I think overall it's reassuring that we heard testimony from the RCMP yesterday and from the minister that the instances of the use of this type of technology were undertaken with judicial authorization. However, as I said before, I think just because we hear from the RCMP that there was judicial authorization, it shouldn't be seen as some kind of magic wand that makes everything else magically disappear: “Nothing to see here. Go about your business.”
First of all, we know that there is a well-documented history of abuse within law enforcement in this country. There is a documented history of discriminatory practices. I also have concerns about the nature of the technology itself and whether, with all due respect to judges who I have confidence in, they truly understand the scope and scale and sophistication and power of the type of invasive technology we're talking about that Ms. McPhail just really accurately described.
I also think there are equities issues that need to be discussed here. My team and I routinely forensically analyze victims of spyware. In several instances, we've actually recovered copies of the spyware and made responsible disclosures to the vendors, unlike what the government agencies do. These disclosures have resulted in security patches affecting several billions of people worldwide. If the government is going to withhold that information from the vendors and put all of our safety at risk, there needs to be a proper process around that. That process typically is called the “vulnerabilities equities process”. Right now, as I said in my testimony, our process around that in this country is weak. It's opaque. Frankly, it's nowhere near the level of where it should be for a mature liberal democracy.
Those are some of the concerns I have that go well beyond whether the RCMP simply told us that these instances were authorized by a judge.