another level of government, at their wish the information could be shared so they would obtain better service.
That's what is happening in that room. That's what I think that article might have been talking about. That's the only committee, forum, or discussion that I, as the systems person, am aware of in the department or near the department.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier: You are telling us that no particular committee has been especially mandated to create an universal identification card. You are also saying that some discussions of a more technical type are taking place between public officers from your department to assess the present situation and also make some exploration on that matter.
Are there any discussions though at any level within your department aiming at the establishment of a common identifier, just like the social insurance number is one or should be one? Although we are told that no such committee exists, are there currently any formal discussions taking place concerning that issue? Is there anyone, within your department, who is responsible for the organization of formal discussions with other departments or provinces on that matter? Recently, was your department politically mandated to move towards that direction?
[English]
Mr. McNaughton: Again, what I've referred to is the only initiative, the only discussion, of any kind that I am aware of concerning what we're discussing here, which is the ability to serve better by collecting information appropriately.
If I heard you correctly, you said I did not refer to a number that would facilitate that sharing of information. I think I did. I do not mean to deny that if you are going to share information among two or more governments, you need a way to make sure that when you're talking about David McNaughton, you do not mean Drew McNaughton, my son, but you do mean me, David. That could be name, address, and birth date, or a number, or any other way of making sure it's the same person. That idea is present in this federal-provincial room.
That is the only room, the only location, the only discussion I know of, and it is merely we, the technologists, bringing together ideas that we would eventually bring forward, if we think they're worth bringing forward, to the program people, such as Norine, our deputies, and the ministers. This is not an action of HRDC. This is a long-standing exchange group of federal, provincial, and territorial colleagues. That's the only thing I'm aware of, sir.
The Chair: Could you call this tombstone data, which is a term we learned while we were looking at the CANPASS and INSPASS project?
Mr. McNaughton: I'd call it more than that. Just think of your favourite analogy, be it a doctor, a teacher, or an employment counsellor. If you are going to provide that person with good service and they have previously been to a colleague of yours in obtaining service, you need to know the historical or tombstone information about that person. But equally important, you need to know what has happened - the events that have occurred - and that is not part of the tombstone data. That is a separate piece of information about you and me.
The Chair: And the tombstone data is kept separately and is perceived separately from the other information that your mother may have transferred about your marks and your standing.
Mr. McNaughton: It can be. That is the choice of the legislators who make the law. Technically we can enable what you just described. It can be brought together or it can be kept separate.
The Chair: The last question I want to ask is this. Has Quebec, which has the only proper privacy legislation in North America, been present at these exchange meetings? Are you familiar with the Rimouski work, the way they have done the technological development of a very intriguing piece of technology?
Mr. McNaughton: I have been with the federal government three years. Therefore I do not have enough history on this one committee I am referring to. But in the time I have been here, my colleagues in Quebec only joined us at the table at the last meeting. That meeting took place months ago in Quebec City. They helped host the meeting. They were very pleased to be there, and they hoped they would be able to continue to be there.
.1140
I viewed their presence as not only symbolic, but also very important. They're a major part of this equation, and we couldn't move forward on anything for Canadians if they weren't there. That was the first time I'd seen my Quebec colleagues in the room.
In response to your second question, I'm not personally familiar with the pilot referring to - I assume it is a pilot in Rimouski - but I am aware of many pilots around the world from the last 5 or 10 years and of what's worked and what hasn't worked. There's another pilot going on in Guelph, Ontario, for example, that is very pervasive in its use of the card, but mainly as an instrument for carrying money around. You don't need 25¢ or $1 for the bus, because you can use your card.
When you discuss smart cards and other technologies, it's very important to remember that seldom if ever is government the driving force behind them. It is the private sector, for example the banks, that introduces these kinds of technologies into our lives, and then we, government, find them appropriate or inappropriate and follow accordingly.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Scott.
Mr. Andy Scott: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
It seems I'm not able to escape employment insurance.
The Chair: You've been very effective, so it's okay.
Mr. Andy Scott: I'd like to bring to you the concerns from our exercise of last week. Specifically I should tell you that many people were more fearful of the government - and I don't mean any particular government - than they were of the private sector in terms of intrusion.
The issue most people raised with regard to the benefits or negative aspects of a lot of these technologies has to do with informed consent, whether or not citizens can in fact make choices and whether or not they're able to offer their own judgment as to whether or not to participate.
I know you're investigating ways to improve efficiencies, but very specifically I'd like to know what mechanisms are at play within the department to make sure that's done in a fashion that recognizes a couple of things: the issue of secondary use and whether or not the only limitations on secondary use are those government imposes by law. That would obviously scare me, because I don't think we're keeping up at all with the opportunities that exist. That point has been made clearly over the last week.
I thought I heard Mr. McNaughton refer to the fact that those limitations are legislated. We would suggest we're not anywhere close to being where we need to be in the legislative framework, because the technologies are so far ahead of us that those limitations may be an inadequate defence.
The second issue has to do with the many people who are dependent on programs. How much consent can there be if you wish to participate in a program upon which you're dependent? Is it really consent? Are you allowed to opt out of providing information to employment insurance and still get benefits? I don't think so. What are the mechanisms to guard the level of ``informed'' and the level of ``consent'' in the concept of informed consent?
Ms Smith: The first point is that we try very hard to ensure that all claimants under the employment insurance program are very aware of their rights and obligations under the program. So we have a very extensive series of publications, brochures, pamphlets, and cheque inserts and we use as many mechanisms as we can find to continually communicate with claimants under the program about what is expected of them and what they can expect from us, because it is in some respects, I suppose, a bit of a contractual arrangement we have with our claimants.
.1145
That is perhaps the only vehicle we have, in the world of a program such as this, to try to address this issue of informed consent. As you say, if an individual is unemployed and has no other source of income, they don't have an awful lot of choice, and this is a program that is their only option.
From my perspective on this, the way to deal with informed consent has to be through providing claimants with as much information as we possibly can about their rights and obligations, and about our obligations as well with respect to them.
Mr. Andy Scott: I acknowledge, and I think you do too, that consent is a very difficult value to get to in this case, because of dependence.
But also, for instance, when I apply for employment insurance, am I advised that perhaps if I try to go across the border, I might be caught for not being in my home town looking for work that day? Do I know that possibility exists?
Ms Smith: You know you are expected to be in the country. You know you are expected to be available for work each and every day. You're advised on a biweekly basis, every time we mail out a report card to a claimant and ask them to fill in what they were doing over the last two weeks, where it specifically says let us know if you've been on vacation.
In that respect we have tried very hard to ensure that claimants are aware of their obligations with respect to the program. We are doing more, in light of the customs match to which you are referring, to provide information to claimants about the types of data matches we are engaged in, and to reinforce in even more spots in our publications their obligations to be in the country and available for work every day.
Mr. Andy Scott: I don't want to take up all the time, but I would distinguish between being aware of the fact that going across the border is wrong and being aware of the fact that you might use a border crossing to catch me doing that. I'm not suggesting it's entrapment; I'm simply saying it's a reasonably analogous kind of scenario, and I'm just curious... So one would not be aware - no one tells me that if I went across the border, that could cost me my EI?
Ms Smith: We're revising our publications to make sure that is clear. In the meantime, it is also identified in InfoSource, the central repository of information in government about the various uses different data sets are being put to.
The Chair: May I interrupt you for one moment? You made a very clear statement at the outset that you do whatever you do under a legal framework through legislation. Where does legislation give you the right to cross-inform from the Department of Revenue to the Department of Human Resources Development, and to do it retroactively? That's the question being asked of you.
Ms Smith: The Customs Act contains a provision that allows the Minister of National Revenue to provide information to other government departments at his or her discretion. That is the legal basis that has given us access to the customs legislation.
The Chair: Does that answer your question, Andy?
Mr. Andy Scott: I understand that. My question was trying to get to the issue of ``informed''. A person has the right to know that could happen. I think the people who appeared before us last week would argue - and these aren't people who are on EI, for the most part - that people should have the right to know that action could be taken against them.
.1150
I know they're not allowed to go across the border. I understand that. But I don't think they know necessarily that this opportunity, if you like, exists. And that wouldn't be incumbent on Revenue Canada or the border crossing, but upon HRDC.
Ms Smith: It's in reflection of that consideration that we are taking steps as we speak to make sure that our publications provide more detail and are more explicit on that front.
As I was reading through your consultation document in preparation for coming here, one of the things I was struck by was the comment that there's a need to find balance, that this is a spectrum, and about where the right place is to stop.
This is a very good example of our attempt to find the right balance. The bottom line in some respects is that we know from the preliminary studies we've done in this area that in the order of $50 million to $60 million worth of benefits are being paid to claimants who are out of country and not available for work. So what is the obligation on the part of the government to try to ensure that we're protecting the premium payer's funds and the integrity of the program to the maximum extent possible?
We run a program that basically runs on an honour system, and we try to implement enough of these investigative programs in order to keep the honour system honest, if I can phrase it that way. It is very much a question of balance.
Mr. John Godfrey: I want to pursue this example, because I find it a very intriguing one. The first question is: did it happen? You say it did happen, it has happened. It's legislated for by Revenue Canada provisions. Would I also understand from what you said that the Treasury Board rules on data matching covered this as well?
Ms Smith: Yes.
Mr. John Godfrey: And you consulted with the privacy commissioner before you did it on this particular one?
Ms Smith: Yes, we did. That's not to say we have a consensus with the privacy commissioner. I said we did consult with the privacy commissioner.
Mr. John Godfrey: What did the privacy commissioner say to you, or is that private?
Ms Smith: Well, no. He said the same things to this committee.
Mr. John Godfrey: Right. Let me understand. When the privacy commissioner -
The Chair: Excuse me. John joined our committee just after the privacy commissioner had given his report.
Ms Smith: Oh, okay.
Mr. John Godfrey: Let me understand. Consider a situation in which there's a question of what you call maintaining the fairness of the honour system, or the efficiency of the system. Say a view is held by the privacy commissioner, who tries to defend the rights of the individual. In cases of a dispute, you don't necessarily go along with him. Is that correct?
Ms Smith: We have consulted with the Department of Justice and we have had extensive legal opinions in this regard. The legal advice we have been given is that this data match is a legal data match under the provisions of the Privacy Act.
Mr. John Godfrey: But if the privacy commissioner chose to disagree with that, in the case where there's a dispute, you go for the legal interpretation. Is that right?
Ms Smith: Yes.
Mr. Godfrey: Okay. You said also that the purpose of accepting information from any other government department, which first of all had to be authorized, was for the benefit of the client. Right?
One of the things we put out in our little example on the smart card is that the sheer raw data you have about somebody leaving the country may not in fact cover the reason they left the country. It simply tells you they left the country. The example in the book is that they left the country to look for work, which is not an illegitimate purpose, I would assume, if we're in the business of getting people jobs. Or it might be for compassionate leave - Mom took sick in Buffalo or whatever.
.1155
I have two questions. Is this really for the benefit of the client, since it seems to be more for the benefit of the system? You might say it's for the general benefit of the client, because he's part of the system.
Where is it written? You want to give the client the maximum knowledge about rights and obligations and all that stuff. Do you say to him or her, ``Look, you can't go out of the country. You have to look for work here. Or if you do, you have to let us know. And by the way, part of what we're going to do - and we'll tell you this right in big, bold print - is check the border crossings with Revenue Canada. Of course you're an honest person, but you should know this.''? It's sort of like the camera for radar for speeding or something. We're going to let you know the patrol cars are out.
In terms of letting people know in big, bold print, counselling them, and giving them full information, was that the case? How did you let them know?
Ms Smith: When a claimant applies for benefits, one critical piece of paper is given on the day they come to apply. Every claimant is given this piece of paper that gives their rights and obligations. One of the obligations of a claimant is that they should be available to work on each and every day and that they are in the country.
That is not a blanket rule. A claimant can come to our office and say he needs to go to his grandmother's funeral, or he wants to go somewhere because he thinks there's a job opportunity he wants to explore. There are reasons a claimant can be out of the country. We just ask that they let us know.
In addition, when we identify through the customs data match that a claimant has been out of the country without having advised us of that, it's not just an automatic penalty. The first thing we do is write them a letter. We say we have information to suggest they have been out of the country and ask them if that indeed is the case. And if it is, we ask if there is a reason they have been out of the country that would be a suitable reason under the provisions of the employment insurance program.
Mr. John Godfrey: The point I'm getting at is about how that information was found. The question is: what is my expectation as a citizen? What is my expectation when I cross the border? Is it my expectation that this information will be shared? It's not only to check on whether I brought too much stuff back in or whether I'm a legal person from the point of view of citizenship or landed immigrancy. Who would have thought that this...? It would not be in my expectation that this information would be shared with you guys.
I'm not talking about beating the system, but about reasonable expectations. I would not expect, if I were looking for employment insurance, that I would be cross-matched with data from Revenue Canada.
It's not that I object to stopping cheaters. What I object to is not knowing in both cases. There are two issues at stake: what your expectation is when crossing the border, and what your expectation is as a recipient of employment insurance. If informed consent means anything, at least the person has to know, in both cases, not just in one case, that this is the situation.
Ms Smith: As I mentioned earlier, we are taking steps to ensure we're taking advantage of every opportunity we can think of to ensure the claimants know this is a data match we will be doing and what their obligations are with respect to searching for employment.
Mr. John Godfrey: Did I hear a partial admission that this is not perhaps as satisfactory an arrangement for the advantage of the client and the system as it was first anticipated?
Ms Smith: We are listening to what the privacy commissioner is suggesting about the need or the desirability of better informing the claimant about the existence of such a match. Nonetheless the match as it is currently structured is a legal match under the Privacy Act, and we are continuing with it.
Mr. John Godfrey: That's the problem.
The Chair: Thank you.
Myron.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Thank you.
This is a new experience for me. I just left another committee, on young offenders, so it will be a little different. So if I get confused, you might understand this in a minute.
There are some things I'm concerned about that I want to mention. You mentioned school records a while ago. I'm an old principal who worked in a school for 30 years and had to maintain records for 15 of those years, which went back as far as 1948. We had to keep these under lock and key, etc.
.1200
Every once in a while we'd get one of the past graduates wanting to come and see their records, and there were procedures we had to follow in order to do that. We had to make sure we investigated the records before the individual saw them, to make sure we could remove anything that might be a problem for a past teacher or whatever the case might be. There were all kinds of rules we had to follow. That whole area has always bothered me in terms of privacy.
Another situation that has bothered me since coming to Parliament is one where a company is doing contracting work for other companies, and I'm thinking specifically of oil companies... If any of you have ever done any work for any oil companies, you know it sometimes takes 60, 90, or 120 days to start getting your money. The company runs short of funds and can't pay its GST, so it requests a delay. There's no problem with that request.
In one instance the fellow borrows some money because he can't make the payroll. After he borrows some money, he deposits it in the bank and writes out the payroll cheques. The workers go the next morning to cash their cheques, because they're all happy they got paid, only to find that the government has removed the entire funds to pay for the GST that hasn't been paid. Money has been disappearing from bank accounts.
Another example is that of an individual who receives three weeks of unemployment insurance, and it's determined six months later that he wasn't entitled to it because he obtained a job at a certain point in time. He therefore has to repay it. So the pressure is on, because he managed to get an $8-an-hour job and he has three kids. You know what kind of deal that is. It's a little difficult to suddenly have to repay money that you thought you were entitled to and that you used for the benefit of your family. You're suddenly finding money disappearing from your bank account.
I don't know whether these things are true or not. When I did some research into the one issue, I found out that the Department of Revenue, under the GST legislation, could remove money. I understand that's true and that the money was there. All of a sudden, without being told, they knew it. I found that rather unusual.
I'm just curious to know how many privacy concerns have been brought to your attention. I'd also like to know by whom and for what.
Ms Smith: To comment on the example of overpayment, we're very well aware, almost by definition, that a large number of the clients under the employment insurance program do not have the financial means to, on the turn of a dime, make a large repayment of an overpayment that they may have inadvertently or advertently, as the case may be, become responsible for. We take steps to ensure that we come up with a repayment schedule that in fact meets the financial means of our claimants.
We write to the claimants. We advise them of their overpayments and their obligations in that regard and invite them to come into our offices to discuss with us the means by which they might be able to manage the repayment of that debt to the Crown. That's our standard modus operandi with respect to overpayments and the recovery thereof.
With respect to privacy complaints -
The Chair: Excuse me. Could you address the second part of that question? Do you have any right to go and recover money? Do you ever do that, or does Revenue Canada do that?
Ms Smith: I'm not aware. Do you know?
.1205
Mr. Ron Stewart (Director General, Investigation and Control, Employment Insurance Program, Department of Human Resources Development Canada): We have the right to garnish wages. We have the right to seize bank accounts. It's all the rights under the Financial Administration Act. That would be the extreme -
The Chair: With prior advice to the person involved?
Mr. Stewart: Certainly. Before it gets to that stage, we as an organization have probably attempted for quite a few years to recover that overpayment, to establish a repayment schedule. We have repayment schedules that are $10 a month for individuals.
Part of the Employment Insurance Act states that no overpayment recovery shall be made that causes undue hardship. Undue hardship is a general concept, but certainly it would mean clothing, food, and rent money would have to be there, and more than that, before any money could be taken back.
So in situations of garnishing of wages and in situations of freezing bank accounts and taking that money, those are the very last resorts the organization goes to when they have not been able to satisfactorily make any other arrangement with the individual.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Can I interject here? I appreciate the idea that you try to work with the individual; you try to set up a mutual agreement. I don't know if you've made $8 an hour lately, but the specific example I'm talking about exactly is an individual who makes $8 an hour and has three children. The least they would accept was a $20-per-month payment. I can assure you I've examined this situation closely and that individual doesn't have an extra $20 a month.
To what extent do you examine these situations and when do you come to a conclusion that you must take a drastic action? Please don't tell me after a lengthy amount of time, because that isn't the case, not always.
Mr. Stewart: Mr. Thompson, it's a judgment call. We have thousands and thousands of overpayments established every year. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the case, but it would always be a judgment call by the people who are responsible for collecting the money.
The Chair: Would you be prepared to take this case from Mr. Thompson and take a look at it?
Mr. Stewart: Definitely. We would make sure the appropriate officials had a good look at it.
The Chair: Thank you. Would you answer the second part of his question, please, with respect to the numbers of privacy complaints?
Ms Smith: Do you know?
Mr. Stewart: The only privacy complaints I'm aware of are three or four that have resulted from the customs match. Apart from that, I'm not aware of any privacy complaints as they relate to how we handle information, receive it, store it, utilize it, dispose of it, or any other form.
The Chair: Myron, have you completed your questions?
Mr. Myron Thompson: Yes. Thank you very much. I must leave now. I appreciate having a moment.
The Chair: Not at all. Please get the case to Mr. Stewart and he'll see that it gets looked after. I think Mr. Stewart would certainly help you in that regard.
Sarkis.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you very much.
Ms Smith, my social insurance number reads 236. What does that tell you?
Ms Smith: Nothing.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Does it show that I applied in Quebec?
Ms Smith: It might tell other people something, but it doesn't tell me something.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: It's my understanding that the number 2 is given to people who apply for an insurance number in Quebec, number 4 applies to insurance numbers given in Ontario, number 6 is B.C., or whatever the case may be. Why do you need that information on this card?
Mr. John Godfrey: You're cheating.
Mr. Stewart: That system was established in 1965.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I got this card in 1971.
Mr. Stewart: What I'm saying, sir, is that the system was established back then. I was 15, so I really can't state the actual rationale for having it done up in geographic blocks the way it was done at the time. I'm sure the people who designed the system at the time had a reason, but I could not explain it to you now.
.1210
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Do you think it's the time to review that?
Mr. Stewart: One of the problems we have, sir, is that we have millions and millions of cards and numbers already issued. Are you talking about reviewing it for the future, to make it more...?
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Yes, for the future, so we don't have to have this -
The Chair: Excuse me, Sarkis. Did you ask him if one of those numbers tells you what date you arrived as a new arrival?
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I will come to that in a second.
The Chair: Oh, okay.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Does it tell you I'm a landed immigrant, a citizen, or a refugee?
Mr. Stewart: No. If you were a non-citizen, you'd have a 9 series; the social insurance number would start with the number 9.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: That means they are refugees?
Mr. Stewart: Not necessarily refugees; they could be people here on other non-citizen status, such as landed immigrant status. There are various statuses an individual can have, but the number 9 series is used for those individuals.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: The reason I say this is I had this card when I was in Quebec in 1970. When I moved to Toronto, I applied for a job and the guy said,
[Translation]
``Eh, monsieur, comment ça va?''
[English]
I asked him how he knew I was from Quebec.
Why does this person hiring me or not hiring me have to know where I come from? What is the benefit to him or to me when I apply for a job? It could be a basis for discrimination: ``I won't hire you because you're from Quebec or you have an accent''. It's improper to tell potential employers where I come from. They have enough information without having more from the government.
Mr. McNaughton: Perhaps I could add a footnote on the history of information and systems in our wonderful world. Forty, thirty, or maybe even twenty years ago, it was common practice in all organizations, private and public, to have that information in a number. The first two numbers meant this, the next two meant that, and the next three meant that. Everybody built all their information collections that way. A lot of that was pre-computer, or pre-general use of the computer.
Once we discovered what computers could do for us, as I'm sure you're aware, it became possible to have a random number with no meaning in it whatsoever. Whatever a person may or may not, by law, need to know about you was elsewhere in a computer; it absolutely was not in the number.
As for any question one might ask of the social insurance number or any other number you and I deal with that has embedded information in it, more often than not they are enormous systems, as Ron is implying, with lots of people carrying them in their pockets today. If we were to recreate the number, would we do that again? Absolutely not, as with any number that's been brought to birth in the last many years.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Perhaps an overall recommendation from the committee could be that we review this numbering system to prevent this kind of discrimination against Canadians. We're all Canadians. We may have come on a different boat, but we are all in the same boat now, so we should not have -
The Chair: Sarkis, if you don't mind, both Andy and Maurice would like to hitchhike on your question and we'll come back to you. Is that all right with you? Can we stay on that issue?
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I have another question related to this, if I may.
The Chair: Okay, and then Andy and Maurice, you jump in where you think it's appropriate.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Is there a system in the ministry that allows me to make a correction if there's wrong information on this? How do I go about correcting wrong information on this?
Mr. John Godfrey: Information that's held anywhere in your system.
The Chair: That's what everybody wants to know.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Good.
Ms Smith: If you want to correct any information that's held in any government data bank, you just have to approach the appropriate department and ask for that correction to be made.
The Chair: How do you know it needs to be corrected if you don't know what's on it in the first place?
Ms Smith: You could similarly go and ask for access to your records.
The Chair: Do people know where to go to ask for their records?
Mr. John Godfrey: How would it work in your case? Supposing you wanted to find out what information you had on employment insurance, hours worked, and all that kind of stuff. Can you say, ``I want to see my record; I want to see what you know about me''? How do you do it?
Ms Smith: If I were a person on the street, I would walk into my local human resources centre and I would ask for that information. I would not expect it to be available that instant, the moment I walked in, but I have a right to have access to those files and to see them.
[Translation]
The Chair: Do you want to add something, Maurice?
Mr. Maurice Bernier: Yes, I...
.1215
[English]
Mr. Andy Scott: If I walked into the HRDC office in Fredericton and asked for this information, would they tell me that the first number in my card represents the place I applied from? I don't think they're going to tell me that. Until this second - and thank God for Sarkis - I had no idea that existed.
This is a critical issue. A couple of times we've referred to the legislative framework. Unfortunately for us, we cannot possibly be expected to protect people legislatively against things we don't know exist. I didn't know. I'm a legislator. I didn't know that's what that meant.
One of the things we heard all last week is that we collect information simply because we can. Somehow privacy values are not applied to that exercise sufficiently. I've come to that conclusion. I don't think it's anybody's fault; I just don't think people think about that enough.
The problem we have as legislators is we don't know what information is collected. I'm sure if I walked into the HRDC office in Fredericton, they would not tell me that they know I applied for my social insurance number in New Brunswick because of the first number on my card. I don't know what they ask.
Off the street I don't know how to protect myself, and as a legislator I don't know how to protect Canada, because I don't know what to protect Canada from. That's why, going back to my original intervention, it's so incumbent on HRDC and other government departments to put mechanisms in place that are respectful of this issue and these values.
I welcomed Norine's talk about finding the balance. We'd like to appeal to the department to be very conscious of how concerned Canadians are about our collecting information simply because we have the capacity to do it.
The point was made that a lot of these things were collected before computers existed. Therefore the misuse of that information probably didn't exist. Now that it's collected and computers exist, it can be misused with a great deal of efficiency.
Mr. John Godfrey: It's misused faster.
Mr. Andy Scott: Therefore we have to actually review all the information we have to determine whether, in today's world, the information would be collected. I think you made the point that it wouldn't.
Ms Smith: I'm certainly not aware of any use that we, as a department, make of the fact that embedded in the SIN is an indication of the spot where the person applied for that SIN.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: But others may use it.
Ms Smith: I acknowledge that point. I'm just saying I'm not aware that it's a relevant piece of information for us, as a department that makes a lot of use of the social insurance number as a personal identifier.
It's an interesting question you've posed to us. If that's the case, why do we bother to continue to do that? That's a question I'll go back and find out more about.
With respect to your question as to whether somebody in the Fredericton office would know, I suspect it becomes almost part of general knowledge, just from the sheer fact that if you work in an office such as our local offices, where you are dealing with a steady stream of people who live and work in that area and who are applying for benefits using their social insurance numbers, it quickly becomes apparent that everybody's SIN, or the vast majority of people's SINs, starts with the same number. It's not part of the training program, if I could put it that way, but I would be very surprised if our staff didn't know there is a linkage between the number and where you applied.
Mr. Andy Scott: I'm about to make a terrible admission. I suspect we deal with SINs a lot too, and I have seen more client sheets with SINs than I care to think about. Actually I do most of the time. I must be thicker than most of the people in HRDC offices, because it never occurred to me. I look at these things all day, every day.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: From now on you will look for it.
Mr. Andy Scott: It never occured to me.
Ms Jean Augustine: It's because you're not a minority.
Mr. Andy Scott: I promise that I will not discriminate now that I know.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Check yours.
.1220
The Chair: There are two parts to this. First of all, we've been hearing about this committee that's looking at new technology and must know that those numbers identify regions, refugees, non-green card holders, and all the other aspects. To what extent are you examining this from a technological basis? We saw and we know that you can't protect this information in a different way in this era in which we're using digital, not analogue, numbers. That makes a big difference.
Secondly and more importantly, coming out of this discussion, a thing that bothers me more and more as we're moving to privatize everything in this world and divest ourselves of responsibility is this: how are you protecting that information that you have now in your huge computers that used to take up rooms three times this size and now take up small boxes? What is the protection? I didn't see any protection when we privatized Air Canada, and I didn't see any protection when employees were privatized in many of our sectors, except for one: VIA Rail.
What did you do with all that information? Who had access to it? Where were your rights to transfer that privacy information that you were holding, in terms of having both employed and unemployed people at certain points along the line? What is the implication for the department? Do you put any kind of privacy requirements into any contracts, subcontracts, or anything else you write?
Mr. McNaughton: I can't answer all of that, Madam Chair, but let me try parts of it.
The Chair: I would suggest you come back to us with a written response.
Mr. McNaughton: I can answer very explicitly some of the questions you asked, and I can offer to show the member from Don Valley North how to decode any credit cards he might have to determine whether his credit rating is good or bad. That's often encoded in your credit card. I mention this just so you're aware that some of this practice is not limited to government.
The Chair: Excuse me for interrupting you, but it took Warren Allmand, who is no longer on this committee, seven years to get mistakes on his credit rating cleared up. So we know that it's on the credit cards.
Mr. McNaughton: In the committee I referred to, composed of provinces, territories, and the federal government, I can tell you openly and honestly that I have heard no discussion whatsoever of what we would call the information embedded in the social insurance number - what that first number means. That has never been discussed in that room.
I hope you find it useful for me, the information person from the department, to tell you that after working for three years there and for 53 years in this country, today is also when I learned that number means something. I also, Mr. Scott, did not know that at all. It just never came to my attention one way or the other.
That can be changed, as Norine has implied, and we're pleased to go back and discuss it within our department to see what needs to be done. But it is not being discussed at all, Madam Chair, in that committee to which I made reference. The only thing being discussed there is the usefulness of providing enhanced service to know the same person at the federal and provincial level.
You've raised a very important question of, first and foremost, what the department does to protect information when it's stored in computers, be they big computers or small computers. We use every known product and tool, as do the banks and the private sector, that one can buy, install, and put in place to put as many locks as are appropriate on the drawers, whether you're talking about a smart card in somebody's pocket or the largest computer in the world with the largest disks in the world that contain all this information.
Today the tools we use in the computer world allow us to assign as many locks as one might like. If you think of a safety deposit box, it could be a box with zero locks, if that's what's appropriate, or it could be a box with ten locks. It could be a box that requires the Canadian, as well as the member of government serving, to insert a key. Technology allows that. We use the tools we can get. We don't invent these tools. We buy the same tools as every other -
The Chair: Mr. McNaughton, we're also advised in this committee that there has been leakage of information of a personal nature, information about the revenue of these parties - I thinkMr. Bernier can ask you that question - or information about their health or their employment. People are selling that on the black market.
Your locks, I guess, have the Houdini impact in certain instances, and information that could never be retrieved is being leaked. That's why we want to know what you're doing with respect to new technology and improved leakage prevention and when you're going to start to use digitized information to protect it.
.1225
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier: Ms Smith talked earlier about the need for all staff and management in her department to ensure the integrity of the employment insurance system. In other words, you have to make sure that the money is used appropriately.
I would like to know, concerning your staff training, how much attention is paid to privacy of personal information. In other words, as part of your staff training, what message are you sending them? Is priority given first and foremost to the integrity of the system, or do your staff members have to consider also human rights and privacy issues? Or, would you happen to believe such issue is rather incumbent upon the Privacy Commissioner?
[English]
Ms Smith: The privacy of personal information is a very important part of our staff training, and perhaps more important, I should phrase it as the operational culture within our offices.
Certain people are allowed access to certain information. As Mr. McNaughton was saying, we try to use passwords and codes and what have you to ensure that only those people who are supposed to have access to our databases, which provide a lot of this detailed information about individuals, do indeed have access to those databases.
For example, there are very strict codes of conduct in our offices about simple things like leaving computer screens up that have personal information displayed on them. This is not to be done. The screens are always closed down so passers-by can't get access to information they shouldn't have.
We also work very closely in many of our local offices with our provincial colleagues. Obviously there's an important interface between the social assistance system and the insurance program. It's just one example of an area where we enter into very explicit written agreements with provinces and with any agent with whom we might be contracting to help us deliver our programs and services.
There are privacy provisions in each of those agreements that control very explicitly the use of information and any sort of secondary use of that information. It's not just what we're going to make available to them and what they're going to make available to us, but it limits and circumscribes very concretely how they might make use of any information we make available to them with any third party.
So we're very concerned about privacy issues. We pay a lot of attention to them in the department to make sure we're correctly using the information we have. We only make it available to people who have a right to use it and we make sure they are handling that information properly as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier: Ms Smith, can you confirm that, in the case of employment insurance records, you are able to find out exactly who did access any specific record and how many times he actually did access it within a given period of time? Have you put in place any control mechanisms needed to know who did access someone's file, how many times and for which reason?
[English]
The Chair: I would presume so. I would hope so.
Mr. Stewart: The system actually works the other way. We can tell which files an individual has had access to.
The Chair: I remember Lloyd Axworthy talking about the one-stop shopping, apropos ofMr. Bernier's question, so one person is looking at my file every time I have a problem or I phone or I want information. Is it going to one person situated in Moncton or Fredericton or out in Vegreville? Who's looking at that? I think that's the nature of the question.
.1230
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier: Absolutely.
[English]
The Chair: And if you can't tell us how many hits go into that file, it's a pretty sad story.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier: Yet, that's what happened in Quebec City. You probably heard about that example, in Quebec, which was given by the Auditor General concerning the Department of Revenue. A Quebec artist's file - anyone knows whom I am talking about - was viewed somewhere between 500 and 600 times by 125 different people.
The Chair: One hundred and forty-seven times.
Mr. Maurice Bernier: No matter. That file was consulted by an unbelievable number of public servants. The number of individuals and the number of times may be known, but we are not able to know which individuals did access that file, and for what purpose. Could you assure us that you are in a position to control such information in your employment insurance offices?
[English]
Mr. Stewart: What is controlled is that we have a record of every single employee who has had a transaction or an inquiry into a file. In other words, we track it by the employees.
As Ms Smith was saying, in order to have access to a system, every employee has a user code and has restrictions on what they can do within that system. Depending on the level and type of job they have, restrictions are placed on their ability to do things within the system. There is an electronic trail of each employee transaction so that if you are an employee with user code 2, as an organization we can extract from the system every contact you had within the system.
The Chair: Okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier: It was referred earlier to information sharing with other departments. Someone gave the example of employment insurance data being shared with the Department of Immigration. How many departments is the employment insurance service dealing with? Which departments are they? Are there any other non-governmental organizations you are dealing with in terms of information requests and sharing? If so, which are they?
[English]
Mr. Stewart: As it relates to employment insurance benefits, at the national level we have an exchange-of-information agreement with one department, and that's Revenue Canada. Revenue Canada involves both taxation and customs. It's the department at the national level that we have an information exchange with.
Information is voluntarily provided to us by the private sector, and it's a one-way street. We provide nothing back to the private sector.
The Chair: What is the situation with the provinces?
Mr. Stewart: It would depend on the specific region. There might be agreements with individual provinces. For example, I know in British Columbia there's an agreement between the Department of Human Resources Development and the provincial ministry of corrections so that the Department of Human Resources Development would be aware of any EI claimants who were incarcerated and therefore ineligible for benefits, and we would stop paying them.
The Chair: Do you have that arrangement with the Solicitor General of Canada?
Mr. Stewart: We don't have that arrangement with the Solicitor General of Canada.
The Chair: So you're getting double paid, are you?
Mr. Stewart: No, I would hope not. For someone to maintain their claim while they're in the federal penitentiary, either they have an accomplice or they're committing fraud. We have programs to try to pick those up. Federally, we have an agreement with Revenue Canada at the national level, and as I said, we have some private sector operations.
The Chair: What about the Canada Pension Plan?
Mr. Stewart: That's part of our department.
The Chair: So therefore you have a sharing of information, which you forgot to mention, with the Canada Pension Plan and Revenue Canada.
Mr. Stewart: No. What I said, Madam Chair, is the only other federal department we share information with is Revenue Canada. The Canada Pension Plan is part of our department.
The Chair: Would you stop for one moment, please?
Mr. Stewart: Yes.
.1235
The Chair: What I think Mr. Bernier meant with his question...
We're talking about the broad landscape. We have been pretty well addressing ourselves to employment insurance, but what your department is looking at is much broader than that. You're looking at the Canada Pension Plan, the child benefit, the child tax credit, youth unemployment, scholarship grants, etc. It would be very important for us to have some idea - and perhaps you could give that to us in writing - of just where the cross-information takes you within the privacy rights of the individual. That's what we're really interested in knowing.
Mr. Maurice Bernier: That's it.
The Chair: Take a human being. This committee would like to know how many times and in how many ways the Government of Canada, in conjunction with the provincial and the territorial governments and in cooperation with the private sector, can share information on an individual - in his childhood, his youth, his adulthood, and his elder age - and under what circumstances that information can be shared.
That's what we would like to know. It would be very important for us to be able to address the issues of privacy rights of the individual, access to information, and informed consent.
I can tell you that according to a research study done in 1995, called Surveying Boundaries, 95% of the 2,400 people interviewed were very concerned about the issue of who should be informed, why, and how; and 80% were very concerned about whether people are informed in advance. In addition, 94% said it should be passed on only with permission, and 79% said companies could use it if people knew and could stop it.
So the population out there has told this committee a great deal. We have to try, in an informed way, to get this information, and if we don't know the question, we can't get the answer.
I don't know if I've given too broad a question. If any of my colleagues want to add to that question, please feel free to do so. Quite frankly we need this information as soon as possible. We want our report tabled in the House of Commons within the month.
I feel very guilty, because Jean has been the most patient soul at this table.
Jean, the floor is all yours, so long as you use question 6.
Mr. John Godfrey: She has human rights too.
The Chair: Yes. Please use question 6.
Ms Jean Augustine: Well, there are several things I can put on the table, not only my human rights, but never mind.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Ms Jean Augustine: I'm glad I had the opportunity to hear the questions of my colleagues, because those are basically the kinds of questions I had jotted down to ask the committee.
I want to take you back to the whole issue of accuracy of information collected. Over and over throughout our consultation, individuals were bringing to our attention that accuracy of information collected was really a concern - information collected by you and information collected by private industry. The mechanisms don't seem to be in place for the correction of that information. It seems as though it's like a snapshot photo that's taken at a specific point in time, and it's very difficult.
I can give you a personal example of having tried to help someone for the last three years. How long have we been elected? Over three years.
Mr. John Godfrey: We're in our fourth year.
Mr. Maurice Bernier: Too long now.
[Translation]
The Chair: Maurice, are you going to run for office in Ontario?
[English]
Ms Jean Augustine: Madam Chair, this man had been fighting to change a wrong birth date that had caught itself in the system, and had been at it for about three or four years before he came to my office. For the last four years we've been trying to get that sorted out. We've done everything possible - affidavits, letters from an MP, letters from neighbours and people who have known him, etc. - and we seem not to be able to correct that small bit of information.
I'm asking to what extent the mechanism is in place to allow individuals to review, to correct, and to make sure the information kept on them is really accurate and not a discretionary matter on the part of the individuals who are dealing with the specific file.
.1240
Ms Smith: The mechanisms are certainly in place. Without knowing the circumstances of that specific case, you have an example there where clearly there is something standing in the way of getting it corrected.
In principle the mechanisms are there. Every individual has the right to have access to their file, has the right to request correction of that information, and can take their case to the minister if they feel they are not getting the corrections they are looking for. There are Treasury Board policies that enunciate those procedures.
We certainly have as much interest as the individual would in ensuring the databases contain the correct, accurate information. It's very important for us as well. I don't know what more I can say, except there is certainly the will and the interest on the part of the keepers of these databases to ensure they are accurate.
The Chair: Ms Augustine, and then Russell.
Ms Jean Augustine: If we are getting into a national identifier - one number or one means of access - what assurances...? You have been talking about being around the table, with individuals talking about the system. What mechanisms are being put in place and what kinds of procedures are being talked about to ensure that accuracy and review?
Mr. McNaughton: One of the ideas we bring forward in the room of technical people, knowing what technology can do today, is the idea of you having a key that controls your information - who sees it, who doesn't.
We discuss the necessity of presenting information if one wishes a government benefit such as employment insurance, but there's an important difference: whether you have the key to that information or not. If you think of the banking system, you have to provide a key or personal identifier. That's the kind of key I'm talking about. We can do those kinds of things as we evolve into the future.
The other thing we love to talk about - it isn't clear how to make this happen, but our hearts are in the right place - is there is no reason you should not be readily able to see your information. You and I can go to a banking machine and see a bunch of stuff about ourselves and ourselves only. That idea should be able to be carried forward down the road into all our lives, private or public, so you can ensure it's correct.
The Chair: Yes, but have you signed a Visa card? Please, let's not forget that if you signed your Visa card, there's an access to the sharing of that information with others in the interest of marketing and sales.
Mr. McNaughton: Oh, I understand that, but that is not true of government information.
I'm speaking to the very valid question of: what is my right and ability - ability - to get at the information that anybody, private or public, has about me?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. McNaughton: We'd like to find the technological ways of doing that. Then lawmakers decide.
The Chair: I'm going to ask the following, as time is running short. I'm sorry, Russell, that you were out of the room. I know you had to go and help make quorum somewhere else.
I'm going to ask Russell to speak, and please respond to Russell. Then I know Mr. Scott,Mr. Godfrey, and Mr. Bernier may have short follow-up questions. I'm going to ask them to place the questions, and then if we have time the witnesses can answer them. If not, we'll ask for a written response. Okay? Thank you.
Please go ahead, Russell.
Mr. Russell MacLellan: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm pleased with the directions you gave and the information you requested. It covers an awful lot.
There's only one other aspect, though maybe it was covered while I was out of the room. The government now is in the habit of turning over certain things to the private sector to administer, and I'm thinking particularly of student loans. What assurance do we have of the privacy of these individuals once that information gets into the hands of the private sector?
.1245
Ms Smith: As I was mentioning earlier, whenever we enter into any arrangement with any kind of agent who acts on our behalf for the administration of our programs, there is a privacy protection provision in those arrangements that -
The Chair: What do you mean by ``a privacy protection''? What kinds of walls do you have that make it private?
Ms Smith: Maybe I could give you the example of the labour market agreements we are currently negotiating and have concluded with a couple of provinces. We are discussing the interests of all provinces about this.
A wide variety of things would be contained. An annex to that agreement deals specifically with protection of privacy. It says, for example, that all information the province would receive from us pursuant to the administration of these programs would be subject to the Privacy Act.
It says the information provided to the province would also be subject to their privacy act. In those provinces where the provincial privacy act is not as strong as the federal one, there would be provisions that would try to strengthen the -
Mr. Russell MacLellan: With due respect, I don't want to interrupt the witness, Madam Chair, but I'm more concerned with the private sector.
I was here when the negotiations were being discussed with the provinces. Those are in formative stages now, but with the private sector this is actually happening. I want to know what assurances they're getting from the private sector and what sanctions are in place, should the private sector breach their fiduciary duty in this regard.
The Chair: That second part is also a very important key.
Ms Smith: These would be similar provisions.
Mr. Russell MacLellan: What do you mean by ``similar provisions''? You can't have similar provisions between governments to those in the private sector. There have to be differences.
Ms Smith: Perhaps the easiest thing for me to do to provide clarity on that would be to provide the committee with an example of exactly what kind of protection we require.
The Chair: Here's what we really would like to know.
To support Mr. MacLellan's question, the sanctions and the size and weight of those sanctions as a sincere deterrent is an issue. If you're going to fine them $1,000, they don't care what they do.
What was the fine they told us? One company was fined $50,000, which is a much more substantive deterrent than just a cursory slap on the fingers. Do you want to add anything to that?
Mr. Russell MacLellan: No. Other members want to ask questions.
Mr. Andy Scott: I'd like to add to the chair's request with regard to what's included inside the department. Very specifically, as for the labour market agreement that was reached with the Province of New Brunswick, I understand the province will be limited by the Privacy Act federally, as it relates to the information collected by the Government of Canada.
But that changes that circle quite considerably, because I know for a fact that the province is going to be using that information and coupling with social assistance and labour market stuff. Consequently, now we're not just talking about CPP, OAS, student loans, and all that; we're talking about bringing in social assistance and a number of things, perhaps even the Solicitor General's department in the province.
We're really making some considerable leaps here. Maybe there are fire walls built in, but we need to know that.
The second thing has to do with the private sector. It's much more simple and practical than some global thing in terms of outsourcing some service. I have a very specific question. Say you advise an employer that an employee is in an overpayment repayment position and you're going to recover that payment through the employer. Is the employer under any limitation as to who he can tell that to? Who can he tell?
I have a case of a person who hasn't worked for a couple of years. He can't get a job because no employer will hire him. They all go back to his previous employer, who tells them the guy's no good because he has an overpayment on EI. He wants that taken off his record so he can get a job.
.1250
Is there no limit on that employer being able to tell everybody in the city of Fredericton that this person has an overpayment that is being garnished?
The Chair: Wouldn't you say his privacy has been permanently abridged?
Mr. Andy Scott: I'm curious as to what limitation is on that employer, who is basically providing a service of collection on behalf of HRDC.
Mr. Stewart: There is no limitation on that employer. The actual authority for the collection of that is quite often the Financial Administration Act. It's an issue for every organization that collects overpayments. I am certainly not aware of any limitation on an employer's ability to communicate information.
The Chair: John.
Mr. John Godfrey: I'd like to add to your little pile of homework.
I suppose the first question is both general and then specific, and it really is addressed toMr. McNaughton. It has to do with systems use designed from the top, and then systems as actually applied at the ground level.
The example I was thinking of, which came to mind as you were talking - and I think actually it was Mr. Stewart who was talking about it - is the whole notion of tracking which of your civil servants is looking at other people's cases, so you need to put in ``user code 2'' and so on. But in other jurisdictions, looking at hospital information for instance, just the way a computer works on the ground, you boot it up in the morning, you turn it on, you log on, and then you leave it going, because it's much easier than having to restart the whole thing.
I don't know enough about the system. It may be that every time you have a specific request or application, you have to log on user code 2, but in the case of the hospitals, anyone passing any booted-up keyboard could go in and find what they were looking for. It's just convenience.
That's a reality ground check, and I'm wondering whether, when you consider your systems, there's that kind of check.
The second question is really to try to refine and push further the point the chair was raising. In terms of the internal data matching of HRDC, really there are two issues. One is what matches currently take place and why, and what is the current regime? Secondly, what are the regulations for that internal data matching? What are the internal protections?
Those are the two issues: what currently takes place - and presumably quite a lot could take place between all these various functions - and how do we regulate that? How does an individual know that those match?
The third question is how does an individual know that you have been matching up OAS information with CPP information, employment insurance information, etc.?
Am I helping or hindering the request for what you want?
The Chair: You're always helpful, John, to all of us.
[Translation]
Maurice, do you have something to add?
[English]
I want to thank you very much for appearing. You might sense the degree of concern that has come to our attention, because the view from our microscope, from our lens, is the human rights view and the privacy rights of the individual in a free and open democracy such as Canada, which is a very unusual and open democracy. The sense that Big Brother is out there somewhere seems to be quite pervasive, and that is not the kind of society Canadians want. They're not tolerant of that kind of sense.
I think we all feel a sense of responsibility, as I'm sure you do, that no more information than is necessary be provided, and that the fulsomeness of freedoms we think we should enjoy is not constrained by the efficiencies and the bureaucracies that will effect savings in our society.
I'd be very curious to know the extent of the savings we're undertaking with all the streamlining we're doing. Is there a way of indicating to us the savings and at what personal cost they come? This is a question I would ask you to look at.
If we are effecting savings in the big, overall picture, what are we doing with those savings? Are they going to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, are they going to enrich our unemployment insurance, or are they going to help pay scholarships? Are they going to address the poverty of children, which is absolutely unacceptable? Are they going to give us some money so the privacy commissioner can have a decent and sizeable staff or the Human Rights Commission can do the job they need to do adequately?
.1255
This is very vital to all of us, and I'm sure to you as well. I know you have lots of other responsibilities, but this committee has an obligation to table a report, and we would appreciate your cooperation in getting that information to us as quickly as possible.
I want to remind our committee that we have two obligations. First of all, tomorrow we're going to have the pleasure of meeting the disabled person who won the Centennial Flame Research Award. That's going to take place at 3:30 p.m. We will then have a reception with the two Speakers from the House and the Senate at 4:30 p.m. in the Commonwealth Room. That's tomorrow. I will be delighted to welcome these people. Thursday is the last meeting of this committee before the break and our research staff, both parliamentary and policy...
What are you again? I keep forgetting. I know you're important, but I can't remember the terminology.
Mr. John Godfrey: He's always protecting his privacy.
The Chair: The research staff - political, legal, and whatever - need some guidelines from us so they can do the draft for us. I would appreciate it if you would look at the charter from Australia and some of the other documents that have been given to us so we can give drafting instructions.
That's tomorrow, and Thursday we'll be through. You don't have to hear from us until after the break.
Now, John.
Mr. John Godfrey: I have a quick question in response to what Mr. Thompson raised as general information.
Could you remind us, when you're sending us the information package, of what your best estimates are for the number of people who actually cheat on employment insurance? I know my impression is it's much lower than myth would have you believe, but could you give us sources for that kind of information - your best guess on how much you think it costs us? You've given some sort of information on the way through, but this is on the efficiency side of the equation.
The Chair: Thank you very much for being with us and for sharing the information. We look forward to your responses as soon as possible. Thank you.
Meeting adjourned.