Evidence of meeting #104 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 use.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
It's all about privacy.
Professor Light, can I get your opinion on what I just read out to you? Is that a danger? Was that a danger?
11:40 a.m.
Associate Professor, As an Individual
Sure. I just want to preface this by stating that I am a member of no political party, and I come to this believing that privacy is a completely non-partisan issue. We're talking about a human right.
February 15th, 2024 / 11:40 a.m.
Associate Professor, As an Individual
It's not negotiable. It's not debatable.
I think the preamble you read is really fascinating because to me it speaks to—if you remember—Bill C-51, which was a Harper government law that created a brand new level of data sharing between government agencies.
The preamble sort of lays out how that happens. It shows you how this information flows between agencies and how it has become quite a normal thing to do. That dates back a very long time. It's not a new thing. It has probably been going on since before the Harper years, but I think it's something that maybe was informal and now has become quite formalized.
It does scare me. As somebody who used ArriveCAN when it came out because I found it easier—I wasn't provided with paper on a plane to fill out—I think that our technologies at airports and borders are quite invasive. They're also quite invasive everywhere in the world. I've been to airports in Europe where I couldn't get a connection without having my face and my hands scanned.
I think our levels of invasion are not necessarily at that high level here, but yes, I think it's problematic.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Particularly with the phrase “without consent”, I think it is extremely problematic.
Would you agree with that?
11:40 a.m.
Associate Professor, As an Individual
Yes, and I think that the position it puts a traveller in, for instance, just as in the case of using mobile forensic devices within agencies for administrative purposes.... You're in a position where you can't necessarily consent, where there is a power imbalance, so you are doing something because—
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
One can only surmise what type of information is in the possession right now of the Government of Canada that is not used for the purposes of protecting that individual from COVID.
Another issue I want to discuss....
How much time do I have, Chair?
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
You have 45 seconds, Mr. Brock, and I'm sticking to the timelines.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Thank you.
You're aware that the Auditor General released a report. She talked about cybersecurity leaks and the individuals, the contractors, not having proper security clearance.
How do you weigh that, sir, in terms of an opinion?
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Okay. It says, “Although the agency told us that the resources did not have access to travellers’ personal information, having resources that were not security-cleared exposed the agency to an increased risk of security breaches.” This is in relation to the CBSA giving contractors without security clearance the authority to gain information on travellers.
What's your opinion on that, sir?
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Light, for being here today.
The member for Brantford—Brant recently said in the government operations committee that if people are public servants, there are no privacy issues.
Do you believe that public servants are entitled to privacy?
11:45 a.m.
Associate Professor, As an Individual
Yes, and if you look back a few weeks ago, Brigitte Bureau at Radio-Canada published an article exactly on this issue and interviewed two legal experts. I am not a lawyer and I don't consider myself a legal expert, but one law professor and one lawyer both said that employees, civil servants, do have an expectation of privacy and do have the right to privacy even when they're using government-issued devices. There is a difference between the device itself and the stuff on the device.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
When a government employee, for example, is given a device that they use for their work, which is what we're talking about in these 13 departments, do they have a reasonable expectation of privacy on those government phones, which they use and which were given to them to be able to do their work better?
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
With that reasonable expectation of privacy and the consent piece of it, what is the role that a privacy impact assessment plays in how departments manage their relationships with their employees?
11:45 a.m.
Associate Professor, As an Individual
Right now I think privacy impact assessments are not necessarily a standard thing. They push an agency through a line of questioning that helps them think about how to meet this balance of privacy violations and privacy protections.
However, that process isn't necessarily clear, I don't think, to employees. I think it's there for guidance at a high level, but it's not there for understanding at the ground level.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
To be clear, employees' personal phones are not impacted by what we are talking about today. It is specifically government-owned devices. Is that correct?
11:45 a.m.
Associate Professor, As an Individual
I think the committee has spoken about a number of different possible uses. There are uses in administrative cases for internal evaluation of government-owned phones, and then most of the organizations that you've had testify to you have spoken about the use on devices of non-employees. DFO, Transportation Safety Board, CBSA, the RCMP use this on non-employees as well.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
I'm not sure if that was my take on the testimony that we heard.
However, just on that, the relationship between warrants and hypotheticals, as in what could be done or what is possible versus what is actually done.... Do you think there is a break in public trust? Clearly you have mistrust in how departments are operating these devices with their employees. How do you think we can work to build better trust so that you and others don't think that what could be done is actually being done?
11:45 a.m.
Associate Professor, As an Individual
For me, as a researcher, I want clear evidence.
In the process of preparing ATIPs for these agencies for their internal policies, for their use logs, it's about this: Show me what you use these things for; show me why you use them; show me what policies exist and what policies don't, what laws exist and what laws don't.