Evidence of meeting #30 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rcmp.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:45 a.m.
Assistant Director Intelligence, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
I've come here today to talk about the administration of the Privacy Act, as opposed to those policy developments that may take place, so I don't have a particular response to the recommendations.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Okay. Our committee, though, is here to make a recommendation or to address the recommendations that have been made. We would welcome any recommendations that you might have or any concerns that you might have about the recommendations that have been made. If we don't have the opportunity to hear that here, it will impede our ability to produce a report that is necessary on this file.
11:45 a.m.
Assistant Director Intelligence, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
I'd certainly be pleased to follow up with the committee with a response, but, as I said, I undertook to come here today to testify on how we actually handle and administer the act currently, as opposed to policy pieces. If I'm mistaken in that understanding, then, as I said, we'll follow up with you.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
11:45 a.m.
A/Commr Joe Oliver
Creation of an explicit necessity requirement for collection, I think, would have to be carefully carried out so as not to interfere with evidence gathering if that recommendation is accepted. When it comes to evidence gathering, we pursue evidence where it exists, whether it's travel information, banking information, information on communications, video surveillance, or other types of things. Limiting law enforcement to collect only certain pieces of information could restrict our ability to deliver our public safety mandate.
The other one is with respect to granting the Privacy Commissioner discretion to publicly report on government privacy issues when doing so would be in the public interest. I hope that if that recommendation is adopted, it won't weaken section 62, which relates to the security requirements, or section 65, which relates to the protection of sensitive capabilities, such as investigative techniques, and those types of things.
These are some areas, possibly impeding our ability to deliver our mandate, in which disclosure of certain information could compromise the identity of human sources or the identity of people in witness protection. It could compromise sensitive investigative techniques that we try to protect so that criminal organizations or terrorists do not modify their behaviours to avoid detection or put in place countermeasures to avoid those things. We'd be looking to maintain the protection of that type of information.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Thank you.
Perhaps I'll broaden the question and then allow each of the other two organizations to respond as to whether or not there are specifics.
Ms. Beck, you mentioned in your remarks the concern about the resources for compliance if the Privacy Act is to be extended to foreign nationals, if you'd like to expand on that, please go ahead.
11:50 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I think that one is fairly self-evident. When I say we're processing 2.8 million applications annually, if even 10% of those people started to make requests for all of their case files, we would have an enormous amount of work to do.
To add to what my colleague from the RCMP said, we too were curious as to what he meant by reporting on issues in the public interest. More information on that would be useful before we could come to some kind of formal view on it.
The one we are also interested in, of course, is the order-making powers that the Privacy Commissioner is asking for, following what the Information Commissioner has been requesting recently. Similarly, our concern would be where the order-making powers would override what's already in the Privacy Act and what's in the Access to Information Act. We would want to make sure that, notwithstanding new powers given to the commissioner, we could still protect our national security issues. Releasing information about a private individual could cause their family to be put in danger. I'm thinking, for instance, of cases with regard to refugee claims. It would be important that the Privacy Commissioner be aware of all the consequences of the kinds of things that would happen if the information were released, and that would be a major concern for us.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
11:50 a.m.
Director General, Corporate Secretariat, Canada Border Services Agency
There's nothing on the recommendations of the Privacy Commissioner that we had specific concerns with, but there is one issue we've been grappling with internally, and it may be applicable to the RCMP and Correctional Services.
There are situations under section 8(2) of the Privacy Act in which we can release personal information in a circumstance, but there's also the situation of people having undergone serious injury or death, meaning you can't get their permission to release information to next of kin or family members. That may be an amendment that would serve a purpose, as opposed to having to go through an E2M, which is a way of determining whether the public interest exceeds the personal to release that information, and it's a time-consuming process. In adding an amendment that would be specific to a situation of death or serious injury, we would be in a position to notify next of kin.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Maybe I'll finish again with Mr. Peirce then.
If you have concerns about the 15 recommendations we have, will you respond to those afterwards, so that we have that information from you as a summary?
11:50 a.m.
Assistant Director Intelligence, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
We'll follow up.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Thank you, Mr. Peirce.
I'm sorry, Mr. Kelly. I didn't mean to interrupt.
Mr. Peirce, by all means, if you have some information, please follow up with the clerk of the committee here and we'll disseminate that information.
We will now move to Mr. Blaikie for up to seven minutes.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you all for coming. Because it's a bit of a challenge to have four departments all in one session, I'm going to start with a couple of questions I hope can be answered quite quickly, with a yes or a no, and then I'll get into a more detailed question.
Are there instances in your current operations in which personal information is shared without being covered by an explicit information-sharing agreement, either with another government department or with a foreign government?
11:55 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
No.
11:55 a.m.
A voice
No.
11:55 a.m.
A/Commr Joe Oliver
No. When we share information, it's for consistent use and it would include caveats regarding further dissemination.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
In those cases, for all of your departments, would those be written information-sharing agreements? Does any information sharing that occurs happen under the authority of a written agreement with another department or another government?
11:55 a.m.
Director General, Corporate Secretariat, Canada Border Services Agency
I could respond.
In the case of another government, foreign or domestic, there will always be a collaborative written arrangement in place, so it is in writing. I believe that with respect to information sharing between government departments, it depends on the circumstances as to whether we have something in writing that's specific. We often rely on the authorities of different acts to do the information exchange. It doesn't necessarily require a written agreement.
11:55 a.m.
A/Commr Joe Oliver
That would be consistent with the situation for the RCMP. As long as it's collected for a consistent use, the disclosure is consistent with the Privacy Act, and we've assessed reliability, relevance, and so forth, then we would share in the absence of agreements, but with caveats attached to that information.
11:55 a.m.
Assistant Director Intelligence, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Not all of our agreements with international partners are written agreements. Some of them are oral agreements. They are all documented as being agreements under the provisions of our act, however.