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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

John Forster  Chief, Communications Security Establishment
Kevin Lindsey  Assistant Deputy Minister, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Corporate Services, Department of National Defence
Patrick Finn  Chief of Staff, Materiel Group, Department of National Defence

12:25 p.m.

Chief, Communications Security Establishment

John Forster

If we wrote a report on it and the RCMP or CSIS wanted to follow up, they'd have to come...we wouldn't disclose that information. They would have to come and justify why they're entitled to it under the act and those are reviewed case by case, and the commissioner reviews a sample of those every year as well.

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

So you see it as a defensive mechanism and not—

12:25 p.m.

Chief, Communications Security Establishment

John Forster

For that authorization, it's strictly for—

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Not a law enforcement one.

12:25 p.m.

Chief, Communications Security Establishment

John Forster

—right, it's strictly for defending computer networks.

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

And in terms of your—

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Peter Kent

You can have a very brief question, please.

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

In terms of the involvement in providing technical and operational assistance to federal law enforcement and security, that would include the RCMP, CSIS—anybody else? CBSA perhaps?

12:25 p.m.

Chief, Communications Security Establishment

John Forster

It's law enforcement and security, so it tends to be mostly RCMP and CSIS. It may also include CBSA, but those would be the primary ones.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Peter Kent

Thank you, Mr. Forster.

Mr. Bezan, go ahead.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To follow up on Mr. Harris, he was talking about the budget for CSEC. How does that compare to our allies in the Five Eyes, and how much they spend? Does anyone have that information handy?

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

The amount the United States spends is huge. I wouldn't be able to exaggerate in terms of how difficult it is, but again, the security arrangement between the five countries of New Zealand, Australia, Great Britain, the United States, and Canada has worked very well, and I think it's a good investment for Canada to work closely with our allies for our protection against terrorism, cyber-hackers, international kidnappers, child pornographers, and others. So the sharing of information among the five has worked well.

But you're quite correct. There are very huge budgets both in the United States and the United Kingdom on these areas, but everybody has a stake in it. When I've discussed this with my New Zealand counterparts, they are worried about these issues as well because many times these five countries are among the targets of people who get into this kind of activity. So this is a relationship that has worked well to Canada's benefit, quite frankly, and being able to work with them and cooperate with them is for our benefit. I mentioned earlier our work on NORAD. This is something that works well for Canada. It's in Canada's interest to protect the airspace over North America. We all have a stake in that, but as I said, you can't have a strike against any of those five countries, and indeed many other countries throughout the world...so we all have a stake in that.

I apologize. I thought, Cheryl, you were talking about physical exercise here, but thank you very much. So you heard about all my...everything, yes. Obviously, the military exercises are a vital component of what we do in our operations and they too are included. Most of them, quite frankly, are in the main estimates here, but again, I appreciate that.

Thank you.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Good. Just as a follow-up, one of the concerns I keep hearing from the other side is the issue of oversight on the metadata and on making sure the privacy of Canadians is protected.

In addition, we talk about the supernumerary judge we have as the commissioner, who is doing a great job for 16-plus years now, with reports coming in always showing that CSEC is in compliance with our laws. Are there any other officers who have oversight over CSEC, such as the Auditor General or Privacy Commissioner?

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Peter Kent

Go ahead, Mr. Forster.

12:25 p.m.

Chief, Communications Security Establishment

John Forster

We're subject to the same parliamentary agents as any other department, so the Auditor General, Privacy Commissioner, etc. As well, within CSE we have our own audit evaluation function that does internal reviews, evaluations, and audits similar to other departments. We also have an audit committee of people external to the government that reviews those reports.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Has the Auditor General or the Privacy Commissioner ever raised any red flags?

12:30 p.m.

Chief, Communications Security Establishment

John Forster

The Auditor General had the last audit we were involved in. We tend to be captured as part of broader audits—for example, cyber-protection in the government. The last one he did on us was related to security in contracting. They looked at the new building and the security provisions we had in place and were satisfied with those.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB

That’s perfect. Thank you.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Peter Kent

Thank you very much, Mr. Bezan.

Minister, thank you very much for spending time with us today. We have met our time commitment to you, and as you make your departure we will suspend for two minutes. We'll resume with Ms. Murray for the remaining time to the top of the hour.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Peter Kent

Colleagues, in the interest of best use of time, we will continue now, in five-minute segments, until the top of the hour.

We will begin with Ms. Murray.

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Thank you.

Mr. Forster, I have some questions about CSEC. I would love to have put them to the minister, but since you're here, thank you for being here.

The essence of what I've been hearing about the CSEC and metadata conversation has been that the minister trusts the commissioner, so the committee and the public should trust the minister, and that there's no concern.

Regarding the two key issues of metadata and the law, we're told that the metadata is no problem because the communications aren't opened and the law is being respected. However, the privacy commissioners are telling us the opposite. Ann Cavoukian from Ontario, for example, is saying that metadata is far more dangerous in disclosing the private lives of individuals than opening an email is. Metadata is a dangerous thing in terms of personal privacy.

The national Privacy Commissioner, Chantal Bernier, is telling us that the act is out of date, that the National Defence Act does not reflect changes that have happened in the capabilities of the national security agencies to invade the privacy of individuals, and that the law should be strengthened with a greater accountability regime to reflect the current scale of national security operations. This is the exact opposite of all of the reassuring words we were being given.

Could you tell me briefly, because I have another line of questioning, what concrete steps, if any, are being taken to amend the National Defence Act so that it actually addresses the dangers that metadata can pose to individual privacy and reflects that today's modern capabilities are different from when the Defence Act was last amended?

12:35 p.m.

Chief, Communications Security Establishment

John Forster

Just quickly, then, I don't think we would ever say metadata does not have an important privacy interest—

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Excuse me. Not to be rude, but I want to ask that question. That's all I have time for.

What concrete steps are being taken to put in place the recommendations, if any, of the Privacy Commissioner?

12:35 p.m.

Chief, Communications Security Establishment

John Forster

Thank you, sorry.

We've met with Chantal Bernier, interim Privacy Commissioner. We've given her a briefing. We're reviewing her recommendations. The government is reviewing the legislation in the context of past commissioners' recommendations for changes to the act, and that will be for the government to—

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Okay. So under review, no concrete steps at this point. Thank you.

Mr. Lindsey, since you're here I have a question about the estimates that I'm hoping you can answer. At a Senate committee on national finance on March 19 of last year, you testified that the net decrease in authorities for National Defence in the 2013-14 main estimates was from:

...the sunsetting of Canada First Defence Strategy budgetary authorities of $832 million....

And you noted that the department will seek a reinstatement of the CFDS funding:

...once Treasury Board approves our investment plan.

You also noted:

We would seek that authority through supplementary estimates in 2013-14.

Did Treasury Board approve your investment plan that would allow that funding that lapsed to be reinstated?