Information & Ethics Committee on Aug. 9th, 2022

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

We've been focused on the activities of the RCMP. Do similar provisions exist for CSIS?

[Daniel Therrien]

There are different provisions for CSIS and for the CSE, the Communications Security Establishment, for the interception of communications. Do these institutions use ODIT-like technology? I don't know, it's quite possible, but there are certainly laws governing the use of technology for the interception of communications by CSIS and the CSE.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

In the case of Jeffrey Delisle, the navy officer who was ultimately convicted of espionage, we received a lot of information through the FBI. I don't know that we could be confident that the FBI would follow the same rules with the use of technology that we would. Perhaps they would, but would there be any challenges, especially in the courts, with the admissibility of information that was collected and passed on by another security agency outside of Canada?

[Daniel Therrien]

That's a difficult question to answer in the abstract.

I believe Mr. Delisle was convicted, and therefore, the court in question certainly had to be confident of the admissibility of the evidence against the accused. Again, there's important judicial oversight. I will leave it at that.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

If you were in possession of more information about what's going on when judicial authorizations are provided and what's actually taking place, why it was provided, etc., especially during an ongoing investigation, would you be compromised in terms of your obligations to Parliament to report and obviously be accountable for the application of the law?

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I'm really sorry; I was slow there on the hook.

Mr. Hardie, you began that question when your time was already up.

Mr. Therrien, I don't know if you have a brief answer, or again, we'll have to come back to it.

[Daniel Therrien]

I don't think it is the role of the OPC to second-guess the courts on individual cases, particularly on an active investigation. Again, the type of review that the OPC should be doing would be at the programmatic level, not at the individual case level, and certainly not while an investigation is occurring.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

Now, for two and a half minutes, we have Mr. Villemure.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to take the two and a half minutes allotted to me to ask two questions and try to form an overview of the subject.

Yesterday, an RCMP officer raised a question that we didn't have time to consider fully. It concerned potential surveillance of Canadian citizens by foreign powers and businesses. As Privacy Commissioner at the time, were you aware of those practices?

[Daniel Therrien]

I didn't have any evidence, but let's say I had my doubts.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

You had a reasonable doubt.

Is that correct?

[Daniel Therrien]

Yes, I had a reasonable doubt.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Do we have a provision that would prevent a foreign power from monitoring Canadians?

[Daniel Therrien]

That's a matter of national security and measures that national security agencies take to prevent violations of Canadian law. It's an issue in that area.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

These technologies were described as intrusive. According to one RCMP representative, there have always been privacy intrusions, but the tools have changed.

Isn't too much information being gathered?

Is that information preserved in a secure manner to ensure that data leaks such as the one at Desjardins don't occur? They involve a lot of information.

[Daniel Therrien]

Yes, methods for gathering information and intercepting communications have always existed, but this tool takes intrusive information-gathering to a new level.

What the RCMP says may be justifiable, but I don't agree that the use of this tool shouldn't have been subject to a privacy impact assessment given its extremely intrusive nature. The commissioner's office should have been consulted.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you.

[Daniel Therrien]

Did I answer your question?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Yes, very well.

Yesterday, we didn't hear about less intrusive tools that could do the same job.

Do you have an opinion on that?

[Daniel Therrien]

Once again, that involves the role of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and the courts. According to one of the criteria set forth in part VI of the Criminal Code, the court must be satisfied that no other means exist to achieve the desired result, which is to gather evidence. The commissioner's office may have a role to play regarding programs, but we already have provisions requiring the courts to consider the matter.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

May I have five more seconds, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

No, you're over. Sorry.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Now we have Mr. Green for two and a half minutes.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Given the commentary on the intrusive nature of this, the expansive nature of this type of technology, do you believe that the use of this technology by law enforcement has the potential to violate others' charter rights and freedoms?