Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 13th, 2007

[Clayton Pecknold]

Well, it takes me back to when I practised privacy law.

I don't know, actually. I should not say.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay. So we need to find that out, if we could, whether that exists.

Now to my friends from the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, you're here today mostly in regard to Internet service providers. Again, you're interested in a better definition of “lawful authority”. Would that be correct? Let me get this clear.

[Steve Sullivan]

Yes.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

One thing that no one else has really mentioned about the preamble or statement or principles, or whatever we call it at the beginning of the bill, is.... Would you actually like to see something added to that to do with working with the police? I'm not exactly sure what you are looking for there.

[Steve Sullivan]

I think what we'd like to see is some clarification that PIPEDA was never intended to negate or interfere with people's moral and lawful duties to be good corporate citizens in assisting the police. Obviously our issue comes back to protecting children, but if there's a way to incorporate the notion that children have a right to privacy, that is certainly a paramount consideration in cases of child sexual exploitation.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Since you are here and this is a privacy issue, I have a private member's bill, Bill C-279, that deals with the DNA of missing persons. I hope it is going to committee next month. What it really does is to allow a loved one to bring in a hair sample, or whatever the DNA match might be, and allow them to attempt to find people who have been missing. There are issues about timing, and let's use the argument that it's been over a year. There are over 6,000 people missing, and a year seems to be the magic number, as 80% of missing people are found before the year is up. But there are a number who are not, and it's very difficult, even if the missing person has deceased, to go from morgue to morgue to find whether your relative is there.

There is one small issue about privacy, which is that the person you're looking for has not consented to their DNA being reviewed. Before I go before committee, I would like to know if the resource centre has looked at this at all and has any issue with the legislation.

[Steve Sullivan]

In fact, we've had a long-term interest in the issue and in the bill. We have been working in particular with one a lady from British Columbia whose daughter has been missing for a number of years. She's been very vocal on this issue. We've worked with your predecessor, Mr. Lunn, who introduced a similar bill in the previous Parliament.

We did a study for the Department of Justice on families with unsolved homicides, and in some of those cases there were loved ones who were never found, although foul play was suspected, and the toll is just tremendous, especially on parents.

I know there were privacy concerns raised. My understanding is that the DNA missing person's index, or whatever the appropriate term is, was going to be included in the first round of the DNA data bank back in 2000, but there were some concerns raised by women's groups about the privacy of potential clients who might be fleeing abusive relationships. I think those are fair concerns. I think we can probably address both. What we're really talking about from our perspective is the parents of missing children who come in and give their DNA—or the DNA of their child, if they have a brush or some hair or something—which can be compared with an index or database of unidentified human remains in coroners' offices.

So I think there's a way to balance those privacy interests, so that if police were to find someone alive and well and living in B.C. and who doesn't want their loved ones...then maybe there's a way to speak to them first before letting people know. I think there are ways to deal with those issues, but given the comfort that some families might get from knowing what happened, it is definitely worth proceeding with.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Just for the committee's information, our researcher--always on top of the issues--points out that section 20 of the Alberta act says that an organization may disclose, etc., but only if “(f) the disclosure of the information is to a public body or a law enforcement agency in Canada to assist in an investigation”. So that's something we should take into consideration, since the Alberta act was brought in after PIPEDA.

We'll go to Mr. Peterson, followed by Mr. Reid. This is a five-minute round.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Again, the Alberta act uses the word “may”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Yes, I noticed.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

You would like something more compelling, such as “must”?

[Steve Sullivan]

From our point of view, certainly with reference to where it says there should be a warrant, obviously we agree with our friend that if there's a warrant, that's a must. There should be no discretion.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

We understand that, but where there isn't a warrant.... You made the point very aptly that in many cases you don't have time to do these sorts of things. It would be very helpful to us if you could put your heads together to come up with the exact wording you would like to see.

[Steve Sullivan]

I don't want to speak for my friend, but from our perspective, in cases of child exploitation through the Internet, it should be “must”. There should be no discretion for ISPs. I don't want to speak for anyone else, but that's our position.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Good. Okay.

Can you give us examples of how the police have been hindered in their investigations when people have not been forthcoming?

[Steve Sullivan]

I can only give you anecdotal examples that we've been told about by law enforcement. We've referred to some media articles as well in our brief. The Edmonton Journal article I referred to from last week even says that the head of the RCMP centre says, “We can't start without knowing a name and address....The investigation is over if we can't get that information...”. She says that most of the larger companies do cooperate, but some of the smaller ones don't.

I can't give you names and--

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I just wanted to know how much of a problem it is.

You mentioned, Mr. Sullivan, that you want the Privacy Commissioner to play an enhanced role in tracking down child abusers. Could you be more specific as to what you would like to see the commissioner do?

[Steve Sullivan]

I wouldn't say that she would have a more enhanced role in tracking down abusers, but I'm thinking of a more enhanced role in looking into the issue of what ISPs could do, for example, to better assist law enforcement and to speak for the children and talk about their privacy interests as well as the privacy interests of customers.

One thing, for example, is that perhaps her office could do some research or investigation into what ISPs could do to remove the images when they are identified by law enforcement, to make sure they're taken off--those kinds of issues. I don't think the office has a law enforcement role, but she is an ombudsman advocate for privacy. I guess what we're asking is that her office be more proactive in speaking for the privacy rights of children in these cases, and to do research into the impact of....

We've included in our brief an impact statement from a young girl from the States who was abused over a number of years. Her adoptive father put her photos on the Internet. Her impact statement is used in the sentencing of offenders who are found to be in possession of her images. In it she says that one of the hardest parts is knowing that her images are still out there, still being used by men for their own sexual perversions.

We're saying that the Privacy Commissioner has a role to take in speaking for that child and other children out there.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I'm not sure how you retrieve all of those terrible images once they're out there.

[Steve Sullivan]

You're right; we won't. Say, for example, we identified a young girl from Ottawa, and we found that her father had identified images. I don't pretend to know the answer, but are there ways, are there things the ISPs could be doing to help law enforcement remove those photos? I think the Privacy Commissioner has a role in trying to answer those kinds of questions. I don't pretend to have those answers, but I think her office has the ability to try to shed some light.

You'll never remove all the photos. I don't pretend to be naive in that way.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you, Mr. Peterson.

Mr. Sullivan, you mentioned that you had a letter from the Privacy Commissioner. Will you table that with the committee if it isn't part of your submission?

[Steve Sullivan]

I did quote it. I'm certainly happy to provide a copy to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Would you be sure to do that before we leave today?

Okay, we'll now have Mr. Reid, followed by Madame Bonsant.