Evidence of meeting #34 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was countries.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
I thank you both for appearing before our committee.
I have a few questions, and if there's time I would like to share my time with Mr. Hiebert.
First of all, Mr. O'Brian, I think that part of the problem many of us have is that we're really not too concerned about collecting information except when it's abused. You can know how old I am, and you can know this, that, and the other thing about my habits, but we just don't want that to be abused.
You made mention of a watchdog. Do we need to put something into this act that possibly gives you a little more flexibility in information, but ensures there's somebody who is going to oversee and make sure there is no abuse?
What I'm saying is basically that there might be a time when I'd like to know what you have in my file. There could be something that's incorrect or something along those lines. Do we have some safeguards there?
4:55 p.m.
Advisor, Operations and Legislation, Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)
The first answer would be that if you asked about your file you probably would get a “we neither confirm nor deny” answer from us if it was part of the operational holdings. That wouldn't be the end of it, because our system is set up so that under section 41 of our act, any person can complain about any act or thing that they believe the service has done. They can complain to SIRC about it. SIRC will review it, and they will give you an answer. It may not contain all of the details, and it may not be the answer you like, but you will be assured that there is someone who will have looked at it and will have had complete access to all of the records.
In some ways that's my understanding of what the Privacy Commissioner is supposed to do. Under section 34 of the Privacy Act,
...the Privacy Commissioner may...examine any information recorded in any form under the control of a government institution...and no information...may be withheld....
5 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Mr. Paulson, do you feel that's pretty much the same for the RCMP?
5 p.m.
C/Supt Bob Paulson
Yes. My view is that she has very good powers now. I think a good example is the exempt bank review that she did with us. We weren't abusing it, but we were perhaps neglectful of the information that was in there. Through her review--and she was statutorily entitled to do that review--the commissioner found those shortcomings, and they're fixed.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
My second question is directed to you, sir.
With regard to the Internet--and I understand that much of your work, especially on child pornography and those sorts of things, is done on the Internet--we had a witness here last week who suggested that we didn't need to expand those powers. Do you feel we need to expand the powers regarding what you're allowed to do now with Internet providers? I know you need some cooperation at times, and presently you're having some difficulties. Do you want to comment on that?
5 p.m.
C/Supt Bob Paulson
Again, I'm no expert on the Internet, but it is a growing area in which crimes are being facilitated and committed, and we are of the view that in many instances we need to be able to get to the names and addresses of those people who are registering websites and are engaged in the activities. But we apply the existing laws, the Charter of Rights, and all of the existing sort of legal framework around protecting Canadians' rights when it comes to screening the Internet as well.
I guess those would be my comments.
5 p.m.
Liberal
5 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Thanks.
The comments you made a moment ago about the ten recommendations, do you have those comments in writing? I've reviewed your statement, and it doesn't specifically address the ten recommendations that were provided to us by the Privacy Commissioner. Do you have those comments? Could you provide them to us in a more substantive manner?
I heard your general comments about how recommendation 1 would get in the way of wiretaps or some form of investigation; and that recommendation 2 you don't really like, but other than saying that it would change the nature of the act, you weren't really specific about the particular part you're concerned about.
We've had a number of witnesses come before this committee saying they're glad the committee is reviewing the Privacy Act, that it's important and has to be done, but we've not had as much substantive consideration of the ten recommendations that the Privacy Commissioner has put forward, or any other recommendations that we should be considering. I am not speaking for my colleagues, but I'm really looking for that kind of substantive comment.
This is an area you're responsible for. I'd like to know in detail what restrictions this would place, if this were adopted. Are you seeking an exemption? We understand that this is a law of general application. There are many ministries it would apply to. Perhaps there should be an exemption for national security or for other forms of surveillance, but that's what I'd like to hear.
I don't expect you to have that comment for me now, so I'll move to some other questions, but if you could provide us with that substantive review of the ten recommendations and other thoughts on the Privacy Act, I would very much appreciate it.
In terms of my remaining questions, you talked a moment ago about how you have to share information with other nations to protect our national security. What agreements do you have with other countries right now, when you share the information of Canadians? Do you have any agreements with any other nations on how to protect the privacy of Canadians?
5:05 p.m.
C/Supt Bob Paulson
Yes, we have a number of MOUs. But more importantly, when we share, in the national security context now, information with other countries or receive information from other countries, it's done, as I've indicated, in writing for the most part and with caveats attached to it. But we do have MOUs with other countries.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Okay, so that governs.... So Canadians don't have to be worried that when their information is sent to another country, that information will somehow get into the hands of the wrong people.... Have other countries given us a commitment that they will protect the privacy of the information we give them?
5:05 p.m.
C/Supt Bob Paulson
Yes.
When I say that, I'm talking about the written caveats that Justice O'Connor spent a lot of time speaking to.
5:05 p.m.
C/Supt Bob Paulson
But the caveat and the seeking of the agreement by the receiving country is only as good as their word.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I have Mr. Pearson, Mr. Wallace, Madame Lavallée, and that's it. That will take us to about 20 after the hour, so there will be a couple of minutes left if anybody else wants to jump in. You might want to think about it.
We'll go with Mr. Pearson to start.
May 13th, 2008 / 5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Glen Pearson Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be brief.
As a follow-up, I agree with Mr. Hiebert. When we were talking with a witness the last time we were here he kept trying to hone down on this, to try to find the substance of what it is we're looking for.
When you talk about transborder things, are you saying that there are MOUs? Part of what the Privacy Commissioner said was that there need to be written agreements. Are you saying that there are written agreements?
5:05 p.m.
C/Supt Bob Paulson
There are some written agreements, yes.
5:05 p.m.
C/Supt Bob Paulson
Yes.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Glen Pearson Liberal London North Centre, ON
It seems to me she was implying that there needed to be more substance to those kinds of agreements. Can I get your view on that?
5:05 p.m.
C/Supt Bob Paulson
Well, yes, I think what we talked about earlier was this need for flexibility and accountability in how we exchange information. Let me give you a very quick example. We have our integrated border enforcement teams that are along the border, and they work together, shoulder to shoulder often with American law enforcement people. So you can't envision a set of circumstances that would guide and restrict conversations that they would have in these joint investigations they engage in. However, there is an overriding memorandum of understanding between the two countries in respect of those things.
But the greater challenge for us is in terms of our practice and our policies around ensuring that this principled approach is applied to those key areas that present the risk. So I know what the Privacy Commissioner recommended, and our written arrangements and information exchanges are in writing with other countries. I'm just concerned that we try to prescribe, as my colleague said earlier, every sort of circumstance in which this exchange would happen.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Glen Pearson Liberal London North Centre, ON
There is such a delicate balance we're trying to achieve here for the committee about private information and also for the need of protection. But I'm still trying to understand. If the privacy impact assessments are running the way they are, and you feel it's suitable, why, then, are you against legislating it? Is it because it provides you with a certain amount of flexibility with that? You would like to have that flexibility, and legislation might impede that?
5:05 p.m.
C/Supt Bob Paulson
Yes.