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.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Dufresne, it sounds like you haven't seen the documents provided to this committee by the RCMP, so I'll share that in a letter from Commissioner Brenda Lucki, we learned that since 2017, the RCMP has used this ODIT technology—ODIT is the technology that they use to access people's devices—“in support of 32 investigations in which a combined total of 49 devices were targeted.” This goes back to 2017. It's been used 32 times to access 49 devices. There's a list of the types of investigations the RCMP has used this technology for, and it's for things like terrorism, kidnapping, murder and trafficking.
It sounds like this technology has not been overused. What's your impression of the way the technology has been used thus far according to what we've learned from the RCMP?
12:05 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
This is exactly the type of information that needs to be looked at in a PIA, with my office being consulted on it. This is the type of thing that would certainly go towards saying, okay, there are mechanisms here for approvals, so is it being used in specific, tailored cases appropriate to the severity of what's at stake and so on and so forth? These are the types of things.... It is very relevant information to consider and is part of what we look at in terms of necessity and proportionality, absolutely.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Would you say that there are circumstances in which the RCMP should be allowed to use this technology? I ask because it's not useful to tap a home phone as people aren't using those anymore, and people who may be committing terrorism, murder or kidnapping shouldn't have the right to privacy; they should lose that right.
Can you talk about whether this is useful technology in some cases and whether some people shouldn't have the right to privacy?
12:10 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Well, I think what's important is that the tools are looked at in terms of their impact, their purpose and the importance of the public interest at play. It's not a zero-sum game, and it's that not you achieve the public interest by sacrificing privacy. You achieve both. However, there certainly is an argument to be made to have some requirements for authorization in the Criminal Code, approved by Parliament, that provide some specific conditions and information about the types of situations where it can be used.
These are all things we would be looking at to see if there's more we could recommend to make this stronger from a privacy standpoint. Maybe there will be; maybe there won't be, but the important thing is that this exercise takes place, because it could strengthen the program. Maybe we won't need to strengthen it because the program is already strong enough, but this will strengthen trust because it will reassure Canadians that there's been a vetting of this from a privacy standpoint.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Thank you.
Can you talk about some of the checks and balances that are already in place? For example, we learned that the RCMP needs two types of warrants to use this technology: a transmission data recorder warrant and a general warrant. They have to be approved by a judge and have to go through a special department of the RCMP. Can you talk about that a bit further?
12:10 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I think this is something the RCMP will be very well placed to talk about in terms of the details, but I can say that there is a requirement for judicial authorization and there are criteria for obtaining this judicial authorization. There are some specific time periods for the duration. There are also requirements to notify the individuals at the end of the process and there's the possibility for extending that. There are a number of safeguards that exist, so the question will be whether there are other things that could be required or recommended given the privacy intrusiveness. As I said, maybe there will be; maybe there won't be, but going through that exercise will be important.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
You had maybe a few seconds left , Ms. Hepfner. I'm not sure; maybe you were muted or you had a—
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
I was muted. I'm sorry. I was just signing off anyway because I realized I only had a few seconds left.
Thanks very much, Chair.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
Now we're at five minutes.
With that, we'll go to Mr. Villemure for two and a half minutes.
Go ahead.
12:10 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We are discussing the right to privacy as a fundamental right, one that is in the public interest and promotes a sense of trust. Those things are undermined, however, when media reports reveal that organizations are using these tools.
Do you think we need a public debate on privacy and the use of these technologies?
Right now, people are worried and they don't understand everything that's going on, because it's complicated. Is a public debate warranted?
12:10 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I would say a public debate is under way as we speak given what this committee is studying. You are playing an important role by asking these questions and studying the issue. Your recommendations will fuel that debate.
Raising privacy concerns and discussing the interplay with new and evolving technologies is important, so that Canadians are aware of what's going on. It helps inform them about new technologies and the safeguards in place to protect their privacy.
When Canadians find out that a parliamentary committee like this has the ability to examine the privacy repercussions of these tools, to consult my office and to make recommendations, it helps earn their trust. It shows them that there is a regime in place, that Canadians aren't on their own when it comes to defending their privacy.
12:10 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Do you think it's necessary to educate people about privacy issues?
12:10 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
One of the things I said earlier is that more needs to be done. Young people need to be educated, whether at the high school, CEGEP or university level. We live in an increasingly digital world, so these are issues we need to talk about more with young people.
12:15 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Commissioner, my fellow member asked you to get back to the committee with some written information, but I'm curious as to whether you have the technical expertise to assess these new technologies.
12:15 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Yes, we have a very strong technical team. Assessing technologies is part of what we do. We make sure we keep up with the latest technologies and have cutting-edge expertise.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I'd like to continue on that line.
I'm sure that you've been looking at budgetary concerns since you've come into your new role. Do you believe that your department is set up contemplating a proactive approach to the assessments and the rapid advance of technology? Do you believe that you're set up and fully funded in a way that you'll have all the tools and resources necessary to keep up with the subject matter expertise and this growing explosion of surveillance tools that are being used?
12:15 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
We're certainly looking at the resources situation very carefully. We have had the Privacy Act extension order that extended the ambit of the Privacy Act. We've made a request for more resources based on that. We're waiting for the answer to that request.
We're also looking at Bill C-27. We're looking at potential modernization of the Privacy Act itself. All of these are raising questions of resources. Not everything requires more resources, but I'm certainly looking at this very carefully as one of my focuses to see if we have what we need and what we will need so that we can be as efficient as we need to be to face these new challenges and realities.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, even going through some of the preliminary supporting documents, one of my concerns, as somebody who likes to think they're somewhat technologically savvy, remains that there's just so much out there that we know we know and we know we don't know, but then we don't know what we don't know. My concern is that we have a generation of court justices, of judges, who are making decisions on proportionality who may not have, quite frankly, the technical expertise to keep up with making adequate decisions on exactly what it is they're giving warrants to.
In the contemplation of the Privacy Act, are there specific legal frameworks that you would like to see that might help guide our judiciary to make the adequate assessments on whether this is proportionate?
August 8th, 2022 / 12:15 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
We need to make sure, whoever the decision-maker is, whether it's the judiciary, my office or departments, that they have the necessary understanding of the technology that's at play. We need to understand the privacy impacts. We need to understand the information at play, and we need to understand what the capabilities are and if those change the nature of the discussion of metadata.
We have privacy legislation in the public sector that's 40 years old. We have the private sector. We have Bill C-27 that's going to be considered to modernize the private sector, so it's important that the legislation keeps up, but also, as you rightly point out, that the decision-makers are properly equipped with that knowledge. In this case, it's technological knowledge.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative