IAPP CIPP-C - Certified Information Privacy Professional/ Canada (CIPP/C)

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada reports to the Parliament of Canada, specifically to both the House of Commons and the Senate. This structure supports the Commissioner's role as an officer of Parliament, emphasizing the independence necessary for overseeing the government's adherence to privacy laws and handling Canadians' personal information. The reporting relationship ensures accountability and enables the Commissioner to report on privacy issues directly to the legislative body that represents the interests of the public.

In addressing emerging AI issues, frameworks that are specific to product safety, copyright, or criminal behavior may provide some indirect governance, but their applicability is limited compared to more direct regulatory mechanisms. Among the options listed, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act is the least effective in addressing AI issues as this act is specifically targeted towards the safety regulations of motor vehicles and is less applicable to broader AI issues that may involve data privacy, ethical considerations, and other non-vehicle-specific technologies. Therefore, while AI can be involved in vehicle safety, this act is less equipped to broadly address emerging AI issues beyond automotive safety standards. Hence, the correct answer is B, "The Motor Vehicle Safety Act."

In the context of Canadian privacy law and specifically according to the principles derived from PIPEDA and relevant case law such as the Eastman case, video cameras in the workplace begin collecting personal information at the moment a recording occurs. This is because the recording captures identifiable images of individuals, thereby constituting the collection of personal information under privacy legislation. The act of recording, which captures and stores visual data, meets the definition of personal information collection since it involves storing images from which individuals can be identified. Therefore, the correct answer is A, "At the moment a recording occurs."

Under the Alberta Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), when a real risk of significant harm (RROSH) from a data breach has been determined, the organization must notify both the individuals affected and the Privacy Commissioner of Alberta. The law requires that notifications include the description of the personal information involved in the breach, the number of individuals affected, and the steps taken to reduce or mitigate harm. However, a description of the steps the organization will take to notify affected individuals is part of the process following the assessment and initial report, not an immediate requirement when notifying the Commissioner of the RROSH itself.

The Privacy Act governs how federal government institutions handle personal information. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada has highlighted limitations within the Act regarding outsourcing, specifically:

Lack of Explicit Accountability: While the Privacy Act implies the government institution remains responsible for the personal information, the Commissioner argues that the law needs a clearer, more explicit statement to ensure full accountability when it's outsourced.

Outsourcing & Privacy Risks: Outsourcing government functions to third parties can add complexity and risk to the protection of personal information.

References:

You can find discussions of the Privacy Commissioner's position on outsourcing in reports and resources on the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) website: https://priv.gc.ca/en/

Why Other Options Are Less Relevant

A. Preventing subcontracting: While controlling further subcontracting might be important, it's not the primary concern identified by the Commissioner.

B. Commissioner's order power: While the Commissioner advocates for greater powers, this is not the specific gap in the Privacy Act related to outsourcing.

C. Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs): PIAs are crucial, but the Commissioner's argument highlights that even with PIAs, the Act lacks clear accountability language when the information leaves the government institution.

Key Points

The Privacy Commissioner plays an advocacy role, identifying areas where privacy legislation could be strengthened.

Accountability is crucial in all privacy contexts, especially when third parties handle sensitive data.

The "circle of care" concept under Canadian health information privacy law refers to the ability of health information custodians to assume implied consent when disclosing personal health information (PHI) to other health information custodians for the purpose of providing health care. This concept allows for the seamless sharing of PHI among providers like doctors, nurses, and pharmacists, who are directly involved in the care of the individual, without requiring express consent for each exchange of information within this circle. The principle is based on the assumption that the disclosure is made in the patient's best interests for their ongoing care. Therefore, the correct answer is D, "Consent must be expressed or implied when a custodian discloses personal health information (PHI) to another custodian for the purpose of providing health care."

The role of Canadian courts in reviewing decisions made by provincial oversight authorities generally involves examining whether there have been specific types of errors in the decision-making process, such as a misinterpretation of a term in the legislation or application of the law. This judicial review focuses on the legality and reasonableness of the decisions, ensuring that oversight authorities correctly interpret and apply the legislative framework governing privacy and data protection. This review does not extend to re-evaluating all investigative notes or comparing decisions across different provincial authorities, as such tasks are beyond the scope of a typical judicial review process. Therefore, Option C correctly describes the court's role.

Individuals can determine whether their personal information was used by the federal government for data matching by referring to descriptions of the Personal Information Banks (PIBs) available through Info Source. Info Source is a series of publications and an online resource designed to assist individuals in understanding how the government manages personal information. It is managed by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and provides information about the existence, purpose, and use of personal information banks within government institutions. This resource is the most direct and reliable way for individuals to identify how their personal data is handled and if it has been used for data matching purposes.

A significant difference between the federal Privacy Commissioner and provincial privacy commissioners in Canada is in their enforcement powers. Provincial privacy commissioners, such as those in Alberta and British Columbia, have the authority to order organizations to take specific actions to comply with provincial privacy laws. This can include orders to stop certain practices or to take corrective measures. In contrast, the federal Privacy Commissioner, overseeing federal statutes like the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), primarily makes recommendations following investigations and must seek court orders to enforce compliance. Thus, the correct answer is A, "Provincial commissioners can order an organization to act."