Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 20th, 2007

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

But these aren't even crimes. What does the “conduct of international affairs” mean? It might mean a trade dispute.

[A/Commr Bruce Rogerson]

I will say that we've used our technology on two occasions to identify and pinpoint where hostages were within Iraq. We have used our technology to deal with major industries here in Canada.

As you know, one of the five priorities of the force—along with youth and aboriginal—is economic integrity. We do work with the industry to protect them. And we do work with them on an ongoing basis, whether it's a fishing scheme for the financial institutions—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

So that company could not only share personal information—

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Martin, your seven minutes is up.

Just before we go to Mr. Stanton, I want us all to be clear. You keep saying, “for the purposes for which we're appearing”, so let's be clear on the purposes for which you're appearing today. That doesn't mean you can't answer questions on other things.

With respect to section 7, you're concerned that there's no definition of “lawful authority”, and the ordinary service provider, in some cases, is interpreting that as meaning the requirement for a warrant.

You think that is incorrect and the act should be amended to clarify that. Is that correct?

[A/Commr Bruce Rogerson]

Yes, sir. What we're saying is that out of the 800 ISPs we have to date—and that industry is growing—

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

There's no more interpretation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Should I repeat it?

So as I understand it, your specific concern with section 7 is that the term “lawful authority” is not defined in the act. We heard earlier that as far as anybody knows, it hasn't been judicially defined or judicially interpreted, and that some providers, in particular Internet providers, may take the interpretation that “lawful authority” requires a search warrant. You believe that should not be the interpretation, and you're recommending to this committee that we recommend something to clarify that.

Do I have that correct? A yes or no would be fine.

[A/Commr Bruce Rogerson]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you.

Now I have a question on section 9. If I call up my bank and say, “I'd like to know if the police have made any inquiries about my bank accounts”, then as I understand section 9, the bank contacts you. They don't answer my question. They—or any police force—contact you, and they say, “My customer has asked if the police have inquired about his bank account. Is it all right to release the information?” Then under section 9, you decide whether or not there's an objection.

One of your problems is that's what happens if I ask. But my bank might choose to voluntarily call me and say, “Mr. Wappel, did you know that the police have been nosing around about your bank account?” Apparently, that is at least acceptable under the current interpretation of section 9, and you have a concern with that because you feel that if the police are inquiring before a client is advised of that action, the police should be given an opportunity to object to the client's knowing that.

That's the first part of your recommendations with respect to section 9. Is that correct?

[A/Commr Bruce Rogerson]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

So what you're looking for is a ban on information being provided to the customer prior to consultation with the police forces. Is that correct?

[A/Commr Bruce Rogerson]

That is correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

The second portion, as I understand it, is that you want to have a blanket ability to object under all circumstances. Is that right?

[A/Commr Bruce Rogerson]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I'd like some explanation on that, but I'll let you think about that.

We'll go to Mr. Stanton.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just before I put my question, Mr. Martin cited some segments of PIPEDA. Could we get a reference to what section he was quoting from?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Paragraph 7(3)(c.1), and then there are a couple of portions of that. There are different ways you can use lawful authority. One of them is what Mr. Martin cited, but there are others.

It's been indicated that the government agency asking for the information “suspects that the information relates to national security, the defence of Canada or the conduct of international affairs”, but those aren't the only circumstances in which information can be asked for where lawful authority is cited without a search warrant.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Martin, did you want to jump in there?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Well, this is my time, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I won't take your time away; let's just make sure we know what we're talking about.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

All right.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Just to be accurate, and for the record, that was one of the clauses—thank you for knowing that, sir—but there's also subparagraph 7(3)(d)(ii).

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Okay, thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Stanton.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to our witnesses for this morning's presentation.

Can you think of some other examples of legislation that you work with in the course of your duties that allow you to obtain personal information for the purposes of working on an investigation—specifically here, personal information, name, address, telephone number, identification information, but not sensitive information, if I can just set that aside—that is quite normal in the course of law enforcement activities?