OTTAWA—The RCMP is lobbying Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for more powers — including access to digital information without warrants — to investigate suspects who are hiding behind uncrackable encryption on their digital devices, a Toronto Star/CBC investigation has found.

“I can safely say that there’s criminal activity going on every day that’s facilitated by technology that we aren’t acting on,” RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson told the Toronto Star and CBC News in an exclusive interview. “We’re losing our ability, if we haven’t lost it entirely, to bring the traditional investigative response to technologically facilitated crime because of the misunderstanding, in my view, of the privacy threat.”

The RCMP has reached a point, Paulson said, that Canadians should “think about where you go with that complaint because I don’t know that we can help you.”

“And that’s a terrible thing for a person who’s in charge of a police force to say when citizens, when companies, when corporate Canada, or indeed when the government comes to us and says, hey, we’ve been victimized on the Internet.”

An RCMP briefing document sent June 23 to Trudeau’s national security adviser compares Canadian law enforcement’s digital investigative capabilities with four western countries — and Canada stands alone.

The country lacks police powers in six categories, including legal remedies for cracking encryption, intercepting communications and accessing suspects’ identities.

The other countries — Australia, the U.K., the U.S. and New Zealand — are, with Canada, members of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance.

“When we come up against impediments to getting evidence . . . that’s demoralizing,” Paulson said.

The Star/CBC investigation comes as the federal government is engaging in public consultation on Canada’s anti-terror act, including a problem police call “going dark” — the gradual disappearance of evidence behind digital brick walls.

It’s a deeply polarized debate.

Police are calling for laws that would force suspects to provide access to their encrypted devices and compel telecommunications companies to create interception and data retention capabilities to assist investigations.

Privacy advocates call these demands an “evidence-free” infringement of basic privacy rights.

“If we plan every law around a hypothetical ticking time bomb, it will be used in a lot of non-time-bomb scenarios,” says Christopher Parsons, a technology and privacy researcher at the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto.

“We know powers that are passed, often under the auspices of terror or something of that nature, are immediately used for potentially serious but far less serious crimes.”

The most controversial item on Paulson’s wish list would allow police to collect basic subscriber information — such as names and addresses — from telecommunications companies without having to go to court for a warrant.

Police view such searches as a basic investigative tool — the first step in launching investigations into suspected terrorists, pedophiles or organized crime figures.

“I’d like to see the ability of the police to call an Internet Service Provider or communications provider . . . and get the basic subscriber information,” he said.

Paulson concedes that such requests are dismissed by privacy advocates who cast him as a “troglodyte who doesn’t understand people’s privacy.”

Paulson’s argument for warrantless access to basic subscriber information has already been heard — and rejected.

A 2014 Supreme Court ruling found Canadians have a reasonable expectation of online privacy in their basic subscriber information such as their names, addresses and IP addresses.

In the absence of a law to the contrary, the ruling concludes, police should have to obtain a warrant.

Police, who were previously able to get the information almost immediately, call that ruling a game-changer. Many officers say obtaining a warrant is a bureaucratic process that is so time-consuming it can undermine investigations.

“I don’t think the consequences of that decision on policing and security (are) completely understood,” Paulson said. “The consequences are delayed, and sometimes, abandoned investigative efforts because we haven’t been able to meet a threshold.”

He points to what happens when police run licence plate numbers and get the owner’s name and address. Police want the same kind of ease searching ISP records.

“We keep records of all that and we’re accountable for that. I don’t think it’s unreasonable.”

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Privacy advocates reject the comparison.

“Basic subscriber information, which is connected to an IP address, reveals an incredible amount of information about the things that you do online,” said Brenda McPhail, director of the Privacy and Technology Surveillance Project at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

“It is not a trivial ask to say we just want warrantless access without any sort of supervision to this information which we have already shown in court to be sensitive and personal.”

Any powers handed to police come with the risk of abuse, said Citizen Lab’s Parsons.

“The solution is not to say, ‘It’s very hard for police, just trust us and let us sign off on our own warrants,’ ” he said. “We know that police will over-exercise that power.”

In recent weeks, two cases of law enforcement overreaching their powers made scandalous headlines.

Two weeks ago, a Federal Court judge denounced the national spy agency’s monitoring and retention of information on thousands of Canadians’ and in Quebec, police forces admitted to intercepting and tracking cellphones belonging to at least 10 journalists.

“I can’t sit here and say that it’s going to be a perfect,” Paulson said.

But when abuses occur, those responsible are held accountable, he said.

“Canadians can be persuaded that there is a reasonable, reliable administrative oversight mechanism, that it can be seen externally.”

Paulson is more cautious than many of his policing colleagues on the idea of compelling suspects to open up their phones or computers for police review — a proposal tabled by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

“It’s fraught,” he said. “I’m not a lawyer, but I do know the dangers of conscripted evidence . . . . Given the current state of concerns and misunderstanding around privacy, I think we’re likely not to win too many arguments there.”

Yesterday, the Star and the CBC, which were given unprecedented access, reported the details of investigations that the RCMP say have been stonewalled by encrypted devices.

Those disclosures and Paulson’s rare interview are part of the force’s attempt to get its message to Canadians about what he calls a high stakes debate.

“I feel I need to be educating folks to a fair understanding of what the challenge is,” Paulson said. “But more importantly, I feel responsible for the safety and security of Canadians in the face of this challenge.”