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.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
I'll keep to the same theme, which is surveillance. I might be talking about drones or satellites. Are there other technologies that we're not speaking about today that you know are in existence?
4:35 p.m.
Expert and Researcher on National Security and Intelligence, As an Individual
Aerial surveillance from satellites, or coming now from drones, or from airplanes has been used for decades. What we do is to keep up as much as possible with the technology. Drones have now been used by other departments, particularly National Defence when it comes to the military theatre. There are other forms of surveillance done as well to track vehicles and track individuals other than with their cellphones.
So yes, a multitude of technologies have been used with the aim of being capable of mitigating the threats coming from the serious people we are tracking.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
With some of those technologies, do you believe they're also being used by the RCMP? Would this be different government departments, or one or two?
4:35 p.m.
Expert and Researcher on National Security and Intelligence, As an Individual
When we talk about the surveillance element, what is also important is that not all surveillance equipment acquires information. Not all information is collected. Sometimes it's just to “tag” a person or vehicle or object in order to be capable of following the device that we are tagging.
So yes, other departments are also using surveillance techniques and surveillance technologies.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Regarding what we've talked about today, just to get your general perspective, do you believe we should be looking at privacy tools or making sure we're doing privacy impact assessments? With the technologies that come out, is there a role for the Privacy Commissioner?
4:35 p.m.
Expert and Researcher on National Security and Intelligence, As an Individual
Yes, there is a role for them.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
I'm going to go, then, to Ms. Hepfner for the final five-minute round.
Go ahead, Ms. Hepfner.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Juneau-Katsuya, I'd like to go back to you. You touched on your impression that revealing the source of the RCMP's spyware technology could render that technology unusable to the RCMP. Can you explain in more detail to this committee why that might be?
4:40 p.m.
Expert and Researcher on National Security and Intelligence, As an Individual
Well, contrary to Professor Deibert, I do believe—because we've done it ourselves—that when we are able to identify the technology that a foreign government or target is using, we are able to either use countermeasures or exploit that technology. The knowledge becomes intelligence. It becomes important now to know what the opponent is using in order to, as I said, counter or exploit.
That's why revealing it openly.... For this kind of technology, there's not a myriad of companies. There's a good number of them but there's not a myriad, so by isolating the country it's coming from and stuff like that, by deduction you're able to identify what the RCMP or any security agency is using, and therefore you're able to maybe mitigate their tactical capability.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Why do you think it's dangerous that at some points in this committee we've delved into accusations of mass surveillance or that unfounded suggestions of mass surveillance keep coming up? Why is that dangerous, coming from this committee, do you think?
4:40 p.m.
Expert and Researcher on National Security and Intelligence, As an Individual
There are two reasons. First of all, there's no evidence that there is mass surveillance. The other element is the cost.
One way to evaluate how possible or plausible it is that a technology has been deployed is to go with a cost analysis. Just one operation will easily reach half a million dollars. That's just to make one interception on one target with maybe one device only. It takes a lot of time and a lot of resources to install the software, monitor the software, debrief on the software and sometimes translate the language or the information that is there. When you add it up, at the end of the day there is a simple calculation of budget and we're not able to deploy that abundantly because it's too expensive.
Turning to what Mr. Snowden revealed of NSA capability, it's like talking apples and oranges. The NSA has budgets, capability and intentions that are way different from what the RCMP,CSIS or DND is capable of deploying here in Canada.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Thank you very much.
That's a perfect segue, Chair. With the last couple of minutes of my time, I would like to move a motion. The reason is that I think we have had a bit too much innuendo and too many accusations about mass surveillance at this committee, and even outlandish comparisons of the RCMP with the German Stasi. As a committee, we should come together and show support for the important work the RCMP does while ensuring their accountability under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I will read my motion and we will circulate it to members of the committee in both languages as well. The motion reads:
That the committee affirm that it is satisfied that the RCMP is not using Pegasus or NSO Group technology; that the use of ODITs is reserved for only the most serious cases; that the approval of a request to use ODITs comes with strict terms and conditions, and must be ultimately approved by a superior court judge; that the use of these tools without judicial authorization would be a criminal offence; and that the committee supports the RCMP in their mandate to protect Canadians from terrorism, human and drug trafficking, money laundering, and murder, while ensuring accountability.
I'm repeating myself here a bit. The final line reads:
that the committee supports the RCMP in their mandate to protect Canadians from terrorism, human and drug trafficking, money laundering and murder, while ensuring accountability.
I apologize that in my copy I have it repeated, but we'll send the proper copy to all members of committee. I look forward to any questions my colleagues might have.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
Before we debate the motion, the clerk is just going to read the motion. Has it been received electronically? All right.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
No, I'm not quite there yet.
All right, thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Hepfner.
The motion is in order. I did have Mr. Green, and I also see Ms. Khalid next. Those are who I have for speakers so far.
Go ahead, Mr. Green.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I move to adjourn the meeting.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
I had my hand raised before, right when Ms. Hepfner was reading the motion. I don't believe that anybody raised their hand before I had.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
I recognized Mr. Green. I can do my best to see who wishes to speak. Mr. Green was also trying to get my attention. In fact, I'm not even going to even rule on that point of order since we already had a motion to adjourn. With a motion—
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Sorry, Mr. Chair, I would like a ruling on that point of order. I feel that this is very unfair.