Talk:Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act

2006 comment
Hi,

The first line "...group of data protection directives that limit trade with nations not providing privacy protection equivalent to the EU directives.." is not accurate. While PIPEDA was passed partially in response to EU legislation, that is/was not the primary motivation of the legislation.

From the Industry Canada website:

"The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) is a new law that protects personal information in the hands of private sector organizations and provides guidelines for the collection, use and disclosure of that information in the course of commercial activity."

Source: http://privacyforbusiness.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/inpfb-cee.nsf/en/hc00005e.html

I will try and re-write the first paragraph to reflect this.

--Davidley 20:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Terracotta11
Hi, I've been doing some reading on privacy and wanted to suggest an edit to the top of the article, regarding Canadian's greater privacy expectation vs. US. I'll make the edit to the page - see what you think...the article I cite is interesting in that it compares EU's very rigorous approach, US trumping of privacy by security, placing Canada in the middle ground -- Terracotta11 (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Terracotta11 - I like that you have added some comparative information, to put the Canadian position within the international context! I think it's very useful. However, I'm not sure that we want to make reference to the Charter in this article on PIPEDA for 2 reasons.
 * (1) PIPEDA is about private sector organizations, while the Charter regulates interaction between the government and individuals. Here are a couple nice quotes that sum this concept up: “The Charter regulates interactions between the state (federal, provincial and territorial governments) and individuals.” (http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/pdp-hrp/canada/frdm-eng.cfm) and “Remember that the Charter applies only to laws and government policies, not to the actions of any person or organization in the private sector.” (http://www.bccla.org/privacy/privacy1-4.html). In this regard, I think the context within which the reference to the Charter was made in the Georgetown Journal of International Law article that you cited is not specific to PIPEDA, but rather more broadly about privacy. (At least that is how I am reading it!)
 * (2) There is no express constitutional right to privacy and the privacy values in the Charter mainly are focused on the criminal law context (which is different from the main focus of PIPEDA). There is a paragraph in this research report that sums this up nicely: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0585-e.htm
 * I think the main concern with including reference to the Charter in a specific article on PIPEDA (and not privacy as a general concept like this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_privacy_law), is that it might lead readers to believe that s.7 and s.8 of the Charter directly applies to the use of personal information by private sector entities in the course of commercial business. So I'm going to remove the reference to the Charter, but let me know if you disagree!  (Perhaps the language could be revised to keep it from potentially confusing readers).
 * Asafari (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Asafari: Just saw your comments, thanks very much. You are correct - I also think the reference in the Georgetown Journal article is a general comment about the priority privacy is given in Canadian law and I mentioned it in that way. But agreed it could be misleading in the context of PIPEDA, so not a problem to remove it from that para. The international context comments were the substantive part of what I was trying to add. Good addition re the review. Terracotta11 (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Asafari
Hello, I've added a couple sentences to the first paragraph highlighting the mandatory 5 year Parliamentary review required by PIPEDA. I think this is a good thing to note, given that this mandatory review was an important point of discussion when PIPEDA was enacted. The first review has already taken place and a second review is likely to take place in the next year or so. Asafari (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by .Jen. Lee
Hi, does anyone think the third paragraph which talks about Canada's greater emphasis on personal privacy compare to the U.S. is not very relevant to the article itself and it is a little biased? Jen. Lee (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Jen.Lee – Good question. I’m not a very experienced Wikipedia user, but here are my thoughts. I think the paragraph (though I see that it has now been deleted) was relevant and not biased.  On my reading of the paragraph, I thought it was intended to provide comparative information and to help put the Canadian position within the international context.  An example of how this is relevant: someone who works (on has clients) in both the US and Canada might wish to know how the regulatory environment in the two countries differ.  I thought the point of the paragraph was to highlight how the US has tended to focus on self-regulatory mechanisms (in contrast to Canada).  I didn’t think it was meant to make any value judgments regarding which approach was “better”, but rather to point out that there are approaches that differ from a broad regulatory framework like the one in PIPEDA.  Anyway, those are just my thoughts, based on what I read!
 * Asafari (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Asafari. After reading your explaination, I now see your points of writing this paragraph. Maybe we can create another section (or subtitle) into the article and elaborate on your point more. We can talk about how the different regulatory environment and mechanisms provide implications on people who do business in the two countries. This way other wikipedians will not easily interpretate the paragraph as "biased" or "judgemental". Your idea of positioning Canadian Privacy Law in the international context was great.Jen. Lee (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jen.Lee and Asafari - just to follow up on your comments - i think you summed it up Asafari, thanks - my intention with those sentences was to add a bit of context and to highlight that Canada has through this Act emphasized personal privacy differently than the US, who after 9/11 increased emphasis on security over individual rights (not so much a value judgement but placing the approach internationally). I can see that it may be a bit broad for this article, but I was feeling an interest as a reader in some framing...Thanks again, Cheers, Terracotta11 (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
Hello, last week I made an edit to the PHIPA (Personal Health Information Protection Act), adding the year it was established and a the acts three major functions. I was wondering if there was anymore that needed to be added to that I thought that it gave a general overview of PHIPA and came from the Ontario Personal Health Information Protection Act guide. Also, the related provincial legislation PHIPA and Personal Information Protection Act in British Columbia, does anyone think that could go under a separate sub-heading, perhaps Provincial Privacy Legislation, rather than being under Implementation. Imthiyaz84 (talk), 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have added the following changes: - Seperate the "Personal Information Protection Act (Ontario)" part from the British Columbia part. I thought they might be parallel as they talk about similar laws in two regions. - Add examples to the circumstance where an individual might be rejected to obtain informaiton about himself. This is in paragraph two. - Add a reference link to the word "substantively similar" in paragraph two. I thought it might help to let readers know how the government defines the word. Jen. Lee (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Jen.Lee, I think all of your additions to the article are good! I did notice a couple small things and have made some revisions.  Let me know if you disagree.
 * First, I’ve changed the reference in the Footnote for “substantially similar”. The link to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat web page that you provided is good, but that site only mentions the ten principles in Schedule 1 of PIPEDA.  It doesn’t mention that there are other important aspects of what will be considered “substantially similar” (e.g. providing for an independent and effective oversight and redress mechanism with powers to investigate; and restricting the collection, use and disclosure of personal information to purposes that are appropriate or legitimate.)  It seems to me that readers might benefit more from a Footnote that leads directly to the official Canada Gazette notice that sets out the process for the determination of “Substantially Similar” Provincial legislation.
 * Second, regarding exceptions to the rule that individuals must be given access to his or her personal information -- the text that you referenced in the Footnote is not Section 4.9, subparagraph (2) of the Act, it is actually Clause 4.9 of Schedule 1 (the Model Code). It is important to note how the Model Code is actually treated within the Act.  For example, Section 9 of the Act describes when access may be refused.  In particular, see subsection 9(3):  “Despite the note that accompanies clause 4.9 of Schedule 1, an organization is not required to give access to personal information only if…” (followed by a list).  Thus, subsection 9(3) sets out a list of circumstances for when access may be refused, despite the note that accompanies Clause 4.9 of Schedule 1 – so the note in Clause 4.9 is not determinative. (Yes, it is a bit confusing!  I think part of that is due to the history/role of the Model Code).
 * Asafari (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Asafari, thanks for your response. I really appreciate your changes on top of mine.
 * First, it does make more sense to provide readers with the ratonale and the determination process of "substantially similar" rather than just simply stating its definition.
 * Second, regarding exceptions to the rules that individuals might not be given access to his or her personal information. I did noticed the list in subsection 9(3) before I chose to post section 4.9. I was a bit confused about the matching relation between schedules. So I just decided to go with a broader title. Thanks very your correction. This seems like a very good learning experience.Jen. Lee (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

(typically pronounced 'pee-hip-ah') - is this really necessary?
The phrase "(typically pronounced 'pee-hip-ah')" appears in this article and the main article on PHIPA. Is this type of colloquial chit-chat really necessary. This is not an acronym that can be pronounced as a word. It's an initialism that is not spoken. Ok, sure, within the department originating this act, they might pronounce it pee-hip-ah, but to an outsider, there is no pronunciation.

I would remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.79.99 (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2011 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)