The last hearing before Parliament's holiday recess took place on Wednesday with the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Dental Association, and the Canadian Pharmacists Association providing their views on the legislation. Natalie Senst provides the full details:
The PIPEDA hearings continued on Monday with a robust debate on order making power, naming names, and the effect of contractual provisions on privacy protection. The Information Technology Association of Canada uniformally argued that PIPEDA works fine, changes are unnecessary and costly, and dismissed proposed provisions such as naming names or order making power. My colleague Ian Kerr focused on contractual issues, while the Canadian Bar Association supported order making power with the development of a new tribunal.
While I was not in attendance, the notes from the hearing suggest that this hearing would be better named "ITAC Attacks". In its zeal to dissuade the committee from recommending any changes, ITAC made several unsubstantiated claims including claims that most organizations approach the commissioner where security breaches occur, that there is a good level of privacy compliance in Canada, and that the U.S. is not less prone to privacy invasions than Canada (all offered without reference to any supporting study). It would be worth noting which companies comprise ITAC's membership and inquire directly whether they support the strongest assault yet on reforms that might improve Canada's privacy law framework.
The full notes of the day's event, from Kathleen Simmons, are posted below:
The PIPEDA hearings continued on Wednesday with CIPPIC, PIAC, and the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association providing their views. While I was unable to find a student to blog the event, CIPPIC has posted its meeting notes and speaking notes.
The Privacy Commissioner of Canada has released a new fact sheet on TPMs. While explicitly not taking a position on TPMs, DRM or fair use, the Commissioner does identify some concerns with the privacy impact of the technology. In fact, the Commissioner opens the discussion by noting that: The use […]
Wednesday's PIPEDA hearing featured B.C. Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis and University of Ottawa professor Val Steeves. Commissioner Loukidelis went even further than the federal privacy commissioner in downplaying significant change. Loukidelis downplayed his order making power (a last resort), security breach notification (more evidence on impact needed), and even the concerns associated with cross-border transfers to the U.S. (can always pick a different private sector company). Professor Steeves highlighted the privacy challenges posed by new technologies and offered some specific reform recommendations. Natalie Senst was in attendance on Wednesday afternoon and she filed the following report:
Canada’s DST Debacle a Case Study of Digital Strategy Trouble 
Canadian Government Caves on Digital Services Tax After Years of Dismissing the Risks of Trade Retaliation 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 238: David Fraser on Why Bill C-2’s Lawful Access Powers May Put Canadians’ Digital Security At Risk 
Ignoring the Warning Signs: Why Did the Canadian Government Dismiss the Trade Risks of a Digital Services Tax? 
Why Bill C-2 Faces a Likely Constitutional Challenge By Placing Solicitor-Client Privilege at Risk
Michael Geist
mgeist@uottawa.ca
This web site is licensed under a Creative Commons License, although certain works referenced herein may be separately licensed.
