Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 20th, 2007

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

This guy looks like he might be a bank robber: arrest him.

[A/Commr Bruce Rogerson]

No, it's that this person is coming, and we have all the evidence we need that they've conspired to commit a crime—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Except now we have a private sector organization being deputized to make those same judgments. The RCMP, I trust, has the expertise to make those judgments. I'm not sure the private sector guy does, especially when he has an obligation to keep the privacy of that individual paramount.

If PIPEDA is all about protecting individuals' privacy, we've left a loophole in it big enough to drive a truck through. No one's privacy is paramount, because under these sections, which I will refer you to if I get the numbers straight, as we read them, any private sector organization can blow your privacy out of the water on a mere suspicion that you may be up to something, and under very vague categories—not only national security, but international....

What is the term they use? Oh yes, it's the “conduct of international affairs”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Martin, because I interrupted you, I gave you seven minutes in a five-minute round, so you're over. I'm not necessarily sure I subscribe to your interpretation, but we'll see when we look at the act.

I'd like to go back to the witnesses for my purposes on section 9 again. Section 9 has certain grounds listed upon which you can object to the fact that you're investigating someone, or inquiring about someone, being given to them. I just want to be clear, based on your testimony, that you're not suggesting those grounds be somehow taken out or anything, that you're comfortable with those grounds upon which you can object.

So when you say that section 9 should be clarified to ensure the police can object to the disclosure of information provided to law enforcement in all circumstances—Well, you can do that now, can't you?

[Supt Art Crockett]

Right now it is not widespread, but there are a number of groups or individuals who feel that this disclosure does not take into account should they choose—

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

No, I understand that point.

If Tom Wappel inquires from his bank, the bank must notify you, and you have certain grounds upon which you can object to that information, and that's the end of it. And you're happy with that.

Your concern is with the bank, on its own, contacting me without previously contacting you and saying that the police are investigating. You want to be able to have those same objection abilities when the provider decides to give the information. Or you might ask that the provider in all cases not be allowed to give the information unless the client asks. Are you asking that?

[Supt Art Crockett]

Unless they confirm with the police that they are able to release the information; we won't know at the time whether or not it can cause harm, but we will know when they call.

So provided they contact us, we don't have an issue. It is when people feel they can find a loophole by interpreting it to mean, “I know I can't release it if they ask me, but I can choose to release it on my own; therefore, I am covered.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Got it. That's good. Thank you; I understand the point.

We will go to Mr. Dhaliwal again.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will return to where I left my question last time, and back to the assistant commissioner. This is a real-time example with fictitious names, and it is a very recent example.

Let's say Dow Jones's spouse got murdered, and Income Trust is a friend of this Dow Jones. An RCMP officer picks up a phone and goes to the white pages of the book. The RCMP officer picks up the phone, calls the Income Trust person, tells Income Trust that they are doing an investigation against Dow Jones, says that a murder has happened, and asks if Income Trust is friends with that person. The way I look at it is this. You said you should not be disclosing it, and that if it's disclosed it can jeopardize the investigation totally. Even though that Income Trust is not the right person, this RCMP officer just went to the white pages, and he was calling every Income Trust listed in the phone book.

The way I look at it is if this Income Trust person who was called by the RCMP goes out and tells Dow Jones that there is an investigation going on, and that they are looking for a person named Income Trust who is a friend with you, I think it is going to jeopardize the whole thing. On one side this could really be the person in that particular murder, but on the other hand if those are innocent, it can jeopardize the integrity of those two people as well.

Would you like to comment on that, under this act?

[A/Commr Bruce Rogerson]

When you said you went through the white pages, obviously that's the reason to go PIPEDA; you're looking for a needle in a haystack. You don't know where the information is. In that instance, you are saying, they may have discredited the individual's name inappropriately, yet at the end of the day the change, as I said before, is that we are willing to accept that risk, and if we do cause undue harm to an individual, obviously we are held accountable for it.

Is that what you are seeking?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

No, I'm seeking from the victim's point of view as well, the victim who died. This individual the RCMP officer called is not the right individual. It's a small community, and this person goes to the suspected person and tells them that the RCMP is looking for them. I think it's already jeopardizing, because the way I was coming is that you said you should not be disclosing that investigation at all, and this RCMP officer has already disclosed that.

[A/Commr Bruce Rogerson]

Given your scenario, I would need, as a previous investigator in my young life, a little more information to appropriately—

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

This is a real-time example, so I can't go further. I gave you enough there. I think you should be able to go back to the question that I asked earlier.

You said you should not be disclosing that there is an investigation going on against a certain person, right? On the other hand, I see that in real time it is happening, even at this point in time.

[Supt Earla-Kim McColl]

The important distinction to make is that we are seeking the truth. We go out and ask questions, but we also are governed by privacy rules and regulations. We disclose as little information as possible in order to seek the truth by asking questions. If there is an inadvertent impression left with people we speak to, that's unfortunate, but what we do is go out and ask questions and try to find out the truth.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

This officer mentioned specifically that they were doing a murder investigation into this particular case, into the Dow Jones case, and that they were looking for the Income Trusts who were friends with Dow Jones. That is very serious to me. It seems like this officer has gone way too far to jeopardize the investigation itself, and also, if those two people are found innocent, to ruin their reputation as well. It's both ways. I don't see—

When I asked the assistant commissioner earlier, the assistant commissioner said that you should not be disclosing that investigation, and it's already done. It's a real-time—I can give you the names later on, if you want.

[Supt Earla-Kim McColl]

I think I know the case that you're referring to.

[A/Commr Bruce Rogerson]

If what you're saying is true and the person was not acting within lawful authority and put the case or the investigation at risk, along with the livelihoods of innocent individuals, then they would go through our internal complaints unit, which functions fairly well and in some cases extremely well. If they're not satisfied with that outcome, they would then go through the Public Complaints Commission to get a secondary review.

I can't qualify every case. If you have a trusted relationship with a certain industry and their security people have the right security clearances and can be held accountable, in order to then justify the rationale for asking for the information, sometimes I'm sure the police officer may explain it in a fashion that might or might not put somebody in jeopardy.

I'd have to review the facts in this case. If you're saying a murder investigation was being conducted and the individual was told that's why you were doing it, I'd have to look at the information that was disclosed to rationalize a qualified response to your question.

In the course of their duties, most members might walk around the neighbourhood. As Superintendent Crockett mentioned earlier, if there's a murder and you don't walk around, you don't have any witnesses. So you go around and ask if they've seen anybody, because there's been a murder next door. You explain to people why you're seeking the information. You ask questions. Did you see anybody suspicious? Did you see anybody coming in and out of the house? Did you see a car? Did you take the plate number? Do you know the make and model?

So when you move in that type of scenario, it does two things—

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

But Assistant Commissioner—

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I'm sorry, you're way beyond your time, Mr. Dhaliwal.

I think what Mr. Dhaliwal was saying is this. It would be if an RCMP officer went to next door neighbours and asked if they happened to know where Tom Wappel was because the officer thinks he committed the murder, as opposed to asking if they happened to know where Mr. Wappel was--the implication being that the guy who's been accused by the investigating officer may perhaps be exonerated later on.

Is that the general drift of what you're talking about?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Chair, it's also jeopardizing the victim as well, the victim who died. You mentioned your name. Now we know that the RCMP officer is looking for Tom Wappel, who is involved in this. It's not going to the real Tom Wappel, it's going to the wrong Tom Wappel. The wrong Tom Wappel now goes to the real Tom Wappel and tells him that the RCMP is investigating. They can hide that information as well.

So I'm coming from both sides.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

All right. I think one Tom Wappel is enough.

Monsieur Vincent, s'il vous plaît.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you.

Does your service investigate any type of fraud? Does it investigate fraud?

[A/Commr Bruce Rogerson]

Yes.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Does it investigate fraud relating to identify theft?

[A/Commr Bruce Rogerson]

Yes.