Evidence of meeting #31 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.
D/Commr Bryan Larkin
I'm not sure any of us can respond to why it didn't occur in 2016. If we're very candid, Mr. Villemure, none of us were involved or actually participating in that process at the time, so—
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
If you ever find the answer, you can send it to us in writing. These are RCMP documents that I'm quoting.
As Mr. Green mentioned, we're talking about trust. We're not trying to carry out a witch hunt. The idea is to help you do your job in the best possible conditions.
Would you be open to having a third party audit or a third party assist you so that we don't have to believe you?
Sgt Dave Cobey
I would say the short answer is yes. Our involvement with senior federal and provincial prosecutors to make sure we get it right in terms of sharing enough detail with judges is an example of where we've reached out to third parties to try to get it right.
Conservative
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you.
In the committee's latest study on facial recognition technology, the RCMP representatives told the committee about a new national strategy, the national technologies onboarding program. It's supposed to ensure that new technologies are assessed before they're used.
Why not just bring the Privacy Commissioner in there in an official way?
D/Commr Bryan Larkin
Thanks very much, Mr. Green.
I think one of our processes when we meet on August 23 will be to discuss how we modernize and evolve NTOP. That looks at all technology, centralized technology, so we have regulation, monitoring and good audits, and it also embeds GBA+ and legal assessments, etc.
That is a recommendation we're very much open to and something we look forward to.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Given that the RCMP is currently subject to the Privacy Act, what practices are currently in place, perhaps referencing this new onboarding program, to ensure the RCMP's use of device investigation tools complies with the Privacy Act?
Sgt Dave Cobey
In terms of NTOP and the OPC's being involved, I'm not sure of the status of it, but we actually did request whether the OPC would have an interest in embedding somebody in our program.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Again, this kind of speaks to the reactionary way and the culture within the RCMP, quite frankly, that I've observed, after the fact.
With that being said, I still have a bit of a gap in what happens when the monitoring happens that might breach that fine line of here's our target, and our target is now around people not under investigation. Would that process also be open to a review basis? You know, with 32 occurrences that we know of going back to 2017, it feels like the Privacy Commissioner could have a meaningful role to play so that we at this committee don't have to embark on finding out after the fact in the media, quite frankly, which is a bit problematic.
Sgt Dave Cobey
I can tell you that as someone at the working level who's working every day with investigators and tech specialists to get this right, yes, we'd be happy to have more engagement from third parties like the OPC.
Conservative
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you again, gentlemen, for attending today.
I think the biggest balance we're looking for here is the balance between national security or your investigative work, which is very important, and then ensuring that we have public disclosure and protection of privacy laws as a whole. We know that's very difficult sometimes. I think as our colleagues have indicated, part of the reason we're here is that it was based on parliamentary work that was just asking certain questions in Parliament. It was a shock or a surprise to parliamentarians to find out that something was being used and no one knew anything about it—including who we would trust would be the Privacy Commissioner. Hearing today that technology's been used for 10 years....
As my colleagues have stated, we had investigations on other technologies, such as facial recognition technology, and from that we also found that the RCMP were not totally engaged with the process. We found that there wasn't that communication. Knowing that, and knowing that the one tool that the Privacy Commissioner has asked for, which is going to be implemented here in August....
I guess from a general standpoint, just so I can understand, why was the Privacy Commissioner not engaged even three years ago, when this was really being used in the judicial system in different processes? What is the best answer about why the Privacy Commissioner, who has, as he explained to us this morning, complete and airtight systems that keep everything confidential better than we can in an open committee in the public today...? Why was that not the first step taken with the RCMP?
A/Commr Mark Flynn
I can speak back even further than the last 10 years. I can go back more than a decade to almost two decades ago. Again, in terms of looking at what is the actual privacy invasion, we're focusing a lot on the tool and the methodology, but the privacy invasion is listening to the conversation and seeing what people are physically doing. We've installed for years; I've gone through the full Special “I” training program that is to install listening devices, hardware devices and cameras hidden discreetly in a particular location where criminal behaviour is occurring. This is a new method of invading privacy but invading privacy at the same level that it had been previously, whether it be through using those other techniques or through covert entry where you then extract all the data off of a computer—again, adhering to the terms and conditions of the court order.
So when you ask us when—about when we get to the point that we are actually seeing a level of privacy invasion that's different from what we have done before—that's really where the triggers come in for us. For those of us who have lived and done this work for two decades, you are seeing a slow evolution. There are times when we do need the checks and balances that come in and say that it's time to reflect and have new people come in. People like Sergeant Dave Cobey have come in. He is a strong advocate of being more public about what we're doing. He writes articles for the different journals and newspapers, etc., to try to bring visibility to this. That's really what the trigger is.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
I 100% agree with that, but at the same time, we're here today, and what we talk about is the word “trust”. We're trying to create and maintain 100% trust with government institutions and RCMP. Would it not have made sense—to counter your argument—that the Privacy Commissioner would have been the first one who would have been engaged in that process to ensure there's 100% trust and accountability?
A/Commr Mark Flynn
As I stated earlier as well, I am aware that the Privacy Commissioner's office, previous privacy commissioners, Department of Justice criminal law policy, human law section, have been involved in the lawful access debate that speaks to the reason behind the use of this technology and others for two decades. I know all of you are well aware of the lawful access debate and the multi-generational aspects to it.
I know those conversations have occurred at some levels. What made it to the Privacy Commissioners themselves I don't know. I do know we have had discussions. I can relay to you one in particular where we had a very fruitful conversation with the Privacy Commissioner's office around lawful access. We felt there was a strong understanding, and later on we received some contrary messaging. We've been involved in this debate. We welcome the transparency. We are open to it. We like the work that's been happening.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
I think part of this committee's work, or the whole work, is to have recommendations because we're also modernizing our Privacy Act as a whole, not only to catch up to Europe and the Americans, but also probably trying as Canadians to get ahead of them.
What I'm going to ask for, in writing, is recommendations from your end, not just from our end, on what we can see to have more transparency and to modernize our Privacy Act the best we can, including protecting the confidentiality that you need to ensure that this kind of thing doesn't happen again. I think the biggest part that we're trying to talk about is that we have trust, trust in our government institutions. We've stated this over and over. I think that's where we're coming from. We want to see that. What recommendations can you give us that make sure that is maximized?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
Thank you.
I'm not sure that was really a question, but even if it was, we don't have time for an answer.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
I'd like it in written format, if I can, through you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
I think there was more of a request for a written response there. We'll take it as requested that way and move on now to Mrs. Valdez for five minutes.