Privacy tribunal needed in Digital Charter, ISED continues to tell MPs

The House of Commons Industry Committee continued its clause-by-clause study of Bill C-27, the Digital Charter Act Wednesday. Discussion centred around whether or not a privacy tribunal is needed. Previously, Conservative MP Ryan Williams brought forth an amendment to dispense with the proposed panel. His colleague Rick Perkins then introduced a sub-amendment to tighten up the language. Those two motions continue to take up most of the committee members’ time. Williams stated his concern that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) may be overburdened by the establishment of a tribunal. His party prefers private rights of action, which would allow aggrieved parties to access the courts to remedy their concerns. Samir Chchabra is director general of the marketplace framework policy branch of the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED). He appeared alongside senior director of ISED’s strategy and innovation policy sector Runa Angus as expert witnesses. Chchabra does not believe the OPC would be affected by the adoption of a tribunal. “There would be no impact on the investigatory functions of the office of the privacy commissioner as a result of having a tribunal available,” he told MPs. “The tribunal would play two main functions as we discussed recently: one would be to make decisions about administrative monetary penalties that would be recommended by the office of the privacy commissioner and the second would be to form a body to hear appeals of those decisions.” Decisions by the tribunal would be final whereas a court case would start the whole process from scratch, he added. He worried that without a tribunal, appellate courts could rule that the privacy commissioner did not have constitutional authority to make some of the decisions he made. Court proceedings are also costlier to those bringing the action and can take several years before reaching a resolution. The tribunal as imagined would have three to six members, half of whom must have a background in privacy law, serving a five-year term. It would have powers not currently given to the OPC due to privacy concerns. This is a normal course of events in other jurisdictions, Chhabra stated. “Whether we’re looking at the UK, or Ireland, as we gave examples last time, or Australia or New Zealand or Singapore, almost all have a system or a mechanism in place to separate the investigative and adjudicative functions,” he explained. Without a tribunal, the OPC would be a toothless regulator, he asserted. If the measure is adopted, it would give the office more power and credibility. In her testimony, Angus noted the Supreme Court has said that tribunals are, as a rule, less cumbersome than proceeding through the legal system. The process is also faster and cheaper, she stated. New Democrat MP Brian Masse said he was not convinced a tribunal is the best way to proceed. If he joins with the Tories to abolish the measure, Bloc Québécois MP Jean-Denis Garon would be the swing vote. The six Liberal members are in favour of the tribunal. Conservative MP Brad Vis wondered where the money would come from to finance the tribunal, since the OPC was not given more money in Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland’s recent budget. Chchambra replied that the office was given more money in the 2023 budget. Garon began the session by introducing a separate motion regarding the establishment of cell phone service by Loblaw Companies Ltd. He is concerned that anti-competitive behaviour will arise out of the deal. He requested that the heads of the wireless companies, the chair of Loblaws and the Competition Commissioner be summoned to appear before the committee to explain the situation. Wednesday’s meeting adjourned without a vote on either Williams’ amendment or Perkins’ sub amendment. There are still many more amendments for the committee to consider, with no time currently allotted to discuss them. Committee chair Joël Lightbound reminded his fellow parliamentarians of this as he lowered his gavel to end the debate. “I hope that this summer will make us reflect on where we want to go with this bill,” he said. – Reporting by Paul Park at ppark@thewirereport.ca

Privacy tribunal needed in Digital Charter, ISED continues to tell MPs

News | May 30, 2024

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Privacy tribunal needed in Digital Charter, ISED continues to tell MPs

News | May 30, 2024

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Privacy tribunal unlikely to get through INDU’s look at Bill C-27

Private rights of action could undermine privacy commissioner, MPs told

INDU debates necessity of privacy tribunal in Bill C-27

INDU committee stuck on amendments to ‘sensitive data’ in Digital Charter Act

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us