Information & Ethics Committee on May 6th, 2008

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

Mr. Colpitts, I understand that 300,000 people every day is a lot. I don't envy you. As Mr. Wallace said, that's a fair number. But as a committee, we have been learning that the Privacy Act as it's presently constituted seems to be woefully inadequate, so we have a responsibility to try to strengthen it.

When the Privacy Commissioner did her audit she acknowledged that there were management systems in place to be able to take in this information and share it. But she also said, as part of the conclusion, that much of the information was based on verbal exchanges instead of written requests. You've already referred to this, and I appreciate that. I went over this with a previous witness. But the Privacy Commissioner implied that that was contrary to your own policy. Is that correct?

[Paul Colpitts]

Yes, it is contrary to our own policy.

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

So you're being put in a position in which, because of such demand, or whatever it all is, you can't even respect your own policy. There's just too much to do.

[Paul Colpitts]

Our policy direction is quite clear. We expect those exchanges to be documented, so we can figure out if the person did the right thing at the right time and can be accountable for that exchange.

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

It was her conclusion that they weren't being documented.

[Paul Colpitts]

Yes, we're aware of the problem. We're rebuilding those policies, and we're going to go out with a robust training program for our folks.

[Caroline Melis]

Since the Privacy Commissioner's audit has taken place, forms have been developed to put out in the field for officers to record what information they have shared. Those forms are provided to the regional offices, which can then choose to go out and audit particular ships or ports, etc., on how they're sharing information. Eventually, the agency would like to see this automated so that it's not done on a paper form, but I think that's probably a system development for some time in the future.

When the audit was done it was at a relatively early stage in the creation of the agency. While the audit was focused on customs information specifically, the agency took the view of taking the lesson that we can learn from this to better protect all the information we have. One of the things we've been working on is a new information-sharing policy for within the agency, particularly for sharing intelligence information and the documentation of that--the training of staff on when they can provide information outside of the immediate area of work within the agency, to other parts of the agency, to other departments, and to other governments, and how to go about recording what you've shared, why you've shared it, and with whom, those sorts of things. So those practices have more rigour around them than they did at the time of the audit.

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

That's all I'm trying to figure out. I realize that she was trying to give helpful suggestions, and I'm just trying to figure out if those in fact are being followed up.

She also suggested that the organization could not guarantee with any real certainty or understand the extent of the information you had shared or how often you were sharing it. Do you remember her saying that? What remedial things are you putting in place to deal with that?

[Paul Colpitts]

Those comments are in the context of the verbal exchanges. At the same time, she did not find any wrongful or wilful problems with that information sharing.

We recognize that's an issue for us, and we are reworking the policies. In the past year, for instance, we have provided privacy- and access-related training to about 832 of our folks. So we're ramping up to deal with it.

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

I appreciate that. When she was here, she was talking about this being a serious issue, which I know you take it as. All I'm trying to figure out is how far you've gotten along with that.

The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic was just here. They made a few recommendations, but can I ask you about one or two?

She said we should put agreements into writing and that they must be authorized by legislation to guarantee transparency. Do you have a comment on that?

[Paul Colpitts]

Yes. We have 277 written agreements now with foreign governments, provinces, and other government departments. If you look at some of our specific authorities to disclose information, they require a written collaborative arrangement or an agreement to be in place.

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

An agreement, but legislation?

[Paul Colpitts]

The requirement is embodied in legislation. Subsection 107(8), for instance, deals with our ability to share customs information with a foreign government. The terms and conditions include a requirement to have an agreement or an arrangement in place.

[Caroline Melis]

Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, within the regulations at subsections 150.1(1) and 150.1(2), there are requirements there also that Parliament review some of those arrangements and agreements that we enter into.

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

Thank you.

[Paul Colpitts]

And there are similar requirements in subsection 8(2) of the Privacy Act, which is an authority to disclose information. So it becomes a term and condition of sharing that information abroad.

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Tilson, please.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Ms. Melis, you gave the Ted Kennedy example for a no-fly list. I guess the issue is that there are all kinds of people who have similar names. When Mr. Hubbard was a little boy, there was a famous hockey player named Ted Kennedy, for the Toronto Maple Leafs. Remember him? Teeder Kennedy? I know an individual in my riding whose name is Ted Kennedy. It sounds hard to believe, and I'm sure we could give all kinds of examples.

If you suddenly discover, for whatever reason, that you're on a no-fly list, either Canadian or some other nation's, how do you get off that list? How quick will it be?

Take Ted Kennedy, the hockey player. If he arrives and wants to fly somewhere, all of a sudden he's a terrorist.

[Caroline Melis]

I have to say that is an American issue, who is on their no-fly list and how they can get off their no-fly list. I don't know what procedures the Americans have in place for getting your name removed. Ted Kennedy did get his removed, so there must be some way to do it.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Do we have a no-fly list?

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Doesn't Canada have a no-fly list?

[Paul Colpitts]

I believe the existing air security list, or whatever they call it, belongs to Transport Canada. We really don't—

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

So that's not part of your—

[Paul Colpitts]

We don't administer that list.