Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 8th, 2007

[Dave Carey]

I'll start, and then perhaps you'll want to add to it.

What we're looking for is a formal definition on how to get rid of something at the end of its life. When the life is over, get rid of it. We're finding that “get rid of it” is too open; we're looking for a definition that says, let's obliterate it, shred it, or whatever, just a better definition.

[Robert Johnson]

I would just say that unless you spend as much time obsessing on this issue as we do, being in the industry—The word “destruction” means destruction. It's reasonable to think that “destruction” means something, but it still has some interpretation, and that's why we're asking that the definition of what you mean by destruction be included and explained to the readers.

[Dave Carey]

That's right.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Have you thought about that? Have you formulated a possibility as to what that act might say?

[Dave Carey]

Yes.

[Robert Johnson]

We've included a definition, but we're going to go further and provide language that we provide to other bodies like this.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

You'll provide that to the committee.

[Robert Johnson]

We will.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

That's all I need to know.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Deleting doesn't mean it's gone, I guess, does it? No.

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

Most of our witnesses in this have come with specific details that affect their particular businesses. But I'm interested as well, because you're experts in the privacy field, in a more general concern that doesn't come up as often.

When the Public Safety Act was introduced, Bill C-7, it amended PIPEDA dramatically in 2004. It allows that private sector organizations can act as agents of the state to collect personal information, without consent, for the sole purpose of disclosing this to the government.

Under these amendments, CSIS or the RCMP could now ask a business to collect new data that these agencies might otherwise not be able to collect, and they might be able to use their power under PIPEDA to conduct searches at the request of these agencies that would otherwise violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Is that a concern that you have heard raised as experts in the privacy field? I know it may not pertain to your particular businesses.

This is for either or both of you. We have only a few minutes.

Ms. Fineberg.

[Anita Fineberg]

I've heard the concern raised, but I defer to other experts who have appeared before the committee with respect to the details.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

This is of great concern to the general public. Certainly the Winners-TJX-CIBC case is the one in the papers that everybody is concerned about, their personal identify theft. But I would argue that we've really gone somewhere we've never gone before with our version of the Patriot Act, almost, in terms of scope and ability. Your company might be deputized to search those records that you're storing, on behalf of the RCMP, to find my name and give it over to them.

Is this something you've contemplated within your company?

[Robert Johnson]

I would respectfully defer again. I have a reaction as a citizen. I'm here on behalf of the information destruction industry in that regard, so I would say as long as they properly destroy it at the end of its life, we're very happy, but—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

We're back to the shredding.

I think it's a great concern. Again, it's not something you came here to talk about, but the general public should be at least aware, if not very concerned. This Public Safety Act passed without a great deal of fanfare. I remember when it came through the House of Commons, we all objected to Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorist Act, for its broad sweeping powers, but this committee didn't exist then, in 2004. This is the most recent standing committee of the House of Commons. It wasn't created then, so I'm not sure the bill got the analysis that it possibly could have as it pertains to PIPEDA.

I guess I don't have a great deal to add to that. If I have any time left. that's the only thing I would like your comment on, but both of you have chosen not to, so—

[Dave Carey]

As a personal citizen, as an individual Canadian, I would be concerned, and I believe my company, which is in the records management business, would have problems being deputized, as you say, to start going through records and finding information on behalf of—I think it would be very difficult.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Who do you think your loyalty would lean towards? I mean, you have an obligation and a contractual promise to the people whose records you're keeping to keep them private, but now the RCMP or CSIS could say you have a second obligation to them not to keep it private, but to blurt it out.

[Dave Carey]

Absolutely. Our contracts physically state that the privacy factor and the confidentiality of our customers as a whole are very important, but obviously the law—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

You might not be able to make that commitment anymore—

[Dave Carey]

Absolutely.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

—subject to this Bill C-7.

[Dave Carey]

Possibly, yes.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That's scary isn't it?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Peterson.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Dr. Rosenberg testified that in many cases it's fairly simple to re-identify patients. How does IMS make sure this can't be done?