Information & Ethics Committee on April 27th, 2009

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay. Finally, on this whole idea of protecting anonymity, it is so darned important that there is a confidence level there. I know at government operations and estimates committee, when we did the investigation of a former Privacy Commissioner, we held the meetings in camera, and the employees who were coming forward were actually spirited in through the back halls and back stairways to a separate entry door into the committee room, and everybody was sworn to secrecy, because we knew reprisals were a big issue.

What specifically do you do to safeguard an employee so that no one could figure out where they went? How do you do that?

[Christiane Ouimet]

All of the above. We certainly make sure that we meet at the place of choice of the individual. Within our own office there are some very special measures taken, including how we record the name, how it's safeguarded, understanding, as well, that the act protects the identity but of course there is a process of natural justice. We will do everything that is possible to ensure confidentiality, but as the Honourable Patrick Ryan from New Brunswick indicated—and his presentation is on the website—there is occasionally some qualified protection because it can done at the expense of natural justice. But always the focus is, of course, confidentiality.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I'm sure you have good relationships with the other officers of Parliament, the Privacy Commissioner and the Information Commissioner, whom we deal with directly. I'm sure you will be bringing to the attention of Mr. Marleau and Madam Stoddart any areas of interest or concern that could ultimately come to our committee, as they relate to privacy or access issues. I think it's very important that the synergies take place between privacy, access, and your commission.

[Christiane Ouimet]

I could not agree more.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

On a point of order, if I could, I'll just reconfirm that the commissioner will provide to us the information that's been sent out informing rank-and-file RCMP officers of their ability, with this new office, to turn to your good offices in cases such as these. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

We have one other matter of business, but I think we're finished with you now. Thank you kindly. We wish you much success in executing the values and importance of the act.

[Christiane Ouimet]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you. You're excused.

Colleagues, we have another item on the agenda. As I understand, we're not ready right now to proceed. Do we want to have a little discussion about this?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

We are ready. I'm ready.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We are?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Yes. I have the original motion, which I understand you and some other members had some concerns with, so I've had a chance to discuss them briefly with you, with Madame Thaï Thi Lac, and with Mr. Siksay. I have some amendments that I will propose as friendly ones, which I think will allay all of your concerns.

If you have the motion in front of you right now, I'd be pleased to tell you the changes that I have made to allay your concerns. Does everyone have the motion?

What we propose, one, is to add in the second sentence, “and Canpages”. Canpages is the other company that does this type of technology and is using it within the confines of the Canadian borders.

The second change appears after the words “or his Canadian representative”. Right there you will see the beginning of my second amendment, which reads as follows: “and Olivier Vincent, the Chairman and CEO of Canpages, or his representative”.

The third and final amendment begins after the word “subject”, and it deletes everything starting with “as part of the committee's study on modernizing Canada's privacy laws.” All of that is eliminated. You had pointed out, Chairman, that this issue was not appropriate for the privacy act discussion because it's a commercial matter, and that therefore it falls under the PIPEDA legislation.

So those are the changes that I proposed. I've never had a chance to properly introduce the motion. If I could do that now, with your leave, Chairman, I would like to proceed in so doing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

One moment, please.

The original motion that was brought to the committee had proper notice but was not moved.

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

I'll move the change.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

No, no; it was not moved because I ruled it out of order. It was dealing with PIPEDA, not with privacy.

I think I had made the request, if we check back with the transcripts, that a revised motion be submitted to the committee.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Actually, Mr. Chair, you did not rule it out of order. You said you “may” rule it out of order--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

If it was moved.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

But you didn't confirm that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Notwithstanding, I think everybody understands where we're going.

Mr. Poilievre has given us notice of the issue, and I'll accept that. I think the changes he's made here are consequential to, I guess, new information, one being Canpages and the second being--

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

I don't want to play the heavy, but I would like it if we could read it with the amendments made by Mr. Poilievre. This would allow us to ensure that we are talking about the same thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Sure.

To give us more productive time, I would like the committee's okay that this motion, with the changes Mr. Poilievre has generally outlined to us, be considered at this meeting without the proper notice, and that he be permitted to move it now.

The motion that is being proposed to us is therefore as follows:

That the committee study the privacy implications of camera surveillance such as “Google's Street View” and “Canpages” and other issues related to video surveillance, and that the committee ask Eric Schmidt, the chairman and CEO of Google, or his Canadian representative, and Olivier Vincent, the chairman and CEO of Canpages, or his representative, to testify before the committee on this subject.

Are you prepared to move that motion, Mr. Poilievre?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I am.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Is it acceptable to the committee that we address it now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Do you have further comments to make, Mr. Poilievre?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Yes, I'll keep them very brief

This is a new and, I believe, exciting technology. It's also a controversial one. So to ensure that Google and Canpages, the two leading providers of street-level surveillance, are in compliance with PIPEDA, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, and that the privacy concerns of Canadians are protected, I believe that a discussion on this matter is now warranted.

For background, Google recently sparked a new discussion about privacy laws with the announcement that it had already begun photographing Canadian cities for its 3D online mapping service, Street View. The company's vehicles travel throughout major Canadian cities with their 360° cameras, recording images for curious websurfers to view around the world. Companies like Canpages are attempting to provide a similar service.

The Privacy Commissioner has raised concerns specifically relating to the technology. In an August 2007 open letter to Google, and restated in a fact sheet that was circulated to some members of this committee, the Privacy Commissioner has raised questions about this 3D online mapping service and whether or not it is in compliance with PIPEDA.

The commissioner has refused to render a final judgment. As of this week, there is no final judgment on whether or not it's permitted, and there will be no judgment until there is a complaint for her to consider. And that won't happen until the service is online with Canadian images on it. Unfortunately, by then it might be too late. We think it would be profitable for the country to have this discussion before committee prior to any conflicts.

There have been concerns raised around the world. There have been the frivolous concerns, where men in Speedos have claimed that their images on the Internet have been horrifying people around the world. And there have been more serious ones, where people who run homeless shelters have been concerned that pictures of the people who use their services might be put on the Internet and their privacy might be jeopardized, that women's shelters might be on the Internet and the people who stay at those shelters might be identified. There was one argument made by a California legislator who suggested a link between a similar Google technology that he claimed was used by terrorists who attacked Mumbai.

Subsequently the BBC has reported that Privacy International has requested the ICO temporarily shut down Google Street View, alleging the application has caused clear embarrassment and damage to many Britons. There was one town in England that physically blocked the Street View car from coming into the town by the people locking their arms on the street.

So there's a lot of discussion. I think some of the discussion has been a little hyperbolic, and I think there has been some exaggeration of the dangers of this technology. But at the same time, there are also legitimate concerns about where the images will be stored, whether we want millions of images of Canadians to be kept in one place, what blurring will be done, whether the blurring will not only be for the Internet but also for the records of Google, and whether all the laws will be respected as this is carried out.

I think we have an interesting discussion here and a lot to offer from the expertise of this committee. So without further ado, I move my motion.

Thank you.