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.
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here today and for providing their testimony.
Mr. Deibert, I want to go back a little bit to your opening statement. You've been talking about how governments use spyware to hack people's phones. You mentioned that this has happened here in Canada. I'm wondering if you could get into a little bit more detail about the cases that you know of. What governments are involved in hacking? What cases have we seen here in Canada?
3:20 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, and Director, Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Certainly. Thank you for that question.
In 2018 we observed that Saudi Arabia was undertaking espionage. We could observe, based on our network monitoring, that there was a hacked device in Quebec. We ultimately discovered that the person whose device was hacked was a Canadian permanent resident named Omar Abdulaziz, who was a very close friend and confidant of Jamal Khashoggi. We published our report on October 1, 2018. The very next day, unfortunately, Jamal Khashoggi was apprehended and brutally executed at the Saudi consulate in Turkey.
We have also documented extensively other Canadian refugees and immigrants who have had their phones either targeted or hacked by foreign governments abroad as part of a growing number of cases that we call “digital transnational repression”.
The long and short of it here is that Canadians are definitely not immune to this worldwide risk that is growing in leaps and bounds, which is precisely why I think we need to be entering into this very serious conversation with a much more comprehensive approach than we have been to date.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Okay. Well, I agree that it's a good conversation to have, so what do you mean by a more comprehensive approach? How can we protect ourselves against these international bad actors?
3:20 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, and Director, Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, University of Toronto, As an Individual
First of all, as I said in my recommendations, I think we need to understand that we have an obligation to do more than just speak words about this topic. In fact, I wish we even spoke words about it. Really, I've seen nothing coming out of the ministry of foreign affairs or from the Prime Minister equal to the level of statements coming out, just to give one example, of the United States and the Biden administration. At the highest levels, the White House and the state and justice departments have all made very powerful statements. They have held inquiries and have started to penalize firms, recognizing the very serious gravity worldwide of this problem that's both a human rights issue and a national security issue.
I could reiterate my recommendations, but I think we need to begin with the fact that we have no export controls for Canadian firms that sell surveillance technologies abroad. That needs to change. We need to be more transparent about from whom we are procuring this technology. As you heard yesterday, the Minister of Public Safety wouldn't even acknowledge who they're buying this from. There's no operational security reason why we shouldn't do that, and there are many good reasons why we should. That's because our procurement is a lever on the industry. If we're going to spend millions of dollars buying this technology, which is very expensive, by the way, we can impose conditions on the firms to say that we're not going to buy from firms that have been widely associated with gross human rights violations both abroad and here in Canada unless they comply with certain standards.
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
What we heard from the RCMP is that they would be releasing secrets to the criminal world if they were to release the technology that the RCMP uses. I don't know what the reasoning is behind that.
What we do know, or what the RCMP says, is that they've used this for specific, targeted reasons, for things like terrorism, murder, kidnapping and trafficking investigations. It was done with a lot of judicial oversight, with many warrants required and where specialized police departments get involved. This has been since 2017.
What's your reaction to that, based on what we know from his study and what we've heard on the record about the RCMP's use of this technology to date?
3:25 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 would say that security is a very serious thing, and we all need to protect ourselves from the threats that you're describing. Our law enforcement, intelligence agencies and armed forces need to be properly modernized and equipped, and there needs to be judicial oversight. It's reassuring that we heard that it was used for these types of cases and that there was a warrant for it.
Just because we're being told there's a warrant, it isn't a magic wand that makes everything else go away and that we should say, “Don't look any further here.” As I said, there's really no reason why you cannot disclose the vendors from which you're purchasing this technology.
We do not want to have taxpayer money going to some of these rogue, mercenary companies that are contributing to human rights violations abroad and national security problems here in Canada.
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
I guess what it comes down to is that there's no proof that the Canadian government has been using this spyware. All we have on the record here is that the RCMP has used it in certain circumstances, under judicial oversight, to go after specific, serious crimes.
3:25 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, and Director, Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, University of Toronto, As an Individual
From what I heard yesterday and in reading the news, I'm hearing something different.
First of all, this revelation seemed to come kind of sideways. It wasn't really done in a forthright manner. I also heard that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner was not briefed on this. I also heard, over the last couple of days the numbers changing.
As you heard from my colleague, Ms. McPhail, there's a pattern of law enforcement in this country using investigative techniques and surveillance technologies and disclosing them after the fact. That's not the way you build public trust in law enforcement in a country. We are better than that.
3:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
Thank you.
With that, we will now go to Mr. Villemure.
Mr. Villemure, over to you for six minutes.
3:25 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to start with Mr. Deibert and then move on to Ms. McPhail.
The reason we have undertaken this study is so that the public does not lose its trust in the RCMP. We were somewhat forced to believe what the RCMP told us yesterday—as is the public—because we don't have the ability to take a deeper dive into the issue.
For information purposes, I'd like to ask you a question, Mr. Deibert.
Is it possible to trust when you're forced to trust?
3:25 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, and Director, Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, University of Toronto, As an Individual
My answer to that would be to invoke someone that you'll remember—and we're showing our age here—Ronald Reagan, who, in response to Mikhail Gorbachev said, “We need to trust but verity.” I think this applies to all of our security agencies. In a liberal democracy, it's essential that you have robust safeguards, oversight mechanisms, public accountability and transparency.
What we are seeing here is clearly failing that. If you compare it with what's going on in other countries it's not setting a very good example. It's in line with some of the flawed democracies around the world.
I think we need to have a much more robust net cast over all of this if we're going to use this type of technology, which, by the way, is like a quantum leap in capabilities. What we're talking about here is much different from a wiretap because a device provides a window into every aspect of a person's life and those around them.
As I said in my remarks, this is nuclear level surveillance technology. We need appropriate safeguards to match that sophistication and power.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
Monsieur Villemure, I'm pausing your time. I'm going to offer you the option to continue with your round now or we'll pause. You'll have four minutes and 10 seconds left and we can go straight to getting the opening remarks from Mr. Juneau-Katsuya.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
Then at this point I would like to welcome our third witness. I hope we have all of our technical problems sorted out.
Welcome to committee. I will permit you now to make your opening statement for up to five minutes.
3:30 p.m.
Michel Juneau-Katsuya Expert and Researcher on National Security and Intelligence, As an Individual
Thank you very much.
Please accept my apologies for the technical delay.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for inviting me and for giving me the opportunity to speak with you about an important issue, one that opens the door to many others.
Allow me to begin by summarizing my thinking, which is based on my over 40 years of experience serving this country and working in the private sector. This also ties in with my research and my work in the national security field.
When it comes to the use of one or more technologies that make it possible to intercept conversations or obtain information protected under the Privacy Act, I would say your examination revolves around four key things: relevance, lawfulness, legitimacy and accountability.
Right off the bat, I want to underscore the importance of protecting privacy as defined in Canadian laws and the charter. Privacy protection is one of the cornerstones of a healthy democracy, and without it, there can be no democracy.
That said, my remarks will focus on three points, which I will come back to.
First, the idea that the end justifies the means is not an acceptable argument when conducting criminal or national security investigations.
Second, partisan games have no place in this debate. It is the fruits of your collective efforts that will help to better protect democracy and Canadians.
Third, this committee has been tasked with a tremendous moral and ethical responsibility. By that, I mean building the necessary tools into the legal framework—the tools the men and women entrusted with our protection need to protect us adequately while respecting the underpinnings of our legal system.
My first point is that one major trap for anybody responsible for collective safety is to believe that the end justifies the means. It is the most dangerous deception that law enforcement officers are facing in the maze of bureaucracy and court systems. Eager to accomplish their work of protecting us and wanting to stop criminals and terrorists ready to harm us, some officers might be tempted to go around the law.
Our own Canadian history teaches us the mistakes of the sixties and seventies, when the RCMP was put in charge of stopping communist agents or separatist zealots. In the name of protecting us, RCMP officers broke the law, believing they were doing the right thing. They were misled and wrong.
I have listened and paid attention to the testimony given to you in the last days. I did not see or hear history repeating itself. I saw officers, under the pressure of not jeopardizing operational or tactical capabilities, who were answering your questions, I believe, to the best of their ability and as much as possible. Thanks to your important work, it is evident that we can enhance the approval process by improving consultation with the Privacy Commissioner, the reporting and evaluation mechanisms and the law itself.
In addition, I was pleased to hear that the court system has kept in place the checks and balances. That is good news and gives us hope that we are on a good track to improve our democratic system and accountability process.
The second point I mentioned concerns me more, given the troubling way I have seen certain members of the committee behaving. To ask questions, even tough ones, is a committee member's job and responsibility. Committee members should, however, abide by an overriding principle: their duty is to protect and promote the country's interests, not partisan interests or political agendas. The place to ask questions about technical, tactical or strategic capabilities is in camera.
We shall not forget that the hearings of this committee are public. Some of the bad guys, being criminals or foreign agents, are listening and taking notes. Asking questions while pushing to get, for example, the country of origin of a technology that must remain secret is to serve on a silver platter to the bad guys the means to counter tactical capabilities. To continue making fake allegations of mass surveillance when there is no evidence of it is misleading and dividing our society. Thirty-nine cases and 41 devices spread over more than five years is not mass surveillance.
As I mentioned at the outset, I have been watching and analyzing threats against society and Canadians for over 42 years. I was among those who served in the RCMP and dedicated themselves to protecting this country and its citizens. I have experienced the frustration and success that come with conducting an investigation and trying to stop criminals, spies and terrorists from doing us harm, both individually and collectively. I cannot adequately put into words just how an investigator feels when a bad guy gets off because of a flaw in our democratic or legal system.
Yesterday, Philippe Dufresne spoke to you about—
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
3:35 p.m.
Expert and Researcher on National Security and Intelligence, As an Individual
I have three paragraphs left.
Thank you.
3:35 p.m.
Expert and Researcher on National Security and Intelligence, As an Individual
Okay, I will resume.
Mr. Dufresne himself yesterday stressed the importance of stressing the public interest or working on the public interest. Trust today is more crucial than ever for both our democratic system, which you represent, and the law enforcement and security agencies that work hard for us.
Thank you for listening. I hope you won't hold my comments or warnings against me; they were necessary.
Your work is important to correct these trends and to muster the greater attention the population is asking for.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
Thank you. I'm really going to have to let Monsieur Villemure resume his questions.
You have four minutes and 10 seconds. Go ahead, Monsieur Villemure.
3:35 p.m.
Expert and Researcher on National Security and Intelligence, As an Individual
That's too bad; it was good text.