Evidence of meeting #101 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.
12:55 p.m.
Vice-President, Intelligence and Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency
I'd say it varies by the circumstances. Remember that this is evidence in a criminal procedure, so we will hold that as part of our evidence and for part of it we use the tools to extract and translate the data into a format that can be used in judicial—
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
No, I understand, but you're not giving someone back the phone with a tool on it to continue to extract their data without their knowledge.
12:55 p.m.
Vice-President, Intelligence and Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency
No.
12:55 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs, Correctional Service of Canada
We are not giving back the phones because they are contraband, so we keep them.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I understand.
Would it be true, in the case of the RCMP, that you are using technology to extract data that is consistent with RCMP-type organizations in the United States, in the U.K. and in other similar types of countries?
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Would you say that the policies that you use are consistent as well, noting the difference in our criminal law?
12:55 p.m.
Superintendent, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I would say they're somewhat similar, yes.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Vice-President, Intelligence and Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency
To the best of my knowledge, yes, and I would say it's also very similar to how our colleagues use it.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Is it the same thing for the Correctional Service of Canada?
12:55 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs, Correctional Service of Canada
I would say there are some differences depending on the jurisdiction, but it can be similar, yes.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Perfect.
I would now want to just establish that these devices that you have cannot be used remotely. In order to use the data extraction technology, you actually need to have the device in hand. Is that right? You cannot surreptitiously take data off a device that is not in your possession and the user have no knowledge that you're doing that. Would that be correct?
12:55 p.m.
Superintendent, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
For the technology in question here, the Cellebrites or the Magnet Forensics of this world, yes. We need the device in our hands to extract the data.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
A Canadian sitting in Winnipeg can be sure that the RCMP is not, never having had possession of their device, extracting data from it.
12:55 p.m.
Superintendent, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Using these tools, that's correct, yes.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
We won't get into what other tools you may have at this point, because that would be another study.
CBSA...?
1 p.m.
Vice-President, Intelligence and Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency
Yes, we use the technology in our digital forensics labs, secure facilities. It's in our physical possession, again, obtained through a search warrant.
1 p.m.
Liberal
1 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs, Correctional Service of Canada
It's exactly the same, yes.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I have one last question.
You mentioned the one time only that you used this on an employee. My understanding, then, is that, if you're ever using it on an employee, it's a result of potential criminal activities by that employee. It's not because they're breaking HR protocols of the RCMP that don't get into criminal law, other than in that one instance. Is that correct?
1 p.m.
Deputy Commissioner, Specialized Policing Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
This one was actually not a criminal investigation. It was an internal matter. It was a departmental security investigation, and the member actually consented. They came forward and consented to use the device on their tool.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
They did so in order to clear themselves, I presume. They felt that the information there would clear them.
What I'm asking, then, is that, just like any other potential criminal activity that exists, I would assume, if the criminal activity exists with an employee of the RCMP, then it would fall under the warrant provisions and the other provisions that you use with anybody else. You wouldn't be dealing with the employee for employee matters, except, as you mentioned, through consent to do that.
1 p.m.
Deputy Commissioner, Specialized Policing Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
For a criminal investigation, we would seek judicial authorization, although there are authorities under the RCMP Act that would allow us to actually use the technology, use the actual tools, but we would use that on a case-by-case basis. Superintendent Gagné's team looks at a threshold and a framework, and there's consultation with our professional responsibility office and the investigators doing that code of conduct investigation.