Evidence of meeting #39 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was list.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
That's okay. I was going to ask the same question.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I just wanted to get clarification on Mr. Masse's line of questioning from last time. If we take a look at the changes that are being made in paragraphs (a) and (c) of this amendment, they're almost identical except that in paragraph (c) we keep paragraph 7(1)(b) in there, and in paragraph (a) we don't; we remove paragraph 7(1)(b).
What is the difference in the two circumstances? What's the result of taking paragraph 7(1)(b) out of the first change and not the second?
4:25 p.m.
Senior General Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Industry
Electronic addresses are much less sensitive. They include things like Internet addresses that are not personal. Every time you log onto Bell Sympatico or something of that nature, you get a number assigned for that session. When you log off, it's reassigned to somebody else for another session. This is not particularly sensitive information. It is important for persons who are pursuing their rights through electronic means to be able to obtain at least that core of information. They may need to be able to go further, by lawful means, to identify someone who might have been, for instance, violating copyright.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
That refers to proposed subsection 7.1(2). In proposed subsection 7.1(3), we are choosing to leave proposed paragraph (b) in, which makes the law more restrictive, right?
4:25 p.m.
Senior General Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Industry
That's right.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Senior General Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Industry
Unauthorized access to a computer system in order to trawl personal information would not be an accepted purpose under this amendment, so it would be more restrictive.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Would it be fair to say that most of the concerns surrounding this clause would be directed more at proposed subsection 7.1(3) than at proposed subsection 7.1(2)? Is that accurate?
4:25 p.m.
Senior General Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Industry
That's probably true.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I'm a little bit surprised to see this amendment. I believe that the minister said he thought the amendment would be pulled. Then he said it wouldn't be pulled. Instead, what we have is a change in the amendment. We still have the amendment in this package today.
How would the bill be different if this was not changed at all? Would it reduce other people's access to computers, or would it increase access?
4:25 p.m.
Policy Analyst, Electronic Commerce Policy, Department of Industry
With regard to the allowances under PIPEDA to collect personal information, we need to clarify which parts of proposed section 7.1 we're discussing. In proposed paragraph 7.1(3)(a), we're just describing which ones are in and which ones are out. Proposed paragraph 7.1(3)(b) means that the allowance that is normally in PIPEDA is no longer available. So it's clear that private companies that are attempting to collect personal information by an unauthorized access to a computer system cannot do so. That's the clarification contained here.
4:30 p.m.
Senior General Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Industry
I have a further comment on this. One of the sensitivities that came up was the potential for conflict between legislation. PIPEDA recognizes that it is acceptable to collect information by electronic means to satisfy a police warrant or a court order. When we reflected on this, we realized that it was important to correct this and to ensure that people who are served with court orders are in a position to satisfy the terms of those orders. Therefore, it was necessary to open this up in proposed subsections 7.1(2) and 7.1(3) to ensure that we didn't create situations in which people, in trying to fulfill one requirement, would be violating another.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
And the two subsequential Liberal amendments are ruled out of order because they would increase that potential? What are the specific reasons?
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Mr. Masse, amendments L-7 and L-8 are out of order because if amendment G-55.1 is adopted, amendments L-7 and L-8 would amend the same lines that amendment G-55.1 has amended. Therefore, because convention dictates that we can't go back and revisit lines or clauses that have already been adopted by the committee, they are out of order.
I made a mistake earlier by ruling amendment L-9 out of order, thinking it was further up the bill when in fact it comes subsequent to amendment G-55.1.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Mr. Masse, do you have any further questions for the departmental officials?
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Again, for clarification of the two changes, they look virtually identical, but the one is the really contentious one. The other one involves IP addresses and e-mail addresses and is largely uncontentious.
I would just point out for clarification that the Liberals were only seeking to amend through amendment L-8 the more contentious one. That's what we changed with our subamendment, our revised amendment.