Information & Ethics committee  Yes.

Information & Ethics committee  With respect, I don't think that's an example of “trust us” when they say courts only give the authorizations after review and therefore this is lawful. You say, "trust us". The question of trust depends on two things: a clear and rigorous legal framework and independent oversigh

Information & Ethics committee  I think a preamble is a good idea. You said yesterday that you would want clear legal standards such as the requirement to proceed with a PIA, and I agree, but a preamble helps set for everyone, including government institutions, how we look at privacy when a privacy impact asse

Information & Ethics committee  The preamble can still be used as an interpretive tool. It's important to have a clear legal standard. Thou shalt proceed with a PIA—that's a clear legal standard, but a preamble, although not executory in itself, is a very helpful interpretive tool to give life to the legal stan

Information & Ethics committee  You might be partially surprised by my answer. I don't think the RCMP is a rogue institution. Currently, they say, and I accept, that they use ODITs only with judicial authorization, and judicial authorization comes with terms and conditions. I do not start from the premise that

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

Information & Ethics committee  As a result of that starting point, I believe the public should trust that the RCMP will not commit a crime by using this tool without judicial authorization, as its representatives asserted yesterday. However, it's no doubt possible to improve that legal framework proactively, p

Information & Ethics committee  If we start with the potential amendment that would make it a legal requirement as opposed to simply a policy for departments and institutions, including the RCMP, to proceed with privacy impact assessments, it's a good start. On this point—and Commissioner Dufresne spoke about

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  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