Evidence of meeting #32 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was police.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:10 a.m.
Officer in Charge, National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Certainly.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
You don't have to give her your card. I'll ask her to provide it to us.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I'm going to share my time with Mr. Stanton. He wants to ask a question.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's really a point of clarification, and I'll use this time if I can.
Going back to Mr. Martin's points that were being made, the reason I couldn't find the section was that I had the understanding that Mr. Martin was talking in terms of the availability of collecting this information under paragraph 7(3)(d), vis-à-vis foreign jurisdictions, national security, and international affairs. To be clear, that was all in the context of disclosure, not collecting.
In terms of collecting information, Mr. Martin talked in terms of how an organization can collect information, but paragraph 7(3)(d) doesn't pertain to collection. It pertains to disclosure only, so the information would have to be existing.
When we go to collection without consent, it's subsection 7(1) that applies. There's nothing in subsection 7(1) that suggests that the only reason you can collect it under subsection 7(1) is that it “is reasonable for purposes related to investigating a breach of an agreement or a contravention of the laws”. So there are limits, and under the collection of personal information, there's a test that is contained in subsection 7(1) that would apply in those cases.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
All that may or may not be true, but I think this would be the subject matter for our in camera discussions, and not when we are talking with the witnesses.
I have two things. Before you leave today, would you be so kind as to provide the clerk of the committee with your recommended wording, so that we all have it exactly as you stated it?
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Also, did I understand your evidence, Superintendent McColl, that size does matter?
10:10 a.m.
Officer in Charge, National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Sometimes it does.
10:10 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
10:10 a.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning to the three of you. Thank you for answering our questions.
I'd like you to explain to me something I had trouble understanding. On page 1 of your statement, you say that the introduction of PIPEDA has created some confusion, some uncertainty among the general public and that, as a result of that confusion, organizations are refusing to cooperate. Now I'm reading what appears near the bottom of page 3 of the English version:
Section 7 was always meant to allow law enforcement to obtain personal, but not sensitive, information on a voluntary basis from companies on request. This is what we're seeking to restore.
When you say you're seeking to restore something that existed, that means there was good cooperation. So it's not necessarily just as a result of section 7 or the introduction of the act that there's now a problem. You say it worked well at first. You refer to section 7, among other things. Further on, you say that section 7 poses a problem, but you also consider it as the section that was used to enable law enforcement organizations to obtain information.
I find that somewhat contradictory.
10:10 a.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Not really. Most of the time we have good relations and good cooperation with contractors. However, as we say, there are still problems with 30% or 40% of them, who refuse to give us personal information because, according to their lawyers, it's really prohibited to give us that information. That's why we're here today, to find another wording, another way of clarifying the reasons why we need information. It's permissible, but because it's—
10:15 a.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
I don't understand why you say, on the one hand, that the same article was used to enable law enforcement agencies to obtain information and that you're seeking to restore that and, on the other hand, that the introduction of the act caused confusion. I find that contradictory.
10:15 a.m.
Officer in Charge, National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understood the question well.
10:15 a.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
The contradiction between our saying we have the excellent relationship in regard—
Okay, Art.
10:15 a.m.
Officer in Charge, Strategic Services Branch,Technical Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
There are people who cooperate very well, and there are organizations that are very helpful. But we are finding more and more that companies get support from legal counsel, who generally want to advise their clients to be risk-averse. If it's not completely clear, their advice to their client would be that if there's a risk, and it says legal authority, then go get a warrant. Then you'll be covered; so don't release anything.
We're looking at the private sector and businesses who say, I'd like to give you this, but my counsel advises that I need a warrant.
So when we try to articulate our understanding that the act is actually enabling, they refer back to reduce the risk, and until it's clear, ask for a warrant.
In some cases, it's very good, we are happy, and it works. In others, it is not working. Our problem is that because it is not clear in all cases, there is a trend to move towards being more risk-averse and to release less information.
It was not our belief that PIPEDA was meant to do that. It was not meant to be a barrier to allowing communities to get involved, but in fact it was meant to be an enabler. So we are asking that the words be changed.
Where you might see a contradiction, it's not because it affects everyone the same—in some cases very well, in some cases no.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank you all for appearing here.
I want to go back to service providers. Just out of curiosity, do they not want to give up information because certain providers may be known for that, and subsequently that's where you'll get the kiddie porn?
10:15 a.m.
Officer in Charge, National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
In some cases we believe that to be true, based on the fact they host websites that promote adult-child sex. We're never going to get 100%, but I believe this amendment would increase our ratio to 80% or 90%. It would give them the comfort so they could share information with us.