No. I disagree with that approach, not only here, but in the public safety committee, where we appeared last week. This points to at least two of our recommendations. One is the necessary change from “recorded” simply to “information”. That is the standard in PIPEDA. That would allow the inclusion of privacy protections to such things as genetic data, GPS location, and so on, whether or not it was in a recorded form. Another recommendation that we think is not that difficult to implement and is necessary now is to have some kind of what we call in the jargon “privacy management framework” with standards.
What are the standards for the RCMP to share information abroad? On what conditions? How long is it going to keep the information? What is it going to do with the information? What are some tests for this information? We've called for a necessity test—I think this joins our recommendations to the other committee—and we need some kind of public oversight. The RCMP is the only body now that still does not have major oversight. And I think this may explain the lack of comprehension and the lack of empathy, I guess, with some of our suggestions, because presumably this would be material for oversight by an eventual oversight mechanism or committee.