National Defence Committee on April 3rd, 2014

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I'll split my time with Ms. Michaud for the last minute and a half.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Thank you.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Minister, in the United States, as a result of public concerns about the collection of metadata and the knowledge that it contains information as to what devices are talking to other devices and for how long, where they are, and all of this other information, President Obama has moved to take the data that is collected and have it only accessed under a warrant issued by a court. So the data is collected for security reasons and available for use, but in order to assure the public of privacy and proper use, a court order must be obtained to go after a particular set of data or particular individuals.

Why would it be inappropriate for Canada to do the same thing?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I think the tools are in place in Canada for this system to work well and to keep us protected. I hear this sometimes, and I certainly heard it when I was justice minister: the Americans are doing this in this particular state, so why aren't you doing it?

I always say to those who say these things that we have our own systems in this country and we will develop our own protections and guidelines. While I appreciate that, I do have discussions with my American, British, Australian, and other counterparts. I'm always very interested to hear what they are doing in this particular area. But I'm pleased with the system that we have developed here in Canada. It's a made-in-Canada solution.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

True, but the solution is—

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Sometimes it's like comparing apples and oranges when you think of some other countries—

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

It's a made-in-Canada solution. The made-in-Canada solution is a directive issued by the minister containing these provisions but no one knows what's in it except the minister and CSEC, and perhaps the commissioner.

How can we have confidence if we don't even know the contents of the directive and what measures are in place to ensure the privacy and protection of Canadians?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

It's the same comfort in many ways that you have when very sensitive disc documents are disclosed in courts. You would know this from your background, to a certain extent, I'm sure, in terms of the applications that are made to court on highly sensitive security areas. We have confidence in this country that with judicial oversight and input Canadians are protected throughout the processes. Again, you'll point to an individual who is a supernumerary judge or a retired jurist. I think people have confidence in the Canadian judicial system and the individuals who are in it. That's the confidence that they can take with them when they have a look at this.

That's my view of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Ms. Michaud.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

That being said, though, I don't underestimate it. We do watch it and look very carefully. Indeed, when I get together with my colleagues from our other allies, I'm constantly asking them about what they are doing and the different threats that they are doing. That said, I'm very pleased with the made-in-Canada product that we've come up with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Madam Michaud, you have just under two minutes.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you.

Since I have very little time, I would ask that you kindly keep your answers brief. I'll try to go quickly as I would like to discuss a number of issues with you.

Mr. Forster, you touched on the matter of information about Canadians being shared with the Five Eyes allies. Some information is shared.

Could you provide some details on how our Five Eyes partners could use intelligence collected on Canadians and on what limits currently exist as far as their access to that intelligence goes? I would really appreciate it if you could be concise.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I'm going to ask Mr. Forster to try to give you a brief answer.

[John Forster]

Thank you.

As an intelligence agency, it's very important that we share intelligence with our closest allies, which we do. However, in sharing any intelligence we still must comply with Canadian laws, our act, the Privacy Act, and the charter in doing that. We have to put in place measures to protect the privacy of Canadians. For example, if we're writing an intelligence report, we would not make any reference to the identity of a Canadian in that report when that—

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Let's say metadata on Canadians is shared with our Five Eyes partners. Right now, are there any limits on how they can use that information? What information can they extrapolate? That is what's troubling.

Our organizations abide by the law. But can we guarantee how metadata our organizations provide to our partners will be used? That, in part, is what troubles me.

[John Forster]

Even if we were sharing metadata we still must take steps to make sure that any information that would lead to the identity of a Canadian in that data is minimized and reduced so that it's not possible to identify them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Thank you, Mr. Forster.

Mr. Bezan.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the minister and the officials for coming in and spending time with us today, especially since we had to reschedule this.

It is important that we have this discussion on CSEC and also on the supplementary estimates (C), even though the supplementary estimates (C) have already been passed. There is a lot of good stuff that was in those supplementary estimates (C). This is in addition to what we've already done in providing new equipment on the Canadian Armed Forces, with new heavy-lift tactical equipment, with C-17s, new Hercules, and new Chinook helicopters for troop movement. We now have the new Leopard tank series. We're enhancing that battle group with these new armoured engineering vehicles.

Can we talk a little bit about what exactly those vehicles do and how they function within the context of the battle group? Are these newly acquired assets or are we doing some modifications to the existing fleet?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Well, as you know very well, Mr. Bezan—and thank you for your role as our parliamentary secretary—it's all part of our overall process, which is to make sure that there is capability within our armed forces.

I don't have to describe to you what it was once upon a time, if you go back over 10 years ago, and how challenging it was. We had allies who were very good to give us a lift if we needed to get somewhere, and I think they were very accommodating. But one of the important changes we have made is to make sure that our armed forces have capability in all areas for which they will be called upon to assist.

I was very pleased—when we were called upon to assist, for instance, the Philippines a couple of months ago—to be down at the base at Trenton and to see that we were completely capable and had all the equipment necessary to move members of the Canadian Armed Forces and equipment and people and assistance and were able to do it.

I am very grateful for any other country that has helped us over the years or that gave us a lift somewhere, or that type of thing, but I am very pleased that we have this. We learned in Afghanistan that we have to be capable on all different fronts to meet these challenges, and so we are continuously having a look at what our needs are and what we have to do to make sure we maintain that certain level of capability.

I answered questions earlier in the meeting with respect to the Aurora. This is all part of it. By updating it, we're making sure that we have the latest technology, the latest capability. I think we owe this to the people of this country. We certainly owe it to the men and women in our armed forces to do everything we can to make sure that they have up-to-date equipment, that it works, and that they have the equipment that's consistent with the priorities of this country.

I outlined in some small detail the Canada First defence strategy and our role in protecting Canadian sovereignty and Canada's interests, our cooperation for North American security, and in addition, our cooperation with our traditional allies.

But as your question in general points out, this is all part of what we have to do to make sure that this country continues to pull its weight. And indeed, we punch over our weight, as you know, in the last 100 years when it comes to assisting other parts of the world to help themselves. This is something of which we can be very proud, but it is something to which we have to be very committed.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Thank you, Minister.

When you were talking in your opening comments, you were saying that CSEC has to respect Canadian law. We've said many times that CSEC cannot do indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly.

We talked about allies; we're a member of the Five Eyes surveillance community. Can we talk about how we make sure, when working with the Five Eyes, that we're not violating the rights and privileges and the privacy of Canadians?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I'll repeat Mr. Forster's comments, that in fact we are very careful. When we have these discussions with our Five Eyes partners, we obviously are focusing on the common threats that we have, which come from any part of the world. But as the chief has pointed out, the organization has to be respectful of all aspects of Canadian laws and protection of Canadian privacy, compliance with the National Defence Act, compliance with the charter, compliance with all Canadian legislation.

This marks the relationship. We have this, and I believe that our other partners understand that. But again, we all have a stake in trying to protect ourselves against cyber-attacks and terrorist activity, and that's exactly what we do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

Minister, I know you're going soon, so I do have a question that is policy related.

We talk about CSEC being required to obey Canadian law. Of course we all have to respect Canadian law, whether we're individuals or institutions or members of Parliament or whatever, so that's not really the point here.

But I'm sure you're aware that the privacy commissioner, in a report to Parliament called “Checks and Controls: Reinforcing Privacy Protection and Oversight for the Canadian Intelligence Community in an Era of Cyber-Surveillance”,suggested and argues that the law must be updated to reflect the increased surveillance capabilities, including requiring CSEC to disclose statistics about their assistance to other agencies; that greater clarity must be presented to the National Defence Act in terms of the definitions of what is required so that people can understand what's going on; and that there ought to be an expanded parliamentary oversight and strengthening of the accountability regime to better reflect the state of national security operations.

We're talking about major changes since this legislation has been made. We've seen the budget going from $50 million a year to something in the order of $500 million or more per year.

A lot of people are reflecting on what the privacy commissioner has said, and are concerned about the capabilities of your organization, Mr. Forster.

What is your reaction, Mr. Minister, to these recommendations, and are you prepared to consider making changes that are going to update the act to make it more transparent as to what is going on so that people have a better understanding and better protection of their privacy?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

My view of it is that the system we have in place today works.

Again, having the opportunity to analyze this and as you quite correctly pointed out, this whole area of concern of terrorist activities has changed a fair amount since 1996 and has certainly increased.... That being said, though, the processes that have been put in place, I am satisfied, are working very well.

Again, if the CSEC commissioner was coming out with reports that were showing the gaps or that there were violations of the law or that there was a culture of disrespect for Canadian privacy, if there were any of those things over the last 17 years, I'm sure I would probably change my mind. But what I do get from this respected individual is that in fact there is a culture of respect and that there are processes in place to protect the privacy of Canadians. So again, when suggestions are made by the CSEC commissioner, these are taken seriously by the organization.

So in answer to your question, I'm satisfied that the regime that's in place now works and I believe it should continue, Mr. Chair. Again, you can't point to everything and say how well everything works, that it has a record of success, but I believe this is an area we can.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

These processes you're talking about in place to protect the privacy of Canadians, these are contained in a directive that is not public. So we don't know what those processes are that you suggest you're satisfied with. You're telling us that you're satisfied, but how can we be satisfied?