Mr. Garneau.
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.
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.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
I'm just trying to understand. From what you had said, are you actually inferring that proposed paragraph 7.1(3)(b) that we're talking about is needed to investigate crime?
4:30 p.m.
Policy Analyst, Electronic Commerce Policy, Department of Industry
Under proposed subsection 7.1(2), we felt comfortable providing those allowances to private companies with regard to collecting that level, which is what we would consider a significantly lower level of personal information, being electronic addresses, when they're not tied to other personal information. So it allows you to identify whether the source is in fact Canadian. Is it a “.ca”? Is that IP address in Canada? We felt that it was important so that it wouldn't place an undue burden on private entities that are trying to defend a contract or a law.
However, proposed subsection 7.1(3) clearly states this is the collection of all personal information—i.e., very sensitive information—via an unauthorized access to a computer system. If we put proposed paragraph 7.1(3)(b) back in, it would allow private companies to access almost any computer system to collect personal information without authorization in defence of a law or a contract. The government didn't feel comfortable with allowing that type of access to private entities.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
To just follow up, what is your comment on the proposal that you really need to have not only address information but personal information if you're going to properly investigate crime?
4:35 p.m.
Policy Analyst, Electronic Commerce Policy, Department of Industry
For the entire section, law enforcement can then pick up the investigation. So there is a full kind of blanket permission in this area for law enforcement or any activity subsequent to a warrant or a court order.
If you can get the information that can identify the e-address as being a Canadian using a Rogers account, you can go and get the court order to get the further personal information from Rogers. So you're getting judicial oversight to that further collection of personal information.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
So I'm to conclude that you feel that there is a pathway towards getting, ultimately, the information that's necessary.
4:35 p.m.
Policy Analyst, Electronic Commerce Policy, Department of Industry
Yes. I think a private company would be able to have enough evidence, if they have the electronic address information. They would be able to identify the fact that this is a Canadian using a Rogers, Bell, or TSP account. They can note where the account is being held and can seek a court order to say that they need to collect further information and evidence on this in order to defend their contract, or the law in this case.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC
You mentioned an order. By that, you mean an order for RCMP officers, not for the Competition Bureau?
4:35 p.m.
Policy Analyst, Electronic Commerce Policy, Department of Industry
No, an order...for a private company to get personal information on a Canadian, after having identified one.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC
Can you tell us what an order means to you? If someone in the private sector can get an order to go to Rogers and get information on an account, that seems to me to be a bit wishy-washy as a process. What kind of order are you talking about?
4:35 p.m.
Policy Analyst, Electronic Commerce Policy, Department of Industry
An order from a provincial court in Canada.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Is there any further discussion or debate on G-55.1?
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
We will now go to the consideration of L-9, which is in order because it is going to amend line 17, which is subsequent in the bill. It is moved by Mr. Rota.
Mr. Lake.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I'd like to ask the officials to comment on the amendment.
4:35 p.m.
Policy Analyst, Electronic Commerce Policy, Department of Industry
To date we haven't tied any of the prohibitions in any of the other sections, such as part 2 of PIPEDA, or the Competition Act, to the front-end sections of ECPA, and there is a clear rationale for doing so. This limitation seems to be somewhat extreme and would limit these PIPEDA amendments solely to sending unsolicited commercial electronic messages. The idea here is to amend PIPEDA globally to update and clarify that it is an act that applies to all personal information in an electronic environment, in this case, at all times.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Thank you very much, Mr. Leduc.
Mr. Rota, do you have any comments?
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
When we first started this was about electronic addresses and electronic communications, and we're expanding it. Part of the concern in putting it together was on expanding it to telecommunications and beyond the scope. So the intent in looking at it was tighten it up more than anything else.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Thank you very much, Mr. Rota.
(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 78 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 79)
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
We now go to the consideration of clause 79, for which I understand there is one amendment. G-56 has been moved by Mr. Lake.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 79 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 80 and 81agreed to)