Evidence of meeting #102 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pia.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Acting Director General, Conservation and Protection, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
That's exactly right; I was not clear.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
We have to be clear. What you're talking about is a hundred-year-old practice where Fisheries and Oceans is out there on the ocean looking to make sure that people are not fishing in places they're not allowed to fish or doing things that are against the law. It's the same visual surveillance that has been going on before any of us were born. Is that correct?
Acting Director General, Conservation and Protection, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
That is correct, sir. I would suggest that there are some modern technologies such as an aircraft, but yes, it's definitely not these tools.
Liberal
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
If you were born before the Wright brothers, Rob, I'd be surprised.
Can you just clarify that nobody is surveilling Canadians, sir, at Environment Canada?
Chief Enforcement Officer, Department of the Environment
Again, we would not be using these tools to conduct surveillance activities. We may conduct surveillance activities like in the example I used, which was disrespect for the migratory birds regulations in terms of hunting. Generally speaking, compliant hunters would report that to us, and we may watch the site to determine who is engaged in activities.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Housefather.
It's Mr. Villemure's turn now, and he will be followed by Ms. Idlout, and then some Conservatives and Liberals. Each round will be for two and a half minutes. That will be the end of testimony for today.
Mr. Villemure, you have the floor.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I find it interesting that my colleague should say that we do not monitor Canadians. Indeed, it's clear to me that none of my colleagues are monitoring the population. There is nevertheless a form of surveillance in the contexts that were mentioned.
Mr. Napier, when people from the RCMP testify before the committee, they often tell us that they use data from cellular telephones. It today's equivalent to what used to be done with a hidden microphone and a lamp. The difference is that much more information can be obtained from a telephone than a microphone hidden in a lamp. The technology is taking us in a completely different direction.
You said earlier that you had started conducting privacy impact assessments in December.
Acting Director General, Conservation and Protection, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
That's correct.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
I really like your answers so far, but I'm wondering whether you're tempted to balance the need for an investigation against privacy. Before you answer, I'm going to bet on the investigation.
Acting Director General, Conservation and Protection, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I would argue that it is not, in fact, the case. I think we do everything to protect privacy, and that's why we get a judicial authority to go. We make a case, and we present the case to a judge who examines the evidence that we have before us and then provides us strict parameters in terms of what we can and cannot collect, all for the purpose of presenting, beyond a reasonable doubt, a case to a judge.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Do you believe that the Privacy Commissioner could disagree with a judge's authorization?
Acting Director General, Conservation and Protection, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I wouldn't want to speak for either of the two. Certainly they could have their own opinions, but I think the legal system is well constructed in the sense of protecting Canadians and that information. In fact, the evidentiary chain of custody, etc., is probably the most strict; therefore, any information that might accompany evidence would be treated in a similar manner.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Do you think that the commissioner's requirements, at some point in the course of an investigation, might be more of a nuisance than anything else once you've obtained a court order?
Acting Director General, Conservation and Protection, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Not at all. In fact, we're happy to hear any advice or recommendation from the commissioner and evaluate our own processes to ensure that we're respecting privacy within our processes.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you.
Ms. Idlout, you have two and a half minutes. Go ahead, please.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Qujannamiik.
I have three questions, so rather than asking them to respond quickly, what I would like to request is that they provide written responses to the questions that I'll be asking, if that's okay with you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Yes, that's fine. If you want to pose the questions, we'll have the clerk follow up with you on what the questions are.
Go ahead.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Thank you.
Section 5.1 of the directive on privacy impact assessment provides that a privacy impact assessment must be done for “new or substantially modified programs and activities involving the creation, collection and handling of personal information”.
My three questions are these: Could you explain the process that allows you to make a clear distinction between a new and existing program or activity? Second, could you explain the process that allows you to determine if modifications made to a program involving the creation, collection and handling of personal information are important enough to require a PIA? Finally, if you have doubts regarding the application of the directive on privacy impact assessment, do you consult the Treasury Board to clarify the application of its directive?
Qujannamiik.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Ms. Idlout. I just turned to the analyst and said what an efficient way that was to use the two and a half minutes. It really was.
I would ask that those responses be submitted to the committee by five o'clock on Wednesday. That's in six days, if that's okay. Thank you.
We'll keep it really tight on the timelines and go with two and a half minutes and two and a half minutes, because we have the next panel.
Mr. Brock, you have two and a half minutes. Go ahead, please.
