Evidence of meeting #40 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was sharing.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner
In our case, as I think I mentioned previously, if the information that is gathered by CSE doesn't meet the criteria set out in the National Defence Act, it will be destroyed. They cannot keep it.
11:55 a.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner
Yes, there is.
11:55 a.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner
I'm not able to say, I guess.
11:55 a.m.
Executive Director, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner
It depends on the type of information. If it relates to information with a privacy interest and if it is not essential, as the commissioner referred to in his opening remarks, it would be destroyed. It's an automated process because of the extent of the technology employed by CSE.
For classified information that is shared within government, there is a government security policy, and departments are required to store and handle classified information according to that policy as well. It is left for those agencies that are receiving classified information to decide whether it is reviewed and to verify that the information is stored and retained properly. There are departmental security officers whose role it is to look after that information once it's received in the various departments.
Noon
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
You should remember, sir, that a recent decision by the Federal Court, by Justice Noël, which you probably heard about, insisted on the notion of “strictly necessary”. It was mentioned by my colleague. CSIS, for example, gathers information. As you mentioned, it has changed. Years ago, and I remember that, you had information on paper. Now it's electronic, and it has changed a lot. It's still there, but Justice Noël rendered a decision with regard to collection and retention, and the government decided not to appeal the decision.
Noon
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
The judge's comments were about breaching their duty of candour. Is that it?
Noon
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
Absolutely. In this case—and we put this in our report, if you remember, last year in January when we reported on that—the question was whether “strictly necessary” should apply all the time. It's a complex notion, but at the same time it gives the indication that they have to review all the documents on a regular basis to make sure that they don't keep that data too long, or for a period that will not be considered strictly necessary.
This is in the law. It will take some time for the service to get rid of the information that was gathered that was not strictly necessary. This is the guidance that we have in our law.
Noon
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
I just want to follow up on that. I'm glad you raised that point, because some comments were made by the executive director of CSIS, who says that now with the change of government in the United States they have to re-evaluate some of the information they share. Are there any comments on that?
Noon
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
Do you mean Mr. Coulombe, the director?
Noon
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
Oh, it's not the service. You said director of the service, but you mentioned the director of our organization.
Noon
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
Okay, I'm sorry, because you said the service.
Noon
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Now with the change in government in the United States, and even within the Five Eyes alliance, my main concern is that when we're providing information and we have information-sharing agreements internally, there is some mechanism whereby we can control the information, but when we share the information internationally, what control do we have?
Noon
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
As was mentioned, we have agreements—and I'm not talking about us but about the service—nationally and internationally to share information. As you know, and I'm not the first to say this, Canada is, as the expression goes, a “net importer” of intelligence. This means that we need intelligence, which we receive from other countries. It's important for our security and the security of our partners, particularly the Five Eyes partners, as you mentioned.
We have an ongoing agreement. CSIS has ongoing agreements, and information is shared within those agreements. I cannot comment on specifics, obviously, as you know.
Noon
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
No, that's fine.
Do I have more time? I'd like to share my time with Mr. Lightbound.
December 8th, 2016 / noon
Liberal
Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC
I have a quick question touching on what you said about the judgment by Mr. Noël. Has CSIS actually destroyed the data that it obtained illegally?
Noon
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
That's a good question. I did explain that you cannot just push a “delete” button. It's not that simple. Sometimes, and I'll use an example, it's like having the whole phone book, and you need just one page. In a sense, now, to destroy the information that is not strictly necessary, they need to review a lot of information, so it's going to take months to do that.
We have a team right now. As you know, the minister, using one section of our law, asked us to review that and make sure that it will be done. We're in this process right now. From our limited resources, we have taken people to do that. We're in the process of doing that, but it's going to take months. It's not something that you can destroy that quickly.