Information & Ethics Committee on May 9th, 2022

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Okay. Very good.

[Colin Stairs]

—so yes, what you're saying is correct.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I don't know if you've been involved in that process at all, but you were talking about what you're looking for, like the benefits and the risk flags.

Can you talk about what you have discovered so far? What types of benefits come from this technology, balanced by what types of risks?

[Colin Stairs]

If we're talking about facial recognition, when we have an unknown subject in a violent crime or involved in a significant issue, and sometimes when we have an unknown witness, these technologies can be helpful. They're very much limited by the scope of our mug shot database. We don't pool that with other police services; it's only our city of Toronto mug shot database.

Some of the flags are the procedural Criminal Code and charter rights. Something that could violate those in any way is certainly a flag. Not facial recognition, but something called algorithmic policing that might direct resources to different communities is a flag, because it can reinforce biases—

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Mr. Stairs, unfortunately, we're a fair bit over time now with Ms. Hepfner's round.

Mr. Garon, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Sage, you have told us about investigations in which facial recognition had been used. Listening to you speak, I can see that these are important investigations for you.

Do you think that the nobility of the cause you serve justifies sparing ourselves an ethical and moral conversation about the use of artificial intelligence and facial recognition by law enforcement?

[C/Supt Gordon Sage]

I believe that when we use facial recognition technology, we have never used it on an offender in the child exploitation world because the offenders in the child exploitation world are generally—

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

My question is very simple, Mr. Sage. You didn't understand it, so I will repeat it.

Do you think that the nobility of the investigations you are doing justifies sparing ourselves a serious conversation about the ethics surrounding the use of facial recognition?

[C/Supt Gordon Sage]

I utilize the technology to rescue victims and have not gone down the offender side of these investigations. My use is simply to identify victims only so we can provide safeguarding measures to the victim and then start the investigative process required to identify an offender.

I would only use it for a victim at this point in my world. I feel the needs of a child—

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

So, if I understand correctly, the RCMP has done some ethical analysis on the use of this technology. Could that analysis be provided in written form to the committee?

You seem to have put a lot of thought into this at the RCMP.

[C/Supt Gordon Sage]

The NTOP process assesses the risks and the ethical issues, including a privacy assessment, on that technology. Once that is done, if I'm able to use it, I will use it. If I can't, I can't and I don't.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like the witness to be asked to provide the committee with these documents, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

That's noted. He's heard the testimony and the request, so that request is conveyed.

With that, we'll go to Mr. Green for two and a half minutes.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, through you to Mr. Sage, can you please name your predecessor? This is the public record, so it's for the record here today.

[C/Supt Gordon Sage]

When I came into this position, the predecessor was not in the chair, so I would have to verify that.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You're unfamiliar with the person who served before you. Is that your testimony here today?

[C/Supt Gordon Sage]

I'm sorry. I missed that.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I said you're unfamiliar with the person who served in your position before you. Quite frankly, I think that's unbelievable, by the way. You're stating here today that you don't know the person who served in your position before you.

[C/Supt Gordon Sage]

Yes, I know the person who served before me—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

What is their name?

[C/Supt Gordon Sage]

The person is a retired employee—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

What is the person's name?

I'll save you the embarrassment, sir, because quite frankly, when I talk about the duty of candour and full and frank disclosure to this committee, what I have is a significant trust issue.

I reference that your service, sir, first denied the use of this technology and has, in initial claims, rejected the findings of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. It has not, in my view, demonstrated the ability to have the kind of candour and frankness with civilian oversight bodies such as the House of Commons to provide basic information for Canadians who are concerned about their civil liberties.

Mr. Sage, you have quite frequently referenced “I” and “my” and “victims”. This study is not about you, sir.

Through you, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Sage, are you familiar with the RCMP using these technologies in divisions outside of your own?

[C/Supt Gordon Sage]

Yes, I am. They were used operationally.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Which divisions were they used in? Were they used for oversight of first nations land reclamations or civil protests? Which divisions used them, sir?

[C/Supt Gordon Sage]

They were utilized one time by British Columbia for an international fugitive who was abroad. That is the only time.