Category: General Interviews

Posted on

BCOHRC Deliberately Misrepresents Basic Information In Vaccination “Guidance”

The following piece comes from a “guidance document” that the BC Office of the Human Rights Commissioner recently published. In short, people CAN lose their jobs or livelihood.

To be clear, the Government won’t mandate this for B.C. That being said, employers will have wide discretion to require it, if they deem it “essential”. Is enabling all that much better?

Their media representative, Elaine (her last name has been scrubbed) was evasive, and tap danced around important information. This included: (a) vaccines not being approved, but having interim authorization; (b) how experimental vaccines can be pushed given BC cancelled its state of emergency; (c) the lack of long term testing; and (d) indemnified manufacturers, among other things

In short, the BCOHRC seems more content with the “illusion” of protecting human rights, rather than “actually” protecting human rights.

If Elaine, or her employer, cared about so-called marginalized people, they wouldn’t allow for experimental injections to be a condition of certain jobs. Despite all the social justice nonsense on their website, it’s clear that it’s all just for show.

From page 3:

Policies that treat people differently based on whether they have been vaccinated—“vaccination status policies”—must remain consistent with the obligations legislated under B.C.’s Human Rights Code. Individuals must be protected from discrimination based on their place of origin, religion, physical or mental disability, family status or other Code-protected ground.

Employers, landlords and service providers (duty bearers) can, in some limited circumstances, implement vaccination status policies—but only if other less intrusive means of preventing COVID-19 transmission are inadequate for the setting and if due consideration is given to the human rights of everyone involved.

Vaccination status policies should be justified by scientific evidence relevant to the specific context, time-limited and regularly reviewed, proportional to the risks they seek to address, necessary due to a lack of less-intrusive alternatives and respectful of privacy to the extent required by law. In applying such a vaccination
status policy, duty bearers must accommodate those who cannot receive a vaccine to the point of undue hardship.

No one’s safety should be put at risk because of others’ personal choices not to receive a vaccine. Just as importantly, no one should experience harassment or unjustifiable discrimination when there are effective alternatives to vaccination status policies.

People must be protected based on certain identity groups. But humans as a whole aren’t worth consideration. Now, from page 6:

Evidence-based — Evidence (of the risk of transmission in the specific setting) is required to justify policies that restrict individual rights for the purpose of protecting collective public health or workplace safety. Such policies must be aligned with up-to date public health recommendations and reflect current medical and epidemiological understanding of the specific risks the policy aims to address.

But once again, these are not approved, and there is no long term testing. From page 7:

The COVID-19 vaccines approved by Health Canada have proven highly effective at protecting individuals from COVID-19 infection and serious illness.

Except they aren’t approved. From page 8:

Migrant and undocumented workers, many of whom do not have a Personal Health Number, may be unaware they are eligible for the vaccine or concerned about revealing their immigration status.

Interesting the concern for “undocumented workers”, which is a euphemism for illegal aliens. The BCOHRC cares more about people illegally in the country than legitimate safety concerns of their guidelines. From page 10:

In my view, a person who chooses not to get vaccinated as a matter of personal preference—especially where that choice is based on misinformation or misunderstandings of scientific information—does not have grounds for a human rights complaint against a duty bearer implementing a vaccination status policy.

It would be nice to know what “misinformation or misunderstandings” would apply here. And in fact, that question was posed to Elaine. But as stated, the BCOHRC seems more concerned about appearing to care about human rights, than actually caring about human rights. Continuing from page 11:

Conclusion
It is in challenging times that it is most critical to place human rights at the centre of our decision making. No one’s safety should be put at risk because of other people’s personal choices not to receive a vaccine, and no one should experience harassment or unjustified discrimination when there are effective alternatives to vaccination
status policies.

We must all guard against the impulse to react out of fear, speculation and stereotyping. Restrictions imposed in the name of safety must be justified based on the most current public health recommendations reflecting the best available medical and scientific evidence, relevant to a specific setting.

While these paragraphs sound great, the BCOHRC is more concerned about optics and pretending to care about human rights.

Though this document doesn’t officially call for mandatory injections, it’s intended to provide instructions on how employers can get around it.

When specifically asked about approved v.s. authorized injections, Elaine pivots by claiming it’s not the place of the BCOHRC to provide medical advice. If she was being straightforward, this issue would have been addressed directly.

And no, this isn’t just some academic musings. Elaine made it clear that the BCOHRC intended for this document to be used as a guideline throughout B.C.

(1) https://bchumanrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/BCOHRC_Jul2021_Vaccination-Policy-Guidance_FINAL.pdf
(2) BCOHRC_Jul2021_Vaccination-Policy-Guidance_FINAL
(3) Section 30.1, Canada Food & Drug Act
(4) Interim (Emergency) Order Signed By Patty Hajdu
(5) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(6) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(7) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
(8) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

In case anyone thinks this may be unfair, here is the entire email exchange, going back to last week. Does it sound like a person giving straightforward answers?

From: Ronnie Lempert editor@canucklaw.ca
Sent: July 14, 2021 1:51 PM
To: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Subject: media request for information on document

Hello,

I run a small site in BC and came across this

https://bchumanrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/BCOHRC_Jul2021_Vaccination-Policy-Guidance_FINAL.pdf

There are some questions about its implementation, as it would impact readers.

Any chance of getting in touch?

Thanks,
Ronnie (Editor)
XXX-XXX-XXXX

From: “XXXXXXXX Elaine OHRC:EX” Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 2:09 PM
To: “editor@canucklaw.ca” editor@canucklaw.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Ronnie,

Thank you for reaching out to us.

The Commissioner is not doing media on this release, and of course implementation and roll out decisions are going to come from government and other agencies, not BCOHRC

However, if you have specific questions about the guidance that fall within our jurisdiction, if you send them to me via email, I will check and see if there is any more information we have to provide to you.

Thank you,
Elaine

Elaine XXXXXXX (she/her)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Communications
BC’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner
Office: 1-844-922-XXXX | Cell: 1-250-216-XXXX
bchumanrights.ca | @humanrights4bc

From: Ronnie Lempert editor@canucklaw.ca
Sent: July 14, 2021 2:33 PM
To: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Elaine

I’d hoped to ask in person, but here are the important parts.

(1) The Government takes its advice from the BCOHRC, does it not? So wouldn’t your reports and recommendations be considered, at a minimum?

(2) This document says on the top of page 10:
In my view, a person who chooses not to get vaccinated as a matter of personal preference—especially where that choice is based on misinformation or misunderstandings of scientific information—does not have grounds for a human rights complaint against a duty bearer implementing a vaccination status policy.

Okay, specifically, what would be a misunderstanding or what would count as misinformation?

(3) Middle of page 7, it’s stated that the vaccines are “approved by Health Canada”. However, when looking up the product inserts, they don’t say approved anywhere. They say “authorized under an interim order”.

https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

So, are these vaccines approved, or are they given interim authorization? They are not the same thing.

(4) Considering that testing has gone on for about a year, how can the BCOHRC say with any confidence if and what any side effects would be in 5 or 10 years?

(5) Are the manufacturers indemnified against lawsuits from any injury?

(6) Will the BCOHRC assume any responsibility/liability if this policy were implemented for any injuries/deaths?

(7) What cost/benefit analysis was done in coming to the decision that mandatory vaccines may be required? Could I have a copy of those studies?

(8) Has the extensive legal history, particularly with Pfizer, been any sort of deterrent in coming to this kind of decision?

(9) Does imposing this vaccination requirement result in a backdoor vaccine passport?

(10) Considering BC ended its state of emergency June 30, what is the legal basis for allowing the requirement of these vaccines?

(11) If my boss fired me for refusing a vaccine based on the above questions, what would the BCOHRC do? Would you determine that the employer has a right to demand them? Would you determine that I am uninformed?

I realize this is a lot, but that document is a cause for concern.

Thanks,
Ronnie

From: “XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX” Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 3:14 PM
To: “editor@canucklaw.ca” editor@canucklaw.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hi Ronnie,

That’s a long list. I will see if I can help clarify where possible.

I am sure you understand several of these questions are out of scope.

It’s nearing end of day. Would you let me know of your deadline please?

Thank you,
Elaine

From: Ronnie Lempert editor@canucklaw.ca
Sent: July 14, 2021 4:06 PM
To: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Elaine,

There isn’t a specific deadline, but whenever they can be done.

If there is someone in a different department or division who might have insight on some of them, they are welcome to add it in as well.

I realize this is a lot, but the kind of audience I write for doesn’t like the idea that their livelihoods could be conditional on taking this, for the issues outlined below

Thanks,
Ronnie

P.S. you are always welcome to visit the site if any of the content interests you.
https://canucklaw(dot)ca

From: “XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX” Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 2:14 PM
To: “editor@canucklaw.ca” editor@canucklaw.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hi Ronnie,

I am able to get back to you today with clarifications from our Office.

This document is intended to provide guidance to duty bearers under B.C.’s Human Rights Code, including employers, housing providers, service providers, and government insofar as government plays each of these roles. Our hope is that duty bearers will consider – and follow – our recommendations.

You will note that this guidance does not contain a recommendation that government put into place a mandatory vaccine requirement, but it does allow for proof-of-vaccine requirements in some circumstances.

Our legislative mandate empowers us to provide public guidance and recommendations on matters of public policy by clarifying existing human rights laws and advising how new laws and public policy must be adapted to adhere to them. You can read the provisions of B.C.’s Human Rights Code here.

It is not within our mandate to provide medical advice. We rely on public health guidance issued by the Office of the Provincial Health Officer and the BC Centres for Disease Control, and invite you to refer to their work.

It is also not within our mandate to address individual human rights complaints. All human rights complaints in the province – including those made concerning COVID-19 accommodations such as masking and vaccination – are managed by a separate entity, the BC Human Rights Tribunal. You can read more about the purpose and function of the BC Human Rights Tribunal here.

Thank you,
Elaine

From: Ronnie Lempert editor@canucklaw.ca
Sent: July 15, 2021 3:08 PM
To: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Elaine,

If you hope that your recommendations will be followed, then what’s wrong with getting clarification from your office? I’m trying to determine exactly what you are calling for.

As just one example, these vaccines have interim authorization under an emergency order, (an emergency now cancelled in BC). See attached screenshots. On page 7 of the document they are referred to as “approved”, which distorts the truth. Does this concern you?

On page 10 of the document, it’s stated that people who refuse to get it for person reasons will not be protected. It also states that misinformation or misunderstandings are not an excuse. It’s a valid question to ask what qualifies as “misinformation”.

Also, does pointing out the lack of long term testing, or manufacturer indemnification count as misinformation?

To be blunt, it appears that the BCOHRC is empowering employers and others to force/coerce people into taking it, while glossing over the experimental status of these vaccines.

A human rights approach to proof of vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic (bchumanrights.ca)

Hopefully I’m wrong,
Thanks,
Ronnie

From: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX” Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 5:07 PM
To: “editor@canucklaw.ca” editor@canucklaw.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Ronnie,

As discussed last week, here is additional clarification from our Office.

To clarify, our Office focuses on promoting and protecting human rights through education, research, advocacy, monitoring and public inquiry into issues of systemic discrimination in the province. Our legislative mandate is specifically focused on systemic discrimination, and therefore we are not able to comment on individual cases nor can we provide legal advice.

The vaccination status guidance offers general advice on how duty bearers can respect human rights if developing vaccination status policies — that is, policies that treat people differently based on whether or not they have been vaccinated against COVID-19.

B.C.’s Human Rights Commissioner Kasari Govender and our Office have not advocated for mandatory vaccination.

The purpose of the guidance document is to provide a human rights based lens to the development of vaccination status policies. It offers general advice on how duty bearers should respect human rights law when developing policies that treat people differently based on whether or not they have been vaccinated against COVID-19. The document follows current health guidance from the PHO and BCCDC, as well as sources cited in the guidance document and footnotes.

It is the position of BCOHRC that human rights law provides that duty bearers (such as employers) can implement vaccination status policies, only if less intrusive means of preventing transmission are not possible and with accommodations in place, as per the guidance. Vaccination status policies must remain consistent with the obligations legislated under B.C.’s Human Rights Code.

I hope this clarifies for you. We don’t have anything to add that isn’t already in the guidance, so suggest if you are looking for more specific details on potential future scenarios or the legal parameters of instituting proof of vaccination policies (these are still evolving as this is such a new issue across the board), that you seek context from a lawyer experienced in human rights, privacy and workplace law.

Thank you,
Elaine

From: Ronnie Lempert editor@canucklaw.ca
Sent: July 19, 2021 6:59 PM
To: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Elaine,

My biggest concern — one which is getting sidestepped here, it that you are laying out guidelines for EXPERIMENTAL and UNAPPROVED vaccines (interim authorization is not approved), and never make it clear that that this is the case. In short, the recommendations are based on misleading, or at best, incomplete information.

Saying “we don’t provide legal advice” is a bit of a cop out, since policies will likely be drafted based on the recommendations your office makes.

For the record, is it BCOHRC’s position that these are fully approved? Or just authorized for emergency use?

On a semi-related note: I’m curious what studies or cost/benefit analysis has been done, either for this, or for you recommendations on masks. Anything that debated or considered physical or psychological harms? Do you have anything you could share? Alternatively, is there anything publicly posted that you relied on? I’d like to see specifically what science has been relied on.

Thanks.
Ronnie

Hi Ronnie,

You can read all of our current and past COVID-19 guidance, including footnotes and references here: https://bchumanrights.ca/key-issues/covid-19/

You can read Health Canada information about vaccines here: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drugs-vaccines-treatments/vaccines.html

We have nothing further to add or say that has not already been published.

Thank you,
Elaine

An astute person will realize that not once did she address the issue of these “vaccines” being authorized under a (now cancelled) emergency order, and not approved.

Posted on

Unifor Denies Crawling Into Bed With Government

(The new release from the Federal Government)

(Not surprising, the endless pandering about the “wage gap”)

1. The Media Is Not Loyal To The Public

Truth is essential in society, but the situation in Canada is worse than people imagine. In Canada (and elsewhere), the mainstream media, periodicals, and fact-checkers are subsidized, though they deny it. Post Media controls most outlets in Canada, and many “independents” have ties to Koch/Atlas. Real investigative journalism is needed, and some pointers are provided.

2. Fall 2018 Economic Update

economic.update.2018

The good part starts on page 40 of the Update. It has to do with “Support For Canadian Journalism”

Here is the problem that the Canadian Government identifies:

In recent years, changes in technology and in the way that Canadians consume news have made it difficult for many news outlets to find and maintain financially sustainable business models. At a time when people increasingly get their news online, and share news and other content through social media, many communities have also been left without local news outlets to tell their stories. Concerns have been expressed that, without government intervention, there may be a decline in the quantity and quality of journalism available to Canadians, including a significant loss of local news coverage.

In November 2018, the Prime Minister, together with other world leaders, committed to take action to support a strong and independent news sector in the digital age. The Government recognizes the vital role that local journalism plays in communities all across the country, and is committed to finding ways to help keep people, and communities, connected through local news providers

Yes, that is correct. The Government realizes that in modern times, the old format of news (large offices and staff), has become obsolete, and financially unviable. This is particularly true in the age where anyone with a laptop and a camera can post online and gain a substantial following.

CanuckLaw itself is run on a shoestring budget, with little expenses. So yes, it is easy to sympathise with those who have had a lengthy career in media.

However, this is the new reality. Media itself is reducing the barriers to entry where literally anyone can be a contributor online. Rather than maintaining a monopoly (or near monopoly) on news, major outlets are facing strong competition from a population who can drastically undercut it. Further, these people will have no loyalty to any political party or government. This is good for a free and open media.

However, the Federal Liberals have decided that propping up the media financially is a better idea.

Access to Charitable Tax Incentives for Eligible News Organizations

Budget 2018 announced that the Government would explore new models that would enable private giving and philanthropic support for trusted, professional, non-profit journalism, including local news. To that end, the Government intends to introduce a new category of qualified donee, for non-profit journalism organizations that produce a wide variety of news and information of interest to Canadians. As qualified donees, eligible non-profit journalism organizations would be able to issue official donation receipts, which allows donors to benefit from tax incentives for charitable giving (including the Charitable Donations Tax Credit for individuals and deductions for corporations). As qualified donees, these organizations would also be eligible to receive funding from registered charities.

A New Refundable Tax Credit to Support News Organizations

To further support news journalism in Canada, the Government intends to introduce a new refundable tax credit for qualifying news organizations. This new measure will aim to support Canadian news organizations that produce a wide variety of news and information of interest to Canadians. The refundable credit will support labour costs associated with producing original news content and will generally be available to both non-profit and for-profit news organizations. An independent panel will be established from the news and journalism community to define eligibility for this tax credit, as well as provide advice on other measures. Once established, the effective date of the refundable tax credit will be set for January 1, 2019.

A New Non-Refundable Tax Credit for Subscriptions to Canadian Digital News Media

To support Canadian digital news media organizations in achieving a more financially sustainable business model, the Government intends to introduce a new temporary, non-refundable 15-per-cent tax credit for qualifying subscribers of eligible digital news media. In total, the proposed access to tax incentives for charitable giving, refundable tax credit for labour costs and non-refundable tax credit for subscriptions will cost the federal government an estimated $595 million over the next five years. Additional details on these measures will be provided in Budget 2019

Yes, the government will be spending about $595 million over 5 years, $119 million annually, to prop up dying media outlets.

The story is explained by Candice Malcolm, but in a nutshell, Unifor, the union which represents — among others — 13,000 media workers, is officially committing to opposing the Federal Conservative Party.

This of course raises a huge red flag. A union that will be taking $120 million/year to subsidise failing media outlets is officially opposing the government’s main opposition party.

In fact, this arguably violates the Conflict of Interest Act. A political party using their power to award public funds to an industry, namely media, who can promote their interests.

3. Conflict Of Interest

4 For the purposes of this Act, a public office holder is in a conflict of interest when he or she exercises an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity to further his or her private interests or those of his or her relatives or friends or to improperly further another person’s private interests.
Marginal note:

General duty
5 Every public office holder shall arrange his or her private affairs in a manner that will prevent the public office holder from being in a conflict of interest.
Marginal note:

Decision-making
6 (1) No public office holder shall make a decision or participate in making a decision related to the exercise of an official power, duty or function if the public office holder knows or reasonably should know that, in the making of the decision, he or she would be in a conflict of interest.

It sounds harsh. However, from the literal wording in the Conflict of Interest Act, the subsides and political allegiance do appear to violate it.

4. Interview With Howard Law Of Unifor

On Friday, November 23, Unifor representative Howard Law did return a phone call for an interview. Here is a summary of that interview.

(a) The subsidies are meant to keep jobs from being lost, and to prop up sections of the media that are becoming unviable with technology changes.
(b) There is no deal of any kind to provide favourable coverage to any political party.
(c) Unifor, the union, promotes progressive causes all the time. They do not oppose any party because of financial considerations like what people suggest here.
(d) The media workers will continue to operate objectively.

While Mr. Law’s comments are reasonable on the surface, there is still no question that this at least appears to be a form of bribery. Governments handing millions of dollars to a friendly media reeks of propaganda and corruption.

But for now we will wait and see what comes of this.

Posted on

Privacy Commissioner, Banks, Throw StatsCan Under the Bus

(The issue of bank data being seized is raised in Parliament)

This article was released by Global News on October 26, 2018, and CanuckLaw covered it here on October 28. In short, Statistics Canada wants to seize the banking information of 500,000 Canadians (each year), and do it without the knowledge or consent of Canadians.

(at 1:40 in the video) Statistics Canada representative James Tabreke in a very blunt way claims that this is a ”new way of getting economic data to make government decisions”. He also claims that StatsCan is being open with the public, and that the Canadian Banks were aware of this.

(at 2:32 in the video) Claim that the Privacy Commissioner has okayed the project.

Prime Minister Trudeau, in his typically partisan manner, defended the data seizure. Of course blamed Stephen Harper for eliminating the long form census in 2010. He claimed StatsCan was working closely with the Privacy Commissioner.

Now the lies get exposed:
First, Trudeau is distorting the truth with reference to Harper gutting the long-form census. In the original video, Statistics Canada claimed bank seizure was a move done to replace the long form census. So Harper cancelling the LFC in 2010 was actually irrelevant, as StatsCan was going to pull this stunt anyway.

Second, StatsCan claims that they have been open with what they are doing. Yet, these talks have been going on for a year now without the public’s knowledge.

Third, the C.B.A. (Canadian Bankers Association) has publicly objected, claiming they thought StatsCan was just in an exploratory stage. C.B.A. says they didn’t know StatsCan was going ahead with this, and says they will oppose the measure. Here is their statement:

Statement from the Canadian Bankers Association

Protecting the information privacy of their valued customers is a top priority for banks in Canada. Banks believed this proposed data acquisition project was still in the exploratory stages and were not aware that Statistics Canada was moving to compel disclosure of this information. No customer transaction data or other personal information has been transferred to Statistics Canada under this request. The CBA is working with members to understand the nature of this request and next steps.

Fourth, the Privacy Commissioner, seen here appearing before the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, refutes the claim that he ”okayed the move”. Instead, he stated that he does not have the authority to approve such a thing, and is only able to provide general advice on privacy laws.

Fifth, the Privacy Commissioner claims he was unaware until very recently that Statistics Canada that they wanted to do this to 500,000 Canadians. He says numbers were not discussed. In the hearing he states, ”Proportionality is very important.”

Sixth, the Privacy Commissioner states he was unaware or just how much information would be seized by such a move.

Seventh, the Privacy Commissioner admits that StatsCan was not nearly as transparent as it could have been.

Eighth, and this is a glaring omission: StatsCan doesn’t say how this massive intrusion would actually help. There are just vague references to ”economic information”.

Certainly, that 15 years of credit card data had recently been seized also doesn’t sit well with many Canadians.

Now that formal complaints against this measure have been filed with the Privacy Commissioner, there is no longer the option of just giving general legal information. At this point, an investigation is mandated by law.

The proposal appears to be dead in the water, as public outrage and the threats of legal action are forcing StatsCan to back off. But it will be interesting to see if the Federal Liberals continue to support this Orwellian measure.

Note:
Statistics Canada, Equifax, Transunion, the C.B.A., and the major banks have all been contacted by CanuckLaw for comment. Any responses will be posted here as updates.

Canadian Banker’s Association rep Aaron Boles
Thanks, Alex.

The most important take-away from yesterday is that StatsCan is suspending any movement on its proposed project until the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has completed its report, which we understand will be January at the earliest. We were firm in our appearance before the Senate Committee that all options are on the table in terms of defending the privacy and security of bank customers’ personal information and transaction records. Until the OPC report is tabled and StatsCan responds about what it proposes to do thereafter, there’s little point in speculating on how information on spending habits would be collected, if at all.

Best,

AEB

From RBC
Hi Alex – please refer to the CBA for comment on this.

Best,
AJ

AJ Goodman I Director, External Communications, Personal & Commercial Banking I

From TD Canada
Hi Alex,

We refer your inquiry to the CBA, however can tell you that TD takes the trust our customers place in us extremely seriously and has not agreed to share customer data.

Thanks,

Alison

From Statistics Canada
Hello,

“I can assure you that we will not proceed with this project until we have addressed the privacy concerns expressed by Canadians by working cooperatively with the Privacy Commissioner and with financial institutions.”

Anil Arora, Chief Statistician of Canada (Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, November 8, 2018)

Thank you,

Laurence Beaudoin-Corriveau

Manager (Acting), Media Relations, Communications
Statistics Canada, Government of Canada

laurence.beaudoin-corriveau@canada.ca / Tel: 613-951-2599

From Equifax
Hello Alex.

In our database, Equifax Canada has information on ~27M Canadian consumers, which we maintain as a registered Canadian credit bureau in accordance with applicable credit reporting and privacy laws. Statistics Canada has never directed Equifax Canada to provide them with, and subsequently, Equifax Canada has not provided to Statistics Canada all of its data pursuant to its enabling legislation.

In any instance where a regulated body relying on legislative authority requests information from Equifax, our standard process is to conduct a review against our internal data governance and security processes, as well as to consider applicable law prior to disclosure.

We don’t have any information on the rumour you mentioned about credit data from 15 years ago.

Media Relations | Equifax Canada Co.

5700 Yonge St., Suite 1700, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M2M 4K2

Posted on

Statistics Canada Wants Banks to Hand Over Customer Data

(An Orwellian scheme is being devised here)

If true, this story is disturbing. Statistics Canada wants to collect the banking data from 500,000 Canadians each year.

Statistics Canada claims it wants: “to start collecting, on a limited basis, financial transactions data from banks, as well as other organizations that may process financial transactions data.”

Section 13 of the Statistics Act reads as follows:

Access to records
.
13 A person having the custody or charge of any documents or records that are maintained in any department or in any municipal office, corporation, business or organization, from which information sought in respect of the objects of this Act can be obtained or that would aid in the completion or correction of that information, shall grant access thereto for those purposes to a person authorized by the Chief Statistician to obtain that information or aid in the completion or correction of that information.
R.S., 1985, c. S-19, s. 13;

So, “anyone” with “any” records of “any” sort MUST disclose them if Statistics Canada believes the information can be used for statistical purposes. That is what the law says.

Furthermore, the Canadian Privacy Act is really no help here. It claims data collection is okay, as long as it relates to its purpose.

Collection, Retention and Disposal of Personal Information
Marginal note:
.
Collection of personal information
.
4 No personal information shall be collected by a government institution unless it relates directly to an operating program or activity of the institution.

While this seems — at least on paper — to be legal, one could easily argue that neither the Statistics Act nor the Privacy Act were ever designed for this

The transaction data would include:
(a) Description of the transaction
(b) Date and Time
(c) Location
(d) Value of the transactions

The transactions would be linked to a customer by way of:
(I) Name
(II) Social Insurance Number
(III) Date of Birth
(IV) Gender
(V) Address

Spokesman James Tabreke claims that obtaining all the personal identifiers is necessary in order to “gain a snapshot” of certain types of customers. He says that StatsCan is not interested in anyone in particular, but just using the information to observe trends.

Even if this were true, the idea of banks handing over such information “without the customers’ knowledge or consent” is quite chilling indeed.

The math provided by the Global article is confusing.

First, supposedly, 500,000 people’s data is to be taken. It states the odds of being chosen are 1 in 20. That would only be true if there were 10 million people in Canada. There are 36-37 million at this point. Teenagers and adolescents frequently have bank accounts too. So, where does the 1 in 20 chance come from?

Second, if this were being done for statistical purposes, why would 500,000 people need to be selected? Political polling, for example, uses samples between 500 and 2000. A sample of perhaps 10,000 would obtain results accurate to within 1% error.

Third, an omission here: if there were to be 500,000 Canadians each year, would StatsCan be using the data of the same people, and contrasting their behavioural changes, or would it be 500,000 more Canadians?

For media inquiries of the Canadian Banker’s Association:
Aaron Boles
Tel: (416) 362-6093 ext. 350
Cell: (647) 274-8495
Email:aboles@cba.ca

For media inquiries from Statistics Canada:
Media Relations — Media Hotline
613-951-INFO (951-4636)
8:30am to 5:00pm Eastern Time, Monday to Friday, excluding holidays.
E-mail: statcan.mediahotline-ligneinfomedias.statcan@canada.ca

At the time of writing, messages have been left with both institutions.

Tabreke claims that this method of forcing banks to hand over personal data will improve on, and eventually replace the surveys that have traditionally been mailed out. While the honesty is refreshing, it is downright creepy how calm and straightforward he is.

Of course, it leaves out the obvious question — why not get the stores to report their consumer trends? Not customer information, but sales trends. Why go for this invasive tactic?

Yes, that is indeed what he says. Forget voluntary disclosure. We will rummage through your financial life and take the information for ourselves. This is wrong on many levels.

Going cash only or using crypto-currency seem like appealing options at this point.


Followup to the Story
Aaron Boles did return the call quite shortly after this article was published. He stated that the C.B.A. has and will continue to refuse the demand. Although the C.B.A. and banks ”do” comply with most requests from Statistics Canada, this was just too far. Boles stated quite bluntly that banks need to have the trust of their customers, and this would erode it.

The C.B.A. claims that no data sharing proposed here has so far actually taken place. Here is the statement they released to Global Media:

Statement from the Canadian Bankers Association

Protecting the information privacy of their valued customers is a top priority for banks in Canada. Banks believed this proposed data acquisition project was still in the exploratory stages and were not aware that Statistics Canada was moving to compel disclosure of this information. No customer transaction data or other personal information has been transferred to Statistics Canada under this request. The CBA is working with members to understand the nature of this request and next steps.

Further Followup (October 29)
The Liberal government has announced in Parliament that it is okay with the push by Statistics Canada, and claims it is necessary in order to advance government policy. See this video.

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress