Evidence of meeting #33 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rcmp.
A video is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Expert and Researcher on National Security and Intelligence, As an Individual
Indeed, it has been necessary to surveil parliamentarians, because today, we have officials at every level, whether municipal, provincial or federal, who are in the pockets of foreign governments and are not necessarily working for Canada.
Those known as agents of influence are certainly out there. They can exercise influence, either consciously or unconsciously, but the result is the same from a national security standpoint and it puts Canada at risk.
4 p.m.
Bloc
4 p.m.
Expert and Researcher on National Security and Intelligence, As an Individual
It happened before and it's happening now. It's not something new. Foreign agencies have always tried to recruit elected officials. It's not that hard because politicians don't always listen to what the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, tells them or they simply disregard the information, because doing so is to their personal benefit.
4 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you very much.
Earlier, Mr. Deibert, you said that conducting a privacy impact assessment was the least that could be done.
What would be ideal?
4 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, and Director, Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I think that we need to have some kind of embedded presence of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. I was frankly very disappointed to hear that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner was not informed about these investigative techniques prior to the recent revelations, so we need to have a much stronger presence and, I would argue, even more capabilities and resources for privacy commissioners to act as a watchdog over our security agencies.
That's not to minimize the very important mission that law enforcement and other security agencies have in this country. We want them to be well equipped, but we need to have organizations that watch the watchers. In part, that's the mission of the Citizen Lab too. We act as a public watchdog.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
We are over time with that.
Now, we'll go to Mr. Green for two and a half minutes.
4 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you.
Ms. McPhail, you recommended that there be a civilian counterpoint to police applications for warrants within the judicial process. Could you expand on that, because it's something that I picked up as referring to what is a bit problematic in accountability throughout the warrants process.
4 p.m.
Director, Privacy, Technology and Surveillance Program, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Absolutely.
This echos a recommendation that I made during the recent study on facial recognition technologies. It is that to counter this persistent pattern of police acquiring and using sophisticated and potentially controversial surveillance technologies without public disclosure, we should follow the lead of places like New York State and New Zealand in putting together an independent advisory panel that would include relevant stakeholders from the legal community, from government, from police and national security, from civil society and of course our regulatory bodies who are relevant, like the Privacy Commissioner.
It can act as a national standard setting body, an advisory body, to take a proactive look at the kinds of technologies that our police forces want to use to modernize their investigative techniques and look at them across a range of considerations, including ethical considerations, legal considerations and considerations around Canadian norms and values. It can then make standard setting, gold standard, recommendations for police organizations, not just nationally but provincially and territorially—because of course policing is also a provincial and territorial matter—so that we would have consistency and the public could be assured that rights were being respected while police had the tools they need to do their difficult jobs.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you.
The Council of Europe recognizes that the use of the Pegasus tool is a violation of article 8 on the right to privacy of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Does the Canadian legal framework guarantee privacy protections similar to article 8 of the European convention, such that the use of the device investigation tools with technological capabilities similar to Pegasus could be considered perhaps unlawful?
4:05 p.m.
Director, Privacy, Technology and Surveillance Program, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
I'm sorry. Is that for me?
4:05 p.m.
Director, Privacy, Technology and Surveillance Program, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
I think it's well known that Canada's privacy regime has fallen behind. I think that there have been many statements before this committee over the last almost decade documenting the ways in which our privacy laws for both public and private sector fall short and have gaps that fail to protect—
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
Thank you, Ms. McPhail. We're over time.
Now we go to Mr. Hallan.
Welcome to the ethics committee and thank you for joining us today. You have the floor for five minutes.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Jasraj Singh Hallan Conservative Calgary Forest Lawn, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here.
Mr. Juneau, I want to pick up on something that you answered in response to my colleague, Mr. Williams. I found it very interesting that you said that other agencies are also using software similar to what Pegasus is. What other agencies are using these kinds of software and what are they doing with them?
4:05 p.m.
Expert and Researcher on National Security and Intelligence, As an Individual
Well, the agencies are the agencies are the national security agencies.
It's an investigative tool. They need to have it to be capable of pursuing some targets, some very dangerous and serious people. That is one of the tools that is accessible to them.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Jasraj Singh Hallan Conservative Calgary Forest Lawn, AB
What kind of software are they using? Is it the same software or is it different for each agency?
4:05 p.m.
Expert and Researcher on National Security and Intelligence, As an Individual
I do not have all the details of what kind of software it is or the name of the software at this point. I wouldn't be able to mention it.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Jasraj Singh Hallan Conservative Calgary Forest Lawn, AB
Is it different software for other agencies—you don't have to name them—or is it the same software being used by other agencies?
4:05 p.m.
Expert and Researcher on National Security and Intelligence, As an Individual
I don't have the details about which one the RCMP is using, so I'm not able to compare.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Jasraj Singh Hallan Conservative Calgary Forest Lawn, AB
In your opinion, is it just being used on Canadians or on foreign nationals also? Are they using the same software on foreign nationals?
4:05 p.m.
Expert and Researcher on National Security and Intelligence, As an Individual
To my knowledge, it's strictly on Canadians. Again, this has to be verified, as I'm not aware of all the operational uses.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Jasraj Singh Hallan Conservative Calgary Forest Lawn, AB
Has the use of the software, in your opinion, always been done with a warrant, or is some of this being done without warrants?
4:05 p.m.
Expert and Researcher on National Security and Intelligence, As an Individual
In my opinion, it's with a warrant.