Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 13th, 2007

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

It would be the least offensive to whom?

[Steve Masnyk]

Well, by “least offensive” I mean that we could actually implement on a practical basis.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Okay, very good.

Thank you very much.

Do I have more time, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

No.

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Pearson, followed by Mr. Van Kesteren and Mr. Peterson. The final questioner I have on the list is Mr. Tilson.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Ms. Gray-Donald. We talked about smaller ISPs. When Mr. Sullivan was talking, he said that the larger ones, primarily, tend to comply with what's going on. Have the smaller ones been resistant to that in large numbers, or is it just...?

[Krista Gray-Donald]

As my colleague had indicated, it's really hard to answer that question. If an ISP refuses to cooperate, in many cases, an investigation cannot be completed. There's no chance to find the evidence because it does move so quickly.

It has been our experience, through anecdotal reports from law enforcement, that by and large these smaller ISPs are resistant to cooperating.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Right.

Can you give me an indication of the rate of increase of the smaller ISPs? You once again referred to more cropping up all the time. Do you have any idea?

[Krista Gray-Donald]

In terms of actual numbers, we're starting to gather some data on contact information for the smaller ISPs to address this issue, but we don't have any hard and fast numbers as to how many there are. I know if you do a Google search and say, “Internet service provider Ottawa”, you will end up with a lot more than Rogers and Bell. So there are quite a number.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

It would seem to me that there would be an alarming increase. Is that correct?

[Krista Gray-Donald]

Yes.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Sullivan, I was a firefighter for 30 years, in a previous life, before I came here. In the last couple of years, we cooperated with the police on the issue of cellphones with cameras. The phones were captured because of a fire. We went in there. The police went in there and found these cellphones that had pictures of children on them.

Is that a special challenge to you? Outside of the regular stuff over the Internet, is the giving out of information over cellphones back and forth so quickly a special challenge? Or does that still fall within the regular framework?

[Steve Sullivan]

I don't pretend to be an expert on it. But I can say that the advancement of technology is becoming an increasing issue for law enforcement in a very general sense, not just related to this issue, but with all the BlackBerrys, ISPs, and cellphones....

The technology is advancing so fast, and I think that as good a job as our law enforcement is doing, they're still playing catch-up. And they have a way to go to make sure they're on par with the people who use the technology for a purpose it's not intended for. I can't speak to it specifically, but in general, I think cellphones and increased technology are an issue for law enforcement.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

It seems to me, at least in the cases I was involved with, that police are having a dickens of a time following these cellphone pictures going across, as they were, as opposed to Internet things that people are looking at on a computer. Is that correct? Is it more difficult?

[A witness]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

This is my final question. Do you have a jurisdiction you would point us to, some area, where they have a model that you think would be wise for us to follow, whether it's another country or in Europe or whatever?

[Steve Sullivan]

I know that there are other jurisdictions that do require ISPs to do more and to cooperate with these kinds of things. The United States has legislation. The United Kingdom and Australia have legislation. We found that out when we were looking at Bill C-74, the bill from the previous government to require ISPs.... But this is done in other jurisdictions. It has been going on for quite some time.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

It is done to a greater or lesser degree. But is there one that you would see as a good model for us?

[Steve Sullivan]

We haven't studied the models in depth, so I can't give you any specifics.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

That's good.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Steve Sullivan]

Mr. Chair, I did find the copy of the letter from the Privacy Commissioner. We could have it photocopied, perhaps, before we leave.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

You can deal with the clerk on that. But we'd be interested in having a copy.

Mr. Pearson, I think I'll ask the researcher to have a copy of Bill C-74 made available for each member of the committee for consideration when we're considering our draft report. The issue was dealt with in some manner in that report, and the witnesses have mentioned it on numerous occasions. We'll take a look at that just to see what that approach was and whether the committee would be interested in considering it.

It's also a question that some members might want to put to the minister, when the minister comes, to determine whether the minister has an opinion on Bill C-74 or any portion of it that might be relevant to our inquiry. That's just a heads-up for members.

We'll have Mr. Van Kesteren and then Mr. Peterson.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you all for coming.

Mr. Sullivan, I think that may have been the most disturbing thing I've ever heard, and I'm not reprimanding you; I think we need to hear that stuff. That is just so vile, and I really have a hard time. I know we're frustrated with combating this, but calling that privacy rights is such a violation. It should be addressed in our Criminal Code. We have to stamp this out. I commend you for doing that.

I say that because I have two sons who are policemen. One of them is on a SERT team. One of the things that really concerns me is their discouragement, especially the longer they're in police work, with things like SIU and some of the restraints put around police today. We hear about all the abuses, but I don't think too many people have really walked the beat with what they're coming up against, child pornography being one of those things.

I really have nothing to ask the insurance people. I commend you people. I think you've done a good job with privacy. As I've said before, you could have written the book. PIPEDA makes sense in your business, and you have to continue along that path; it's the way that's going to keep you in business.

For policing, I need to ask you this question: does PIPEDA hinder your police work? I know these bodies are there for a purpose, like SIU, but does PIPEDA hinder you in what you have to do? Be blunt.

[Clayton Pecknold]

I've been listening to the line of questions and the answers. If you'll permit me, I'll answer that question in a couple of ways.

First of all, I will say that the misinterpretation of PIPEDA and perhaps the ambiguity of the act does on occasion hinder us, yes. Specifically, if you like, we can put some information before this committee in pretty short order from the various child pornography sections.

Angie Howe was mentioned. She presented on Bill C-2. She's a detective superintendent with the OPP. We can have her put together some information specifically on some specific problems we're dealing with in child exploitation, if it would be of assistance, Mr. Chair. We can put that before you in writing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Pecknold, if you can relate it to how PIPEDA specifically is impeding investigations, that would be helpful.

[Clayton Pecknold]

Sure. I'll endeavour to do that when I leave here.

The second point is we talked a little bit about, and I think the honourable member over here mentioned, cellphone usage. This technology advancement is a real issue for us. The lawful access issues are a number one priority for the CACP. With respect to electronic interception of communications, we are dealing with laws written in 1974, when we had rotary phones. I have a BlackBerry on my hip, and we all have satellite phones.

We are losing the race in terms of technology and interception and investigation of serious offences--organized crime offences, national security offences. We're losing the race technologically. We have been pushing government to put this bill forward and we're hoping they'll put it forward. I did not come here intending to speak to this at this committee, but I can see it has touched on it.

I will say that on the technology side, yes, we are hindered. PIPEDA doesn't address that necessarily, but if PIPEDA can address the difficulty that some in the private sector have in complying with the lawful authority of the police, then I would encourage this committee to try to address that.