What Happened to the PIPEDA Review?

Section 29 of PIPEDA, Canada’s private sector privacy law, requires Parliament to review the portion that deals with data protection every five years.  The first review started in 2006 and led (after considerable delay) to the reforms found in Bill C-12, which is currently languishing in the House of Commons. Bill C-12 notably includes mandatory security breach disclosure requirements. Given the requirement to review the law every five years, the law requires a review in 2011. Yet with the House of Commons now on a break for the holidays, it appears that the review will not happen in a timely fashion as required by law. I don’t know what – if anything – is planned, but unless I’ve missed something as it stands now it appears that the government will fail to comply with the PIPEDA review requirements.  

Tags: /


  1. Yeah? And?
    So the Harper government has (once again) shown it’s contempt for it’s obligations and all Canadians.

    It’s not like this is something new.

  2. ..
    The whole thing is a joke. They have to get “Un”Lawful Access passed first, before reviewing and amending PIPEDA to match since, I would imagine “Un”Lawful Access conflicts with some key points in PIPEDA. Perhaps not, but I can’t see how they can co-exist without directly conflicting with each other.

  3. ETHI has it listed
    ETHI lists a “Report of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada on the application of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act” among its current Studies, at . But it appears that nothing has been scheduled, yet.

  4. Russell McOrmond says:

    “Mandatory” review….
    Funny how these “mandatory reviews” are used to claim that fixes to problems can come quickly, as alleged with C11 TPMs, and yet there it nothing mandatory about the reviews (IE: no remedy when the govenment doesn’t bother/etc).

  5. To comply with mandatory reviews governments need to allow politcal convenience as an exemption.

  6. The Trudeau years…
    …. all over again.

  7. Drat!! … that crazy public interest nonsense

    “an analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, faulted the FCC for interfering with the case… the judge would have been evaluating the deal under the “nebulous” standard of the “public interest.”

    Yes, rather that the straight cut clarity of corporate greed 0_o