Information & Ethics committee  Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure to be here. Thank you for inviting me to testify as part of the important study you are conducting further to the June 22 publication of the government's response to a question that MP Tako Van Popta asked regarding mobile device

Information & Ethics committee  I served between 2014 and 2022.

Information & Ethics committee  I was surprised by the tool itself, by how intrusive it is, and that it was used for so long. Certainly, there have been many discussions over the years—as the RCMP said yesterday, probably since the early 2000s—on the lawful access issue. Both in my term as commissioner and when

Information & Ethics committee  It's a complicated question. I would say, as Commissioner Dufresne said yesterday, that I would have looked at—as he will—the detailed conditions under which this tool would be used to see whether there were any recommendations to be made on how it would be used beyond the four c

Information & Ethics committee  You asked yesterday whether judges who receive requests for judicial authorization have the technical.... They certainly have the legal expertise, or they have the technical expertise to make the best decisions, I'm assuming. I heard yesterday in testimony from the government—I t

Information & Ethics committee  The comment that we were consulted most likely related to some other related initiative, not the use of this particular technology.

Information & Ethics committee  I think what's at play is the balancing of privacy and other public interests. There is no question that this particular tool is extremely intrusive. It's more intrusive than traditional wiretap tools. It does not just record communications on the phone between person A and perso

Information & Ethics committee  My surprise did not relate to the fact that the police have technologies to intercept communications in the context of investigations. Traditionally these tools were somewhat limited. Wiretaps, again, intercept a specific communication. It is the intrusiveness of the tool that su

Information & Ethics committee  I accept that. I accept that encryption, although it has many benefits for society protecting the privacy of communications of ordinary Canadians, commercial transactions and the like, can pose serious challenges for law enforcement. I accept that. As I said in my opening state

Information & Ethics committee  I don't have that. I know that the RCMP said yesterday that it's not just a question of just believing them. They told you yesterday that it would be a crime for them to use the tool without judicial authorization and that they do not do that. I accept that.

Information & Ethics committee  I think that's a central issue in your study. It may be more complicated than it seems. Yesterday, you discussed the possibility of amending the act to provide for the conduct of privacy impact assessments, PIAs. That's a legal obligation, and I think it's a very good idea. This

Information & Ethics committee  Do you mean the statutory provisions on privacy?

Information & Ethics committee  The legislation dates back to the 1980s.

Information & Ethics committee  Yes, that's the least you could say.

Information & Ethics committee  I don't think the situation is the same as in the Clearview AI affair. In that case, the legal framework regarding facial recognition was weak, nearly nonexistent. There was also no oversight by an independent authority. Part VI provides a legal framework comprising strict stand