Information & Ethics committee  No. If we look at facial recognition and the creation of what they call NTOP, it was at our request. It was not proactive on their part.

Information & Ethics committee  I think they functioned within the law as it is.

Information & Ethics committee  Whether it's ethical or not, there are certainly improvements that are possible, given the intrusiveness of the technology, beyond part VI of the Criminal Code. Yes.

Information & Ethics committee  We by and large have policies, not always respected, that have a similar spirit, but they're not legal requirements. I think it would be extremely helpful to change these policy rules into laws so that the likelihood that they would actually be implemented would increase signific

Information & Ethics committee  Yes. Further, I think it is possible to have these requirements at a sufficient level of generality, but still meaningful, without being overly prescriptive and preventing officials, whether by the police or others, from exercising judgment. But—

Information & Ethics committee  That's the case in certain countries. Since data travels, as it were, between the private and public sectors, that would be a good idea. However, I would add that we waited 40 years for amendments to the Privacy Act for the public sector and 20 years for amendments to the act co

Information & Ethics committee  That's an excellent question. I would say that during my term, Treasury Board, as a matter of priority, because of limited resources probably, spent more time on access to information questions than privacy questions. They were not absent from the privacy landscape, but they ce

Information & Ethics committee  Canada's laws, for both the public and the private sectors, should recognize privacy as a fundamental human right. That's the starting point. We should ensure that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, for both the public and the private sectors, has the authority to not just m

Information & Ethics committee  I think it's a fair characterization of what I said. The privacy safeguards in part VI of the Criminal Code are good. They may well be perfectible, particularly given the highly invasive nature of ODITs.

Information & Ethics committee  Yes, the protections of the Criminal Code are good. Are they ideal? Are they perfect? Are they perfectible? I leave that to you. I think that certainly improvements are possible, but they are good. We have a good starting point.

Information & Ethics committee  Canadian law governs Canadian institutions, including the RCMP, and by and large, we have good rules. As we know, there are a number of countries around the world that are not democratic and do not care much for the rule of law, and it is entirely possible, likely—the RCMP seem t

Information & Ethics committee  Clearly, Canada is a country under the charter, the rule of law, and overall has good standing in defending human rights. At the same time, it was mentioned a few minutes ago that the public sector privacy law is 40 years old. The law was adopted when documents held by the govern

Information & Ethics committee  I have no knowledge about this.

Information & Ethics committee  I don't think so. They said they use ODITs only with judicial authorization. I accept that. With regard to the course of our investigation on facial recognition, are they using mass surveillance? Probably not, but they are certainly using intrusive tools without necessarily clear

Information & Ethics committee  You started your question with a reference to preambles and then moved on to whether there should be prescriptive rules. My answer is that of course government officials, including the police, ultimately have a role to play under the law. The law should not be overly prescriptive