Information & Ethics committee  I don't know if Patricia will be able to add something. The only thing that comes to mind is a recent judgment by the Japanese supreme court, which addressed this issue without recognizing the right to be forgotten per se. If did outline a number of factors that companies should bear in mind with regard to similar requests.

Information & Ethics committee  Yes. There is no absolute certainty in these matters, but I will give you my sense of what the considerations are. The bottom line is that I think the committee should give serious consideration to reviewing any gaps or differences that may exist between Canadian privacy law and European law, because ultimately, under the European regulation, Canada's laws will be assessed—at the latest in 2022, four years after the coming into force of the GDPR—as to whether our laws are adequate, i.e., essentially equivalent to European laws.

Information & Ethics committee  I have some notes on adequacy. I assume there will be questions about adequacy. I can speak about that if you want.

Information & Ethics committee  All right. Adequacy is another issue that I think the committee should bear in mind during its review: the adequacy of privacy laws in Europe. In Europe, the GDPR, the general data protection regulation, which has been adopted and will come into force in 2018, will require a review of adequacy decisions every four years, and Canada's adequacy status, which since 2001 has allowed data to flow freely from the EU to Canada, will have to be revisited.

Information & Ethics committee  Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Members of the committee, thank you for inviting us here for your study of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, the PIPEDA. As you know, PIPEDA is technology-neutral and based on principles of general application, two qualities that should remain as these are strengths that make this law a flexible tool.

Information & Ethics committee  If they said their collection authority has not changed, I would agree with that proposition. However, if we're talking about the RCMP, the RCMP has very broad authority under the common law to collect, share, and analyze information for investigative purposes. If the information is relevant to a criminal investigation and does not attract a charter interest, then I don't think a warrant is required.

Information & Ethics committee  I think the question is clear. I'll refer you to the recent Federal Court decision of Justice Noël in the case involving CSIS. In a section of the decision, Justice Noël mentioned that, since the adoption of Bill C-51, CSIS is now obtaining information from the Canada Revenue Agency that previously required a warrant.

Information & Ethics committee  Do you mean the interpretation that the provision doesn't cover the crown?

Information & Ethics committee  I don't have the answer to this question. We can get back to you later if you wish. The issues regarding crown immunity and the impact of crown liability are somewhat complex.

Information & Ethics committee  Okay.

Information & Ethics committee  I think all departments involved in national security should be the subject of independent review. Should it be one or several bodies? That's a mechanical issue of a certain importance, but my point is that all departments involved in national security should be the subject of expert independent review.

Information & Ethics committee  No. It's not a question of preference. Information sharing for national security makes sense. It's necessary as a concept. Before SCISA, we did not have an absence of legislation. There was legislation. It's not that I prefer the other legislation; I'm just saying that, before you legislate further, you should look at whether the previous legislation was sufficient.

Information & Ethics committee  I'm not even saying that. I'm saying that there were several authorities that authorized a considerable amount of information sharing. I think it is up to the government to demonstrate why this was insufficient. I haven't seen the evidence. I'm just saying there's an absence of evidence.

Information & Ethics committee  I think the government should think hard about it. Let's assume—and it is probably true—that there is fear among certain officials that they do not have the authority. I'll assume that. I'll accept that. I think the government then has two courses of action available to it. One, we, as the government, are going to explore whether there is validity to these fears or not.

Information & Ethics committee  Yes.