Evidence of meeting #30 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 rcmp.
A video is available from Parliament.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Are you referring to the presentation you'll be getting from the RCMP in August or another presentation?
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I'm referring to the RCMP's presentation in August. That's when I'll get the information on these tools.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
The presentation will be on the RCMP's use of the tools.
Is that right?
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Yes, that's right.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Other organizations, government or otherwise, may be using the tools. We don't know, but we do know that surveillance is a $12‑billion industry. I think we need to be proactive in seeking that information. There are four or five Israeli tools, alone. Pegasus is one, but there are others.
Will you work proactively to find out whether organizations other than the RCMP are using these tools?
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I think it's appropriate to see how the use of these tools by police forces like the RCMP compares with their use by the private sector. That gives rise to other questions.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Will you be addressing the issue from a private sector standpoint, or do you wait until a complaint comes in?
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
We are going to examine the issue internally to determine whether we are going to make recommendations or take steps to address the issue in the private sector.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
I see.
When would you like to see new legislation containing your recommendations adopted?
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
My recommendations on—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
Thank you.
We'll go to Mr. Green for the final five minutes.
Go ahead.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Dufresne, are you aware of the use of stingray technology, the dummy cellphone towers that are set up to capture information as it comes and goes?
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
We had an investigation on cell site simulators. We looked at the RCMP's use of those tools.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
In that investigation, we found that when it was authorized by a judicial warrant, it was compliant with privacy legislation. There were instances where we had not received sufficient evidence to indicate that it was judicially authorized or that there were exigent circumstances.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Just to be clear, you're stating here on the record that the RCMP was using—I think it's commonly called stingray technology—artificial cellphone towers to intercept information without warrants.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
We said in our investigation that, in certain instances, they did not have warrants. I believe their position was that these were exigent circumstances, and we didn't have information from them on that.
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
When this technology is used, do you understand it to be true that it captures everybody's information and doesn't necessarily have the ability to target individual phones?
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I'm not sure if Dr. Smolynec can answer this one more specifically.
Deputy Commissioner, Policy and Promotion Sector, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
No, I can't answer more specifically.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I think this is another example of where we see the RCMP using technology in a way that may or may not have judicial review.
In your opinion, what concerns do you have regarding the use of technologies like the one we're considering both on device and other ones? Stingray technology is just one step away from that in gathering the information outside of the device. What concerns do you have about that? How does the use of this technology by law enforcement affect the fundamental right to privacy that you laid out in your opening remarks?
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I think what it shows is that judicial authorization is very important when law enforcement authorities are using these types of tools to intercept private communication and personal information, so that's essential. In that investigation, we found that, in certain circumstances where there was no such authorization, we wanted to see information about exigent circumstances, so that is something we look at—
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Could I pause for a second, Mr. Chair, on that point? Given your history and your understanding of the charter and breaches of the charter, what happens when law enforcement uses this technology without judicial oversight? What are the ramifications? What are the outcomes and consequences of that use?
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
It's important that there be oversight of the use of those tools. Those tools are intrusive. They have access to the private information of Canadians, so that's why Parliament has put in place judicial authorization regimes. That's why we have the charter, all of these limits, for the fundamental rights of Canadians. In the context of privacy, the question we're asking today is: In circumstances where there is judicial authorization and where there is a regime, do we need more in terms of privacy consideration given the power—
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
My apologies; that's not the question I'm asking today. The question that I'm asking is what happens in a culture.... You've referenced a culture of privacy. I'm suggesting to you that there's a culture of cavalier intrusions on privacy and shortcuts that are taken. We had Clearview before us for a study of ours, where a lower-level police officer suggested that somebody just took it out on a whim. We had an RCMP officer refuse to name the person who authorized it, in what I believe to be contempt of this committee.
The question that I'm asking isn't so much in the perfect scenario, but what are the threats and risks involved in situations when an officer goes rogue, for whatever reason, or doesn't necessarily have the oversight, even within the RCMP, quite frankly, to do the things that they're doing, given the expansion of technology and the industry's propensity to offer this stuff even through, as I'm hearing anecdotally, on a trial basis and for free to kind of circumvent procurement?