Evidence of meeting #18 for National Defence in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Corporate Services, Department of National Defence
We can provide the answer in writing, of course.
I would, however, like to make one thing clear. The transfer in supplementary estimates (C) is for $25,000, not $25 million.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Élaine Michaud NDP Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
That's the same information I have. I apologize if there was a mistake in the interpretation.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Through you, once again, to the witnesses, for appearing today.
Unfortunately, Mr. Forster, I'm going to have to be asking you some questions. I would just love to ask General Hood some questions, but I think we need to clear up a few things.
Most of these questions are as a result of a CBC story that aired, that I believe you responded to when you appeared before the senate defence committee. You said it wasn't an accurate story in that you said it was not an operation at the...I think you referred to Pearson Airport, and that it was the construction of a model. I think in that testimony you said that basically you were sending around some parameters in that model and that you wanted to compare it to a previous model, from 2005, I think you said, or 2006.
12:50 p.m.
Chief, Communications Security Establishment
No, that doesn't apply. It was the date the first ministerial direction was signed by a minister around metadata.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
So it was seeing where you're standing with the ability to collect this metadata, which is not an operation. Because it was reported as an operation, am I correct?
12:50 p.m.
Chief, Communications Security Establishment
Yes, I think the report implied that we had accessed the computer networks of an airport to collect the information. I think what we clarified was we were using an historical sample of metadata from our global collection that was used to build an analytical model that helped us find foreign targets. I think the commissioner issued a statement as well on his website saying that he had come in, looked at that case, and found.... I believe his words were that the activity did not include:
“...‘mass surveillance' or tracking of Canadians or persons in Canada; no CSEC activity was directed at Canadians or persons in Canada.”
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
So you were in compliance with the law. You were in compliance with the reason the facility exists. You exist to protect Canadians from foreign intervention, from people who want to do us harm. Because of an inaccurate story, we get a whole lot of misinformation out there and people questioning...again, a whole bunch of people concerned with privacy. Everybody was fired up. But in the, I think, 18 years of your existence...?
12:50 p.m.
Chief, Communications Security Establishment
It's in 16 years of the commissioner's existence, not to go back to the Second World War.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
In 16 years of the commissioner's existence at no time was it ever found that your agency went above and beyond those operational requirements...the accumulation of data and the protection of Canada. At no time have you superseded.
I guess my question to you would be, if any loyal Canadian employee you have under your command or under your system were to circumvent, would there be checks and balances to make sure the commissioner would eventually look at any concern? I guess that would be the correct question. And the commissioner would have reported that in his annual report.
12:50 p.m.
Chief, Communications Security Establishment
Not in his annual report. He's required by law to immediately notify both the Minister of National Defence and the Attorney General of Canada if he feels the agency has acted outside the law.
In addition, if our employees suspect there is any unlawful activity going on in the agency, we have an internal ethics officer they can report to, or they can go directly to the commissioner who performs that role if one of our employees felt we had gone outside the law.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Thank you very much.
I'd like to quickly clarify once again for Canadians, because most of us around this table understand what metadata is. So to be very clear, the evidence that came out from the Senate committee is, why do you collect metadata?
Could you very briefly tell us why you do metadata as opposed to...because it's a specific piece of information in the global context of what you do?
12:50 p.m.
Chief, Communications Security Establishment
Metadata is the data around a communication that allows it to be rooted and managed through global communication networks. That's not to say there aren't important privacy interests in that data that we are required to manage and protect in accordance with Canadian law.
We use metadata to understand global networks, so when we're trying to find a foreign target in a sea of billions and billions of communications, we can then know where to look to find our target.
We also use metadata to be able to distinguish Canadian from foreign communications so we're not targeting. So it actually helps us avoid targeting Canadians and focus on our foreign targets. So it must be used for foreign intelligence purposes.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
I'm interested in this explanation you have just given, Mr. Forster, because one of the key concerns the Ontario Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian has is in creating a framework for how to pursue targets that may be foreign terrorists. You're utilizing the metadata, and because Canada does not have a density of those targets, it means the kind of framework is going to, in effect, cast a very wide net.
Her concern expressed in a personal communication with me...that means many people could be targeted. Because it's such a wide net, a lot of people could be caught in that net who are not a security concern. So that could be very much a risk to our democracy. People start to be concerned about what website they use, or what activities they do, or who they talk to because they may be caught in this very broad net that is based on metadata collection and analysis and considered potential targets of CSEC's activities.
Could you give me your response to that concern?
12:55 p.m.
Chief, Communications Security Establishment
Sure. Thank you. I'd be happy to.
Again, although we collect metadata, it's very much limited in its use to our existing mandate, which is foreign intelligence collection and cyber-defence. The restrictions we have around that is to understand global networks to find foreign targets. We're not using it to target Canadians or anyone in Canada for our intelligence-gathering activities unless we're assisting CSIS and RCMP under a court warrant. Otherwise our activities are aimed at foreign targets outside Canada to collect intelligence against priorities established by the government.
We have to have measures in place to protect the privacy of that information. That's what the commissioner reviews carefully and reports on. He has done six reviews over the years by three different commissioners of metadata and found those activities to be lawful.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
I made a comment about that earlier. Something can be lawful because the law just fails to address it because something is so new, and when the law was written it was not an issue. I find it not very reassuring to be told that this is lawful when our tools for analysis and horsepower for analysis that we've never had before were not imagined when the law was written.
You are able to identify Canadian targets if you have a ministerial authorization.
12:55 p.m.
Chief, Communications Security Establishment
No, not at all. The ministerial authorization is there if we're pursuing a foreign target outside Canada, somebody in another country.
When we're collecting intelligence on that target we have no way of knowing if that person may be in communication with someone in Canada, so the authorization says if you're pursuing a foreign target and they are talking to someone in Canada, if the minister authorizes it according to the criteria in the act, you may collect that one-ended communication. We are not allowed to collect Canadian-to-Canadian communication or two-ended. That's forbidden.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Then you can connect that end of the communication, and we've had intelligence security experts say that these authorizations are like blank cheques, that there are some very broad authorizations, which we're not privy in this group to know exactly how broad, but it's been described to me by an academic whose life study is this issue that it's essentially a blank cheque. There's a blank cheque that allows you to track back to Canadians the foreign metadata you collect, and so I think the concern stands that this could be a pretty—because we don't have a great quantity of actual, real examples of terrorist activity in our country...to put an algorithm in place to analyze this data is creating a wide net, and potentially going to put a lot of people on a list.
1 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Peter Kent
That's your time, Ms. Murray.
With barely two minutes left till the top of the clock, Ms. Gallant.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Forster, there seems to be a lot of anxiety about the use of new metadata. Certainly no Canadian likes the idea of government snooping in their personal business, but, in reality, meta tags, metadata is used by Google, the social media, and even commercial retailers to track their potential and previous customers' whereabouts.
Would you care to explain to this committee how the metadata is used for commercial aspects? Perhaps we should be more concerned about that than the organization that is trying to protect Canadians.
1 p.m.
Chief, Communications Security Establishment
Certainly private commercial companies use metadata, so when I click onto my CBC website in the morning, it's providing me with the Ottawa weather and the Ottawa news because it knows I'm in Ottawa, so it's providing that information to me. If I'm a retailer, as you said, it's providing information that I might be interested in.
The federal Privacy Commissioner has written a number of reports on that, and that's an area they follow quite closely in terms of the use of that information by commercial, for-profit companies.
Just to reiterate and reassure again, our collection of metadata—it's impossible for us, when we're collecting it on the global infrastructure, to disaggregate Canadian from foreign, so we collect, then we use it to target foreign people. We don't use it to build targets of Canadians. We can only target Canadians if we're assisting CSIS or the RCMP under a warrant. Otherwise our mandate and our law is focused on foreign intelligence collection and the metadata we use is to help us understand those networks and to find that target in a sea of billions of communications.
1 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Peter Kent
Thank you very much, Mr. Forster.
Thank you, Ms. Gallant.
Thank you, Mr. Martin, Mr. Lindsey, General, Admiral.
The meeting is adjourned.